Case Summaries

During their final year (level 6) the student complained to provider C about how the transfer of their credits from provider A had worked, and about other aspects of their experience of the course. Provider C dismissed the complaint and the student escalated it to awarding provider B for a review. Provider B also dismissed the complaint.

The student complained to us. They didn’t think providers B and C had properly considered the impact of the issues on their mental health and they asked for a tuition fee refund and financial compensation.

We didn’t uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified).

We were sympathetic to the student’s frustration at not being transferred straight onto level 5. But we decided it was reasonable for provider C to initially admit the student at level 4 because it hadn’t received confirmation the student had successfully completed the required credits to be admitted directly to level 5. Normally providers expect students to take some responsibility for providing information about their prior learning, but there was evidence to show that provider C had contacted provider A directly to try to alleviate some of the pressure on the student. The student had also been offered additional support to catch up on missed content after they transferred to level 5 part way through their first term.

It later came to light that the student hadn’t completed a full 120 credits of level 4 study at provider A. Provider C informed the student at the start of their final year that this meant they may not have enough credits to graduate, but that it was in contact with awarding provider B to explore whether the student could be awarded Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) for the outstanding credits in recognition of their industry experience. Provider B approved the APEL request. The student said in their complaint that it had been incredibly stressful to be told they may not be able to graduate. While we did not doubt the student would have found this upsetting, provider C was proactive in trying to find a solution for the student once it became aware of the issue. The student was allowed to progress while provider C worked to find a solution, provider C kept the student informed, and the student was supported to complete their studies. Issues related to the student’s level 4 studies were ultimately the responsibility of provider A, rather than provider C.

We therefore decided it was reasonable for awarding provider B to have dismissed the student’s complaint about the issues related to their course transfer. We also decided that the evidence demonstrated that it was reasonable for the provider to have dismissed the student’s complaint about other aspects of their course experience.