Case Summaries

The provider began an investigation under its Misconduct Policy, but this was delayed by the unexpected absence of the member of staff appointed to investigate. After eighteen months, the provider told the student that the case was closed with no finding of misconduct made. The student had completed their studies and been awarded the PhD.

The student complained to us. We agreed that the provider had not handled the matter well. Its procedures say that when a student is suspended from accessing some of its facilities during an investigation, this suspension should be reviewed regularly. This did not happen.  The provider did not ensure that a meaningful investigation took place within a reasonable length of time, and there were not adequate records of the investigation that did happen. But the provider had already recognised that there had been problems and taken steps to increase capacity for future investigations. It had offered the student an apology and financial compensation. During our process, the provider made a further offer to settle the student’s complaint. This offer included: an apology from the provider for the procedural irregularities that occurred, assurance that the case had been closed so there was no finding that the student had breached the misconduct policy, improvement of the misconduct policy to ensure suspensions are carefully monitored and £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience the student experienced. The student rejected this settlement offer. We didn’t uphold the complaint (we decided it was Not Justified) because a reasonable remedy had been offered by the provider.