spso higher education complaints report 2012 13

SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMANANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013

HIGHER EDUCATION

Learningfromcomplaints

Supportingpublic serviceimprovement

Improvingcomplaintshandling

This is the SPSO’s first annual complaints reportabout the higher education sector. It is one of aseries of reports throughwhichwe aim to put keymessages, information and analysis of complaintsabout individual sectors into the public domain.We anticipate that Parliamentary committees,government departments, scrutiny bodies,regulators and thoseworking and studying in thehigher education sectorwill find this an effectivemeans of enhancing the learning fromourworkand identifying issues arising from the complaintswe see. Equally, we hope it will prove useful tomembers of the public who seekmore informationabout the kinds of complaints that are escalated tous and howwehandle them.

December 2013

CONTENTS

Ombudsman’s Introduction 4

Casework 6

Sharing the Learning 13

Improving Complaints Standards 14

Case Studies 17

Higher Education CasesDetermined 2012/2013 23

Oneof the benefits of ourprocess is the transparency ofour decisions. Publishing ourdecisions helps universities toidentify improvements theycanmake, and students andothers to gain insights bothwherewedonot upholdcomplaints andwherewedo.

Higher education came under our remitin 2005. The sector forms a small partof our caseload; in 2012/13we considered91 complaints about higher education.Although the numbers are small, everycomplaintmatters to the individual anduniversity concerned and has the potentialfor wider learning. Our service gives peoplewho are still unhappy after the university hasconsidered their complaint an opportunityfor thematter to be looked at again by anexternal independent organisation.

We usually report further and highereducation complaints together. This yearhowever, given the distinct partnershipworkthat we undertookwith each sector todevelopmodel complaints procedures,I have decided to produce two separatereports.

Improving complaints handlingWe have a statutory obligation to improvecomplaints standards, and higher educationwas a strong focus of the work of ourComplaints Standards Authority in 2012/13.Throughout the year we worked inpartnership with a range of stakeholders todevelop a standardisedmodel complaintshandling procedure (CHP) for the sector.I am very grateful to themany people whowere involved, including UniversitiesScotland and those universities and otherstakeholders, who provided valuable timeand expertise throughout the developmentof the CHP and associated documents.

Our aim has always been for themodel CHPto be owned by the higher education sectorand I believe that we aremoving to aposition where this will be the case. Welook forward to working in partnership withuniversity complaints handlers and othersto support ongoing improvement of theCHP’s operation through sharing ofexperience, learning and best practiceacross the sector.

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 HIGHER EDUCATION PAGE 4


Key trends and issues2012/13 saw a fall in the rate of prematurecomplaints (those that come to us beforecompleting the complaints procedure of theorganisation concerned) about universities,from 30% to 26%, against an average of 40%across all the sectors. There was also a fallin the rate of upheld complaints, from 44%to 40%, against a 46% average across allsectors.

The top subject of complaint was academicappeals, results and degree classification.Our remit in relation to academicmerit isvery limited and we are continuing to useour communications tools to help studentsunderstand our powers better. Complaintsabout this subject rose by 32% last year,although on small numbers (from 22 to 29).It replaced policy and administration as thetop subject of complaint, followed bycomplaints handling and then teachingand supervision.

Sharing the learningOne of the benefits of our process is thetransparency of our decisions. In 2012/13,we published 23 complaints aboutuniversities on our website. Through this,universities can identify improvements theycanmake to reduce any failings we find.Similarly, students and others can seethe kinds of complaints that aremade touniversities, gain insights both where we donot uphold complaints and where we do,and find examples of the kinds of redress weare able to recommend. I urge universitiestomake themost of these tools and todemonstrate the ways in which they valuecomplaints and how they use them to driveimprovement.

JimMartinOmbudsman

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

CASEWORK

Number of complaints receivedanddealtwithWe receive relatively few complaints about thehigher education sector. During the yearwereceived 91 complaints about higher education –two fewer thanwe received during the previousyear. The issues raised ranged from concernsabout academic appeals and unhappinesswiththe application of policies, through teaching andsupervision, to complaints about a failure to takeinto account a student’s special needs.

In 2012/13, we dealt with 101 higher educationcomplaints, 26%more than in 2011/12 (in whichwe dealt with 80 cases). The total number ofcomplaints received and dealt with differsbecause some cases received at the end of2011/12were completed in 2012/13.

Whatwedowith complaintsAt the end of this report, there is a tablewith theoutcomes of all the higher education complaintswe dealt with. Below, we identify some of thekey points andwhat we do at each stage ofour process.

AdviceAll complaints and enquiries come first to ouradvice team. Their role is to provide information,signposting and support. Much of this work isconducted by telephone and they provide not onlyadvice about ourwork but also help people findadditional support. They can alsomake adecision on a complaint if it is clearly amatterthat we are not legally able to consider or it hascome to us too early.We are normally only ableto deal with complaints after they havecompleted the organisation’s complaintsprocess. If a complaint comes to us too early (wecall these premature complaints) wewill let theperson knowhowbest tomake the complaint tothe organisation concerned.We can also giveadvice about organisations (such as studentunions or support groups) who can provideadvice or help people through the complaintsprocess.

