Case Summaries

After an initial conversation with the student, the provider held a Fitness to Practise hearing. The student explained that they were affected by memory loss connected to an ongoing health condition. The panel decided that the student’s written statements and statements in person were not consistent and it terminated the student’s studies.

The student appealed and the provider rejected the appeal. The student complained to us.

We expressed concerns that the provider had not adequately taken account of the student’s known disabilities in making the decision to terminate. The student’s support plan set out that they had difficulties with concentration, retaining and processing information, anxiety, communication and social interactions. There was no record of how the panel had considered these factors when thinking about the consistency of the student’s statements and how they had behaved at the panel. We were also concerned that the panel had not documented its reasons for rejecting other options available to it under the Fitness to Practise procedures.

The provider acknowledged these concerns and offered to reconsider the matter at a new Fitness to Practise Panel and pay the student some compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The student rejected this offer because they wanted to return to the course without another panel hearing.

We decided that the provider’s offer was reasonable, and so recorded the outcome of this complaint as Not Justified (Reasonable offer made). Given the professional standards requirements that apply to the course, the provider could not ignore the information that was now known about the student’s previous conviction, but it needed to consider it in a way that was fair.