Case Summaries

Student A was supported by a designated liaison officer. A separate investigator was appointed under the provider’s disciplinary process and they met with both students. The provider told student A that it was using an informal process to resolve the complaint. It put in place an agreement with student B not to contact student A.

Student A contacted the liaison officer to express dissatisfaction with this outcome. Student A still felt unsafe and wanted the provider to take a more formal approach. The student liaison officer wrote to student A explaining why they believed the informal approach was appropriate. Student A requested a review of this decision. Student A also complained that the liaison officer had told them that student B would be away from the campus until after student A’s studies were complete, but this was not correct. In its response the provider explained that it thought student A had been content to proceed to an informal resolution and suggested that student A’s communications had not been clear. It concluded that it had followed its processes appropriately. It said that it had no knowledge of student B’s return to campus.

Student A complained to us and we upheld some parts of the complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified). The provider had acted quickly to manage contact between the students and it had been proactive in considering the impact on student A’s academic performance. But it was inconsistent in the information it made available to students about informal resolution. One document said that informal resolution would only be attempted with the agreement of the students involved, but another document said that the investigator would decide which route was appropriate. It was not necessary or helpful to suggest that student A had not been clear in expressing their preferred outcome; in fact there had been a failure of communication between the liaison officer and the investigator about student A’s perspectives. We also considered that the provider should have taken more care to confirm student B’s whereabouts before sharing information which turned out to be inaccurate.

Student A had waited 11 months before submitting their complaint to us. In the meantime, they had raised further complaints about student B, and had also successfully completed their studies. It was therefore not appropriate for us to recommend that the provider now take a more formal approach to their initial concerns. We recommended that the provider offer the student an apology and compensation of £2,000. And that it should review its policies to remove inconsistencies, provide additional clarity about the role of the liaison officer and train staff in providing suitably detailed reasons for the decisions made under its policies.