Although based on small numbers, we saw adrop in the number of premature complaintsabout this sector, from30% in 2011/12 to 26% in2012/13, well below the 40%average overall rateacross all sectors.

Our advice teamdeal with all enquiries andmostpremature complaints. In 2012/13, the teammade decisions on 50 complaints about highereducation, of which 25were premature. Inmostof the other complaints dealt with at this stage,the complaint was either not about somethingwe could look at, or we neededmore informationbeforewe could look at the complaint, but thiswas not providedwhenwe asked for it. At thenext stage in our process, where complaintsreceive further detailed review, onemore casewas found to be premature.

Assessing complaintsLast year, we looked at 51 complaints thatpassed from the advice stage to further detailedreview. At this stage, we try wherever possibleto talk to the complainant tomake sureweunderstand their complaint andwhat outcometheywant.We aim to see if there is a resolutionthat would be agreeable and acceptable to allparties. We also have to assesswhether thereare reasonswe should not take the complaintfurther.We can only investigatewherewe havethe legal power to do so.

We know it is frustrating for complainants if wecan’t resolve a complaint or take it further, sowetry to take this decision as quickly aswe can.Last year, we decided at this stage that we couldnot take 21 cases further. In some this wasbecause theywere premature, or out of ourjurisdiction. In others, the complainant did notprovide uswith enough information, withdrewthe complaint, or wanted an outcomewe couldnot achieve for them.We provide a breakdown ofthe decisionswemade at this stage at the end ofthis report.



CASEWORK

Investigating complaintsAt the investigation stage, to whichwe took 30cases about higher education in 2012/13, wedecidewhether the complaint should or shouldnot be upheld. In order to do so, we consider allthe available evidence. This is likely to includethe file and/or complaints correspondence, aswell as any other information supplied by thepersonwho hasmade the complaint, or by theuniversity concerned.We assesswhetherwhathappenedwas reasonable in the circumstances,andwhether the university followed the correctprocedures.

DecisionsWhenwe investigate, we always issue awrittendecision. This is an important record and setsout in detail what we have investigated and how.The organisation and the complainant receivecopies.We know these decisions are sometimesabout difficult experiences and in 2012/13webeganmoving towards supplementing thewritten recordwith a telephone discussionwiththe peoplewho hadmade the complaints. Thishas proved successful and is now part of ourregular and increased use of direct contact withcomplainants.

Thewritten recordwill be in one of two formats.Inmost caseswe issue decisions by letter. Thisletter remains private between ourselves and theparties. In order to ensure learning is shared, wepublicly report a summary of the decision toParliament. In 2012/13we issued 29 decisionson higher education complaints by letter, andreported 22 to Parliament.

We published one public interest report abouta university in 2012/13. This highlighted aparticularly significant injustice to the studentconcerned, and is included as a case study laterin this report. For information, our criteria forthis are set out below.

Our public interest criteria can include:

> significant personal injustice

> systemic failure

> significant failures in the localcomplaints procedure

> precedent and test cases


CASEWORK

RecommendationsWherewe find that something has gonewrong,wewill uphold the complaint andwe usuallymake recommendations for redress andimprovement. In 2012/13, we fully upheld fivecomplaints and partly upheld another seven.Themain area inwhich complaints were upheldwas that of policy and administration, wherewefully upheld two and partly upheld three.

In 2012/13, wemade 39 recommendations touniversities.We track every recommendation toensure that the organisation implement it withina specified timescale and that they providesuitable evidence to show that they have done soeffectively.

Below and through the case studies at the end ofthis report there are examples of the kinds ofrecommendationswemake. There aremorecase studies on ourwebsite:www.spso.org.uk/our-findings.

RecommendationsWe recommended that a university:

> review their procedures for ensuring thatagencies acting on the university’s behalfmeet relevant service standards, includingputting in placemonitoring arrangements

> include (in their guidance) information onthe process followedwhen students ask tochange their dissertation project

> appoint someoneexternal to the university,with the appropriate expertise, to reviewathesis

> re-consider a student’s academic appeal

> remind staff that theymust followprocedureswhen consideringde-registration

> review theway inwhich they communicatewith students to ensure they provideconsistentwritten feedback andcommunications

> remind an academic supervisor ofthe importance ofmanaging emailcommunicationwith students

> take action to reach agreementwitha former student about repayment ofoutstanding fees

> consider amending the academicmisconduct policy to include a requirementto confirm inwriting, before a hearing,the type of academicmisconduct allegedto have occurred

> share our decisionwith staff to remindthemof the importance of timely responsesto complaints, and of the need to explainand apologise for delays in responding

> share the outcomeof our investigationwith relevant staff and remind themof theimportance of following relevant policies

> ensure that their complaints procedure isadhered to in future and that the quality ofresponses ismonitored

> provide uswith evidence thatwrittenrecords of communications in relation tostudent complaints files are beingmaintained

> amend the student complaints procedureto highlight the supportive role that canbe offered by the students’ association’sindependent student advice service.


