Case Summaries

The caseworker told student A it was likely that student B’s conduct would be considered by a disciplinary panel. After another four months student A asked about progress. The caseworker had taken a leave of absence and no action had been taken.

The provider began an investigation, and a second caseworker met with student A several times to gather information. Student A was informed that the casework team were finding it difficult to decide if there had been a breach of its disciplinary rules, and so the casework team had decided there was not enough evidence to put the case before a disciplinary panel. It informed student A of this decision by email.

Student A made a complaint about how the provider had responded to their report, drawing attention to the delays and the lack of care displayed in sending an important decision on a sensitive topic by email. Student A also complained that the caseworkers who had taken their statements lacked the skills to provide support as they recounted traumatic events. Student A was concerned that they had not been given any opportunity to understand what student B’s response had been, or to respond to any questions the caseworkers might have had for student A as a result of student B’s statement.

The provider upheld some elements of the complaint. It apologised for the delays and for the way it had communicated about what would happen. It also offered some financial compensation for the distress this had caused. But it concluded that the mistakes in its handling would not have affected its decision not to proceed with a disciplinary hearing.

Student A complained to us. The focus of our review was how the provider had treated student A after they had made the report. We explored whether the provider was willing to settle the complaint; it declined.

We upheld the complaint (we decided it was Justified). The provider had not given a coherent and consistent explanation to student A as to why the evidence they had provided, in the form of personal testimony, messages from student B and photographs of injuries, was not sufficient to continue with the processes under its disciplinary regulations. It had required the student to repeat their testimony and had made comments about the student’s memory and the consistency of their report. This was not an approach that was trauma-informed, nor centred on the welfare of the reporting student.

We recommended that the provider should apologise again to student A and pay compensation of £3,750 in recognition of the distress caused by the way it had responded to their report. We also recommended it should review its procedures. The provider had confirmed that it had already undertaken a significant programme of training and had created new posts with specific expertise in supporting people who have experienced sexual violence.