Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesBullying, harassment and sexual misconduct - CS042510
Case summary April 2025 | Not Justified
A student beginning a healthcare course at an overseas campus was required to undertake an occupational health assessment. Shortly after the assessment, the student reported to the provider that they had been sexually assaulted by a medical professional employed by the occupational health firm. Around four months later, the student withdrew from the course and made a complaint about the way the provider responded to their disclosure.
The provider investigated the complaint and gave a formal response after five months. The student requested that this be reviewed. The provider took a further eight months to complete its review. It upheld several aspects of the student’s complaint. It accepted and apologised for unreasonable delays in its processes. It acknowledged that some communications from members of staff that were intended to convey that the provider was taking the situation seriously, were abrupt in tone. It accepted that the student found this hurtful. It also concluded that although staff had intended to be supportive towards the student, there was no evidence that they had provided specific advice about local specialist support services. The provider concluded that it had taken the actions it could to address the conduct of the medical professional, who was not one of its own employees. It had raised the issue at a senior level with the occupational health provider and ensured that the specific member of staff would not have any future interactions with its students. It also told the student how they could make a complaint directly to the occupational health firm. In its review, the provider decided that it could have given the student more information about what this process might look like or what it might achieve.
The provider apologised to the student for the issues identified and offered them £4,000 in compensation. The student was dissatisfied and complained to us. They said that the compensation did not reflect the severity of the impact of what had happened.
We acknowledged that the student had been severely impacted by their experience. But it was relevant to separate the impact of the assault itself from the impact of the provider’s actions after the student had reported what had happened. We concluded that the provider had undertaken a careful review, and was applying learning from the complaint, including considering whether it needed to amend its policies to be clearer about non-provider employees with whom students come into contact during their studies. The apology and offer of compensation were a reasonable response to the flaws it had acknowledged in responding to the student’s complaint. We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified) on the basis that offer the provider had made was reasonable.