CASEWORK

> Wereceived91complaints and dealtwith 101

> The rate of complaints coming to us too early fell from30%

to26%comparedwith last year (the overall rate is 40%)

> The rate of upheld complaintswas40%, down from44% last year(the rate across all sectorswas 46%)

> Peoplewho received advice, support and signposting:50

> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration

pre-investigation:21

> Complaints fully investigated30–with 23 publicly reportedtoParliament*

> Wemade39recommendations for redress and improvement

* Wepublicly report the decisions aminimumof sixweeks after sending the decision letter.In a small number of caseswedonot put information in the public domain, usually to preventthe possibility of someonebeing identified.

Key figures in higher education complaints 2012/13

It is notable that during the year we receivedmost complaints about academic appeals,results and degree classification. As we explainfurther below, our remit in relation to academicmerit is very limited and we are continuing touse our communications tools to help studentsunderstand our powers better. Complaints aboutthis area rose by 32% last year, although onrelatively small numbers (from 22 to 29).It replaced policy and administration at the top ofthe table, which dropped by 46%, from 26 downto 14. The number of teaching and supervisioncomplaints dropped by three.

As well as those in the table above, we receiveda number of complaints in which we did not havemuch detail about the subject of the complaint,contact with us was at a very early stage and,although we knew that they were about highereducation, we were not provided withinformation to enable us to take these further.We record these as ‘subject unknown’.

Issues in higher education complaintsAcademic appeals anddegree classification29 people approached uswith complaints aboutthis subject. Aswe pointed out in last year’sannual report, we cannot getmarkings,assessments or qualification awards changed.We can only look at the process that the universityfollowed in reaching their decision –we cannotmake themchange the result for an individualwho is unhappywith it. To avoid disappointmentand frustration for those unhappywith theoutcome of academic results, we always aim toexplain this as clearly as possible in our generalinformation for students and in all ourcommunicationswith individuals. However,people continue to bring us such complaints andwe are continuing towork to get thismessageacross as clearly as possible.

Inmany of these cases, we found that thematterhad either come to us too early, or was out of ourjurisdiction, andwe did not take the complaintfurther. In a very small number of cases, theuniversity discussed the problemwith the studentafter we became involved, and thematter wasresolved through that. Of the complaints aboutthis subject that we did look at further, we upheldonly one and partly upheld one other – both areincluded as case studies later in this report.The other complaints we looked about includedone (case 201200674) where a student’sdissertationwas downgraded because she hadconsulted another student's workwithoutreferencing it. The student appealed against thedowngrading, but this was not upheld. She thencomplained to us that the university did not takeher existing health issues into account whenassessing her appeal and had not told her thatshe could apply for an extension to the projectdeadline. However, we found that the student hadbeen providedwith information about how toinform the university of health issues and how torequest an extension, and sowe did not upholdher complaint.


CASEWORK

What do people complain about?Top subjects of higher education complaintsreceived 2012/13

Subject Total

Academic appeal/exam results/degree classification 29

Policy/administration 14

Complaints handling 9

Teaching and supervision 8

Plagiarism andintellectual property 4

Accommodation 3

Grants/allowances/bursaries 2

Admissions 2

Special needs –assessment and provision 2


CASEWORK

Policy andadministrationThe issues brought to us in this area covered awide range of subjects. Several caseswerepremature andwe asked the person to go backand allow the university to deal with theircomplaint. In some instances, wewere able tohelp peoplewho had found it difficult to get theuniversity to answer their questions.

One complaint that we looked at was fromanoverseas student who complained that auniversity unreasonably withdrew his right tostudy (case 201202103). He said he had beenworking overseas and had told his supervisorthat he intended to study off-campus, and that hehad not received communications because hisuniversity email account had been disabled. Healso complained that the university refused tohear his appeal against the decision.We did notuphold the complaint about withdrawal of theright to study, aswe found no evidence to suggesthis account was blocked.We also found that hehad not reported problems to the IT helpdesk orcontacted the university to arrange alternativemeans of contact.We did, however, uphold hiscomplaint about the appeal aswe found that theuniversity had not properly applied their policy oncomplaints and appeals.We consideredwhetherwe should recommend that they now offer thestudent a hearing, but concluded that, as thedecision towithdraw himwas reasonable, holdinga hearingwould serve no practical purpose.A number of other policy and administrationcomplaints are included as case studies laterin this report.

Complaints handlingWe received nine complaints about complaintshandling. Examples included in the case studieslater in this report include a complaint about theway that a debt agencyworking on behalf of auniversity handled the recovery of student debt(case 201201968). The university refused to take

up the former student’s complaint, and toldher she had to deal with the company directly.However, the university is responsible for anyorganisation acting on their behalf, and shouldhave dealt with the former student’s complaintsas amatter of course. Another complaint (case201101545) was about theway inwhich auniversity handled an academic appeal, when theofficer dealingwith it chose to process it as acomplaint.We found that this was in itself wrong,and that written records of communicationsbetween staff and the student had not been kept,whichmade it difficult to impartially assesswhatthe student was told.We also found that theofficer had used a complaints process that didnot complywith the university’s own complaintsprocedure.

