Case Summaries

Undergraduate student A used the provider’s reporting procedures to disclose that a PhD student, student B, had committed sexual misconduct. The provider conducted a disciplinary investigation into student B. Student A provided a statement and attended a meeting with the disciplinary officer during the process.

Student A later complained that she hadn’t received an outcome to her report. She also complained about the way she had been treated during the disciplinary process. The provider partly upheld the student’s complaint. The student was unhappy with the provider’s decision to only partly uphold her complaint and complained to us. We didn’t uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified) because we decided that the provider had already offered the student a reasonable remedy.

The student shouldn’t have needed to complain before receiving an outcome to their report about student B. But the provider had acknowledged this and upheld this part of the complaint. It had apologised and sent the student a summary of the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. The provider also upheld the student’s complaint about the support she had received following her disclosure, acknowledging it had been inadequate, and it had made changes to its reporting procedures to ensure students are properly supported. It would’ve been good practice for the provider to have also considered whether to offer the student a personal remedy for the shortcomings it had identified in its handling of her report. However, during our review the provider offered the student £1,000 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by these issues. The student didn’t accept the offer, but the provider confirmed it was willing to keep it open. We decided the level of compensation the provider had offered was reasonable and suggested it repeat its offer.

The provider didn’t uphold the parts of the student’s complaint related to her experience of the process that was deciding if student B had breached the provider’s disciplinary regulations. In her complaint the student gave several examples that she felt displayed bias, intimidating behaviour and discrimination by the disciplinary officer. It was clear the student had found participating in the process difficult. But while the student’s perception of the behaviour was important, none of the evidence we saw demonstrated that the disciplinary officer had been biased or unprofessional in their interactions. We therefore decided it was reasonable for the provider to have dismissed this part of the complaint.