Case Summaries

A student was partially suspended by his provider as a precautionary measure after it received reports from two members of staff that the student had behaved inappropriately toward them. The student was not allowed to attend campus during the suspension but could continue with his studies online. The provider explained some of the behaviour that had been described met the definition of sexual misconduct and harassment within its disciplinary procedure and that his behaviour would be considered under the procedure.

Following an investigation the student’s case was referred to a disciplinary panel. The panel decided the allegations were proven on the balance of probabilities and that the student should be permanently excluded as a penalty. The student appealed the panel’s decision. The provider upheld the disciplinary panel’s decision but offered the student £350 compensation for delays during the disciplinary process. The student was unhappy with the provider’s final decision because they thought there had been procedural errors at each stage and because they thought the panel’s decision was unreasonable.

We partly upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified).

We did not uphold the parts of the student’s complaint related to the precautionary action taken by the provider. Given the seriousness of the allegations, we decided it was reasonable for the provider to have partially suspended him as a precautionary measure. The provider had given clear reasons for this decision and the student had not appealed the suspension at the time.

There had been delays throughout the provider’s internal procedures. However, we concluded that the £350 already offered by the provider for this aspect of the complaint was a reasonable remedy. The student’s own limited engagement with the process had also contributed to the overall time taken to deal with their case.

However, we decided that there were procedural errors at both the investigation and panel stages of the process which meant the student’s disciplinary case hadn’t been dealt with fairly. Under the provider’s procedures the purpose of the investigation stage is to decide whether there is a case to answer and if the investigation concludes that there is, the case should be referred to a disciplinary panel. The provider used an external organisation to carry out the investigation. We decided the investigator’s report went beyond the scope of the investigation stage by making findings and recommendations in relation to the allegations.

It should have been the role of the disciplinary panel, rather than the investigator, to weigh the evidence and decide whether the allegations were proven on the balance of probabilities. Neither the panel minutes nor the panel outcome letter explained the reasons for the panel’s decision, including why it had decided permanent exclusion was the only appropriate penalty. We considered that this lack of reasoning created a reasonable perception the panel had simply relied on the findings and recommendations of the investigator’s report, rather than reaching its own decision about whether the allegations were proven.

Because we had concluded that the process for reaching a disciplinary finding had been unfair, it was not necessary for our review to consider whether the finding was reasonable or if the provider had applied a reasonable penalty. We recommended that the provider convene a fresh disciplinary panel to reconsider the case, with a further right of appeal. We also recommended that the investigator’s report be redacted to remove the sections which made recommendations and findings before being shared with the new disciplinary panel. We recommended that the provider repeat its offer of £350 for delay and made a good practice Recommendation for the provider to review the way it operates its disciplinary procedures to address the concerns raised in our review.