Teaching and supervisionComplaints about teaching and supervisionincluded a complaint that a university did notfollow their regulations in theway they handled astudent’s PhD programme (case 201104623). Thestudent told us that the university did not properlysupport herwhen she had difficultieswith herresearch, and did not give her enoughwrittenfeedback. She declined tomeetwith staff severaltimes, as shewanted them to first provide herwith information inwriting, but the university thenstarted to invoke their de-registration procedures.We upheld her complaint about the PhDprogramme, aswe found failings in theway theuniversity provided feedback on assessments –this was delayed, did not have enough detail, andwas not always inwriting.We also identifiedissues about sharing information about theconduct of research, and found that the universityhad not followed de-registration regulations, gaveinsufficient notice of the situation, and followedthis with delays in responding to the student'sappeals.Wemade a number of recommendationsto address this.


CASEWORK

In another example (case 201102836) a studentwas on a three year course, the third year ofwhichwas assessed by practical placementsand academicwork, including a thesis. Hecomplained that while writing the thesis theuniversity did not give him adequate supervision.Our investigation found that the level ofsupervision a student should receive variesbetween different projects and individuals and,because of this, there is no statement of exactlywhat that level should be. Therewas no evidencethat the student raised concerns about the levelof supervisionwhile working on his thesis.As therewas insufficient evidence that the levelof supervisionwas not in accordancewith theuniversity's policies and procedures, we did notuphold the complaint.

In a final example (case 201102648) a student’smother complained that the university did notoffer her son guidance and support on projectsduring his final year. She also said that they failedto deal appropriately with her complaint. Ourinvestigation found that therewas a lack ofdocumentation to show that the student receivedadequate support and guidance, and that theproject supervisor had not responded tomostof the student’s emails.We also found that theuniversity’s complaints handlingwas unclear.At the time of the complaint, they had afour-stage complaints procedure, which is whatthey should have used. Instead, they tried touse amore recent procedure and they failed toclarify the student’s complaints and investigatefurther. Again, wemade a number ofrecommendationswith the aim of improvingtheir practices.

PlagiarismWe received only four complaints aboutplagiarism (passing off someone else’s work asone’s own), but it is notable that one of thesewasthe case onwhichwe issued a public interestreport in this sector.We reported on it because ofthe injustice the university’s actions caused to thestudent, and because it highlights how importantit is for institutions to follow their processes andprocedures. In this example (case 201002095) the

university alleged that a student had plagiarisedsome of his work. His dissertationwas failed as aresult and hewas unable to graduatewithhonours as he had expected. Our investigationfound that the university had in fact asked thestudent about the allegation during an oralexamination, and he had complained about this toan appeal panel. The panel recognised that thiswas unfair and offered him a separatemeeting todiscuss the allegation. However, the universitythen added information to theminute of the examboardmeeting implying that there had also beenacademic failing.We did not find any evidencethat this was the case, and the university couldnot provide a satisfactory explanation for this.They did not even tell the student about theaddendumuntil he asked for ameeting to discussthe alleged plagiarism.Wemade severalrecommendations for redress and improvement,and the Ombudsman highlighted the case as onethat hewanted other universities to read andlearn from.

Special needsTwo sets of parents approached uswithcomplaints that their student son or daughter’sspecial needswere not properlymet. In oneexample, therewas concern that a student wasnot given extra time to complete an exam, and inthe other that a student’s Asperger’s diagnosiswas not being taken into account. Special needs isan issue that we have seen increasingly reflectedin the education sector in recent years, and it alsoarose in complaints where it was not themainsubject, as demonstrated in the case studies atthe end of this report.

In neither of the above cases, however, couldwetake the complaint further, as they had not yetbeen through the complaints procedures of theuniversities concerned.Wewill continue tomonitor the level of such complaints and to takethem forwardwhere it is appropriate for us todo so.


SHARING THE LEARNING

Eachmonth, we publish reports of asmanycases aswe can and lay thembefore Parliament.We published 23 decisions about highereducation in 2012/2013,making thempubliclyavailable to raise awareness and to supportlearningwithin and across sectors. In doing this,we are careful to protect the identity of thepersonwho complained and the person aboutwhom the complaint wasmade. Althoughwepublish the vastmajority of our decisions, in avery small number of caseswe take the view thateven publishing anonymouslymight identify theindividual, or that there are other reasons fornot publishing, such as a person’s vulnerability.In these rare circumstanceswewill exclude acase frompublication.

The bulk of the reports we publish aresummary reports of decision letters. Thesedetail the complaint, our decision andwhetherrecommendationsweremade.We also publishsome full investigation reports eachmonthwhere the public interestmakes it important thatall the detail is in the public domain. All thereports are searchable on ourwebsite byorganisation, date and outcome and they provideawealth of information for complainants andorganisations.We promote learning from thereports through the Ombudsman’smonthlye-newsletter which highlights themes and issuesfromour casework. It is sent to over 2,000recipients, includingMSPs, scrutiny bodies,service providers, advocacy agencies and themedia.

We also publish a leaflet for students to helpthemunderstand how to complain about theiruniversity and to explainwhat happens if theycomplain to us.

Workingwith othersWeworked throughout the yearwith stakeholdersfrom the higher education sector, includingUniversities Scotland and representatives fromanumber of universities, to develop amodelcomplaints handling procedure (CHP) for thesector. This is covered in detail in the next section.

ConsultationsThe complaints that people bring us provide avaluable source of information about the directexperiences of people in higher education.Aswehave said already, we put asmuch ofthis as possible in the public domain and userecommendations to seek to prevent the sameproblemshappening again.Weuse our knowledgeof the complaints systemandpeople’s experienceof that systemwhenwe respond to inquiries andconsultations.We also respond to consultationsthatmay affect our remit or the complaints thatreach us – for examplewhen, in January 2013,we responded to the ScottishParliament FinanceCommittee on the post–16Education (Scotland)Bill: FinancialMemorandum.

To read our decisions or search by subject, organisation or case reference number,visitwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings and to read our information leaflets, visitwww.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

www.spso.org.uk/our-findings


IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS

2012/13was a significant year inmoving towardsour vision of introducing a standardised complaintshandling procedure across the public sector. OurComplaints Standards Authority (CSA) workedclosely with sector representatives during the yearto develop the higher educationmodel complaintshandling procedure (CHP).

Developing themodel complaintshandling procedureIn partnershipwith Universities Scotland and anumber of university representatives, aworkinggroupwas formed to develop themodel CHP.Led by theUniversity of Abertay, the groupmetregularly during the first sixmonths of the yearto develop and refine the procedure ahead of itspublication on 19December 2012with animplementation date of 30 August 2013.

We carried out a number of outreach activitieswith the sector throughout the year. For example,we held an implementationworkshop for alluniversities to discuss the requirements of themodel CHP and issues and challenges foruniversities in ensuring compliance. Theseactivitieswere crucial in ensuring both senior-levelcommitment to improving complaints handlingand the quality of the arrangements thatorganisationswere putting in place. Theywereused to explain the requirements of themodelCHPs, provide feedback on developing CHPs andorganisational plans for implementation, andprovide tailored advice on improving complaintshandling processes and culture.

CHPcomplianceWhile ensuring that bodies have adopted theCHP and its requirements in full, wewant tobe as light-touch as possible inmonitoringimplementation of themodel CHPs. The SPSOAct2002 now contains powers for the Ombudsman tomonitor and report on non-compliance, but our aim

in publishing themodel CHPswas toworkwithregulatory and sponsor bodies to develop aconsistentmethod formonitoring complianceagainst thesewithin existing regulatorystructures, including, wherever possible, throughself-assessment.

Compliancewith themodel CHPwill, therefore,bemonitored by the SPSO, in conjunctionwith theScottish Funding Council (SFC). Compliancewiththe CHPwill be a requirement of the SFC’sFinancialMemorandumwhich sets out the formalrelationship between the SFC and universities.

Complaints handling performanceOne of the aims of the CHPs is to improve theinformation available about complaints to helpdevelop a performance culture in complaintshandling across the public sector in Scotland. Inaddition to requiring bodies to analyse and reportcomplaints information internally on a regularbasis, CHPs require service providers to publishannual information on complaints performancestatistics.

With each of themodel CHPswe publishedindicative performance indicators, designedto be broadly consistent across the sectors. Inconjunctionwith Universities Scotland and sectorrepresentativeswewill work to further developthese indicators to provide a greater consistency ofreporting on complaints across the sector andprovide a basis for developing benchmarkingarrangements for comparing how sectors areperforming in their complaints handling. For thefirst timemembers of the public will have access toclear, transparent and consistent information onthe volume of complaints received by universitiesand how they have handled these.



Supporting universitiesA key objective of the CSA is improvementthroughmonitoring, promoting and facilitating thesharing of best practice in complaints handlingand supporting service providers in improvingtheir complaints handling.We aim to achieve thisthrough developing and coordinating networks ofcomplaints handlers, promoting good complaintshandling by providers through the sharing of bestpractice and by developing and delivering highquality training.

Network of complaints handlersAswith other sectors our aim is to establish anetwork of complaints handlers for the highereducation sector, led by individuals from thesector. The aims of the networkwill includesupporting complaints handling practitioners,sharing best practice and learning, developingstandardised reporting frameworks and providinga forum for benchmarking performance againstSPSO indicators. The networkwill also provide avoice for the sectors on specific issues affectingcomplaints handling.

Our CSA team: FrancescaRichards, PaulMcFadden, JohnStevenson

For thefirst timemembersof the publicwill have accessto clear, transparent andconsistent information onthe volumeof complaintsreceived by universitiesandhow they have handledthese.



ValuingComplaintswebsiteand online forumIn 2012/13we facilitated the sharing of knowledgeand best practice in complaints handling throughthe launch of our dedicated CSAwebsite atwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk. Thewebsite,launched inMay 2012, provides:> information on the CSA and progress on

roll-out across the sectors, including accesstomodel CHPs and the requirements toimplement these;

> good practice guidance on complaints handlingand links to relevant sources of informationand best practice in complaints handling;

> an online community forum for discussionand sharing best practice in the professionalcomplaints handling community, bothwithinand between sectors.

> an SPSO training centre providing access toour e-learning resources, and informationabout directly provided courses offered by theSPSO training unit.

Our aim over the year has been to develop thewebsite and forumand increase its usage as acentral information point for complaints handlers.The aim of the online forum, in particular, is tofacilitate the effective professional networking ofcomplaints handlers and support the sharing ofexperiences and learning.

TrainingTraining coursesOur training unit worked closely with the CSAthroughout 2012/13,meeting a steep increase indemand for direct delivery training coursesresulting from the introduction of themodel CHPsand our engagementwith the various sectorsincluding higher education. Classroom-basedtraining for complaints investigators and othersinvolved in complaints handling remains crucialto improving theway that organisations handlecomplaints, particularly on reaching the rightdecisions first time.

E-learning coursesDuring the yearwe launched a number ofe-learningmodules on complaints handling.They aim to increase awareness of the importanceof good complaints handling and the role offrontline staff in complaints, and help improve theskills required for successful frontline resolution.Themodules are available free of charge to publicsector staff and can be accessed through thetraining centre of our Valuing Complaints website.

Themodules provide an opportunity for staff tothink about complaints and how they handle them.They include real life scenarios so learners areable to practice new knowledge and skills in a safeenvironment, and they also demonstrate howcomplaints can be used to improve services.We are grateful to our higher education sectorpartners for their help in tailoring these productstomake them relevant to their sector.

Formore about theCSA, visitwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk and to learnabout our training activities, visitwww.spsotraining.org.uk

www.spsotraining.org.uk

www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk


CASE STUDIES

These case studies are from investigationswehavepublishedaboutcomplaints about highereducation in 2012/13. They showhow thingscangowrongwhenpolicies arenot followed, or complaints arenotinvestigatedproperly. Someshowpositive action taken in response to acomplaint. To share this goodpractice, reports onourwebsite normallyhighlightwhereanorganisationhas takensuchaction.

A student, who had a disability, was assessed as failing three out of fourmodules in his firstyear and had to leave the course. Hewent through the appeal process, then through thecomplaints process as hewas unhappywith theway his appeal was handled. He complainedto us that the university had not fairly and fully considered his appeal.

We found that the university had not acknowledged or considered some of the issues thatthe student raised in his initial appeal, althoughwe found their response to the complaintabout theway it was handled to have beenmore thorough. This addressed all the issuesraised, and dealt reasonably withmost of the points the studentmade about his claim ofextenuating circumstances.We did, however, note that one issue relating to the originalappeal (which he had not pursued through the complaints process) remained outstanding.On balancewe upheld the complaint, noting that the university appeared to have noguidelines about the use of proof readers (an issue that the student had raised)andwhether this would be acknowledged or taken into account in relation to thewrittenpresentation criteria for assessments.

RecommendationsThe university revise the assessment criteria to recognise if a disabled student has hadtheir written work checked by a proof reader provided by the university and apologise tothe student for the failings we identified in our investigation.

Academic appeal process – studentwith a disability Case 201103684


CASE STUDIES

A nursing student, who had specific learning difficulties andwas experiencing difficult personalcircumstances, was removed fromher placement and then fromher course. She complained thatthe university had done this inappropriately. She said that they did not have a clear policy in place forsupporting students on placements and had not properly communicatedwith her about thetermination of her studies, or explained her full appeal rights.

Our investigation found, however, that the university had clearly taken the student’s personalcircumstances into account, including offering her the chance to defer her studies, which she haddeclined. Taking this into account, aswell as university and nursing guidance and regulations, wefound the university’s actions appropriate.

We also found that the university used a learning disorder toolkit,made reasonable adjustments toassist the student, and that placementmentorswere specifically trained in supporting studentswithlearning disorders. They also demonstrated that their letters had explained that her studieswerebeing terminated, and that they had provided copies of their appeal procedure. Staff had alsoexplained the procedure to her, and had referred her to sources of advice and support.

Termination of studiesCase 201103440 Positive action takenby organisation

We received a complaint on behalf of a student with Asperger's (a formof autism, inwhich peoplemay find difficulty in social relationships and in communicating). His father complained to us thatuniversity staff were notmade sufficiently aware of his son’s needs as a disabled student. He saidthat this was because his son's disability was 'hidden' – i.e. his conditionwas not obvious to thosewhomet him.We agreed that therewere some shortcomings in relation to the student's individuallearning plan (ILP) whichwas not regularly updated or reviewed in theway it should have been,according to the university's policy. Althoughwe did not uphold all the complaints raisedwith us, wefound that the student was invited to ameeting, the purpose of whichwas notmade clear in advance,andwithout inviting him to bring along a supporter or advocate.We agreed that he should have beeninvited to bring somebodywith him, particularly as his ILP identified that in difficult situations hewasprone to anxiety which could overwhelmhim.We also found that the outcomes ofmeetings betweenhim and the university were not adequately recorded. This was particularly important as he had anidentified need to record and confirm verbal discussions.

RecommendationsThe university arrange for a programme of staff training to raise awareness of hidden disabilitiesand their impacts; review the procedures related to the review and updating of ILPs;make greateruse of notes to record discussions, issues, changes and decisions and update ILPs, and copy for anystudent with any additional support needs; ensure that staff pay greater attention to the detail ofthe ILPwhen dealing with students with such needs; and use email to confirm arrangements forstudents with additional support needs arising from hidden disabilities.

Additional support needsCase 201201566


CASE STUDIES

Aman complained about the university’s investigation into an allegation of plagiarism in his son’sdissertation (whichwas downgraded because of it). When the student appealed, the appeal panel hadagreed that therewere errors in theway the allegationwas raised and said he could attend a furthermeeting about it. His father complained to us that the university then placed an addendumon theminutes of the examboard that considered the dissertation, which said that the dissertation hadfailed on academic grounds in any event. He also complained about theway inwhich the universityhandled his complaint about this.

We found that, during the student’s oral examination, the university had inquired into the allegedplagiarismand that the appeal panel had recognised that this was inappropriate. Having acceptedthat this was not appropriately investigated, the university then placed the addendumon theminuteto imply academic failing, without explanation or evidence. Explanations they later gave for this werenot satisfactory andwere not borne out by the evidencewe saw,which suggested that the gradewas only adjusted after the finding of plagiarism. The university did not tell the student about theaddendumuntil he asked for ameeting to discuss the alleged plagiarism, and their subsequentcomplaint investigationwas poor – therewere lengthy delays and the investigation did not appear toconsider themain issues in the complaint.

RecommendationsThe university arrange for an independent re-assessment of the dissertation then, if required,re-consider referring the complaint to a complaints panel; provide us with evidence of what theyhave done to implement improvements and to review their academic complaints policy; andapologise fully for the failings our investigation identified.

Investigation of plagiarism; complaints handling Case 201002095

Awomanwithdrew fromher course, and owed the universitymoney. Shewas unhappy about thewaythat a debt agency handled the recovery of this on their behalf, and also said that the university hadnot dealt adequately with her complaints. Our investigation found that thewoman had raised severalconcernswith the university about the agency's handling of the debt recovery, but the universitywould not respond to these and told her to continue dealing directly with the agency.We also foundthat the university's complaints handlingwas poor. They failed to confirm receipt of communications,missed agreed deadlines and provided inconsistent information. They also sent communications toan incorrect address and email account, even though thewoman had provided the correctinformation.

RecommendationsThe university apologise for instructing the former student to continue to deal with the debt recoveryagency, and for not dealing properly with her complaint; take appropriate action to reach anagreement with her about repayment of the outstanding fees; share our decision with staff toremind them about appropriate contact during complaints handling; andmake sure that agenciesacting on the university's behalf meet the relevant service standards.

Complaint about external organisation not properly handled Case 201201968


CASE STUDIES

A student complained about theway inwhich the university handled her application for recognisedprior learning credit (RPL – a process inwhich skills and knowledge gained outside formal learningare assessed and granted formal recognition). She said that the process took too long and that theydid not do this correctly. Our investigation found that the university did not follow their own guidelines.They should have provided the student with a named adviser to support her inmaking theapplication, but therewas no evidence that shewas toldwho this was. Norwas there evidence thatshewas givenwritten supportmaterials, which the guidelines identified as essential elements of theRPL support system.We also found that, contrary to the guidelines, the person identified as the RPLadviser had assessed the claim and that, as correspondencewent on, therewas a failure to explainthe exemptions that the university were prepared to grant, or any right of appeal.

The student also complained that her complaint was not adequately considered, and that theuniversity failed to offermediation in linewith their complaints procedure.We did not find itunreasonable that the university had not offeredmediation, as by the time the studentmade herformal complaint there had been considerable contact and correspondence, and the opportunity toresolve thematter informally throughmediation had passed. However, we found that the complaintsresponse, while largely upholding her concerns, did not adequately explain the university's decisionand any remedial action taken to avoid this happening again.Wewere also critical at theway inwhichThe student’s appeal against the decisionwas handled, as it was considered by the same personwhomade the decision on her complaint.

RecommendationsThe university ensure that all relevant staff are aware of the RPL process and of the need to ensurethat students are adequately supported whenmaking an application; that students are advised of allrights of appeal and formal complaints are handled in line with their complaints procedure; andapologise to the student and assess any further application shemakes in line with their revisedpolicy and at no financial cost to her.

Failure to follow guidelines for recognised prior learning creditCase 201102497

A student who had complained about his tutor told us that the university did not properly investigatethis. He said they did not consider all the evidence he submitted, and based their decision on histutor's previous performance. He also complained that although staff told himhe had grounds toappeal, his appeal was then unreasonably rejected and hewas not providedwith adequate support inmaking his complaints.

Our investigation found that the investigation decisionwas based on all the evidence available,including the tutor's current performance. The university found that there had been a delay inproviding feedback on an independent study project and apologised for this. They also reminded thetutor that hemust give timely and professional feedbackwhen requested by students. Following afurther complaint from the student, they also asked the tutor towrite and apologise, which he did.

Wewere satisfied that the university considered all the evidence provided.We found staff had giveninformation about (and that the student had used) the available support and had appropriatelyadvised him about the complaints procedure. The fact that the student was providedwith thisinformation did not give, and should not have given, him an unrealistic expectation that any appealwould be upheld.

Policy/administration and complaints handlingCase 201103213 Positive action takenby organisation


CASE STUDIES

A student complained to us after examiners decided that her thesis did notmeet the requirementsfor a PhD (a postgraduate academic degree). She complained that the supervision and supportprovided by the university was inadequate and did not give her a realistic expectation of the result ofher thesis submission. She also complained about the academic appeal process and about theuniversity's complaints handling.We found, from the evidence, that her supervisors had concernsabout her thesis. However, we could not saywhat they said to her about this before she submittedthe thesis.When thematter was discussedwith the supervisors as part of the university'sinvestigation into the complaint, they said they believed that their concernswere flagged to thestudent. Therewas insufficient evidence for us to say that they failed to communicate these concernsandwe did not uphold this complaint.We did uphold the complaint about the academic appealprocess.When the student appealed the decision on her thesis, the university said thematter wouldbe referred to an external personwith relevant expertise for a second opinion. However, the thesiswas instead referred to a university employee for review.We said that the university should havehonoured their written commitment to external review.

The student also complained that the complaints process took too long and relied on verbalrather thanwritten evidence.We found that the university had taken some time to investigate thecomplaints, but it was clear that they carried out a detailed examination into her concerns.We did not find that this was unnecessarily prolonged, andwere satisfied that the university didappropriately considerwritten evidence.

RecommendationsThe university appoint someone external to the university with the appropriate expertise to reviewthe thesis; and apologise for failing to do this previously.

PhD supervision and complaints handling Case 201002995

A former student complained about theway inwhich the university handled her academic appeal.The officer handling her appeal chose to process it as a complaint, andwe found that, for severalreasons, they did not follow procedure. The officer also used a process that did not complywith theuniversity’s own complaints procedure, andwewere critical of this.We found that written records ofcommunications between staff and the student had not been kept. Thismade it difficult for us toassesswhat she had been told.

We did not uphold her other complaints, including that shewas graduated in her absencewithouther consent, as the university provided evidence that they hadwritten to her about her graduationceremony.We also accepted their assurance that, if a successful appeal changes the outcome of adegree award, a student would be invited to graduate as long as they had not crossed the stageduring a previous ceremony.

RecommendationsThe university reconsider the appeal, provide us with evidence that their student complaintsprocedure is being adhered to, and that written records of communications in relation to studentcomplaints are beingmaintained, and amend the complaints procedure to highlight the supportiverole that can be offered by the students’ association’s advice service

Complaints handling/academic appeal procedures Case 201101545


CASE STUDIES

A student complained to a university that shewas being bullied and harassed. She said that becauseof this shewas unwell and could not continuewith her studies for a considerable period. Shecomplained to us that the university had not followed their procedures in investigating her complaintof bullying nor had they offered her reasonable care under theirmental well-being policy.

Our investigation found that the university should have dealt with the complaint of bullying undertheir ‘dealingwith harassment’ policy but did not do so. Instead, it was investigated under the studentdisciplinary code although no evidencewas found to discipline any student. At the next stages of thecomplaints procedure, the university acknowledged that the best approach had not been followed,but did not uphold the complaint.We found that therewas confusion overwhich procedure shouldhave been followed and that they had failed to fully investigate the harassment allegation. We alsofound that the university failed to offer reasonable care in terms of theirmental wellbeing policy.They did not give proper regard to the student as a possible victim of harassment and the potentialharmful effect of this on her, and therewas no evidence that they offered her support and practicalassistance as outlined in that policy.

RecommendationsThe university apologise for failing to conduct an adequate investigation into the complaint ofbullying and for not following its policies, and share the outcome of the investigation with relevantstaff and remind them of the importance of following these policies.

Bullying and harassment: failure to follow policiesCase 201103626


Further information about this sector is available on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/statisticsHigherEducationCasesDetermined2012–2013

STATISTICS

Casetype

Stage

Outcome

Enqu

iryAdvice&sign

posting

Enqu

iry1

00

00

01

00

00

00

00

00

2

Total

10

00

00

10

00

00

00

00

02

Totalenq

uiries

10

00

00

10

00

00

00

00

02

Com

plaint

Advice

Mattero

utofjurisdiction(discretionary)

10

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Mattero

utofjurisdiction(non

-discretionary)

10

10

00

01

00

01

00

01

05

Node

cision

reached

71

00

10

00

00

20

00

51

017

Outcomeno

tachievable

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

20

02

Premature

51

00

31

20

00

70

10

40

125

Total

142

10

41

21

00

91

10

112

150

Early

Resolution1

Mattero

utofjurisdiction(discretionary)

00

00

10

00

01

00

00

02

04

Mattero

utofjurisdiction(non

-discretionary)

30

01

00

00

11

00

00

01

07

Node

cision

reached

50

00

00

00

00

10

01

00

07

Outcomeno

tachievable

00

00

00

00

00

10

00

01

02

Premature

00

00

00

00

00

00

10

00

01

Total

80

01

10

00

12

20

11

04

021

Early

Resolution2

Fully

upheld

00

00

10

00

00

00

00

00

01

Partly

upheld

00

00

00

00

00

20

00

00

02

Not

upheld

30

10

10

00

01

00

00

01

07

Total

30

10

20

00

01

20

00

01

010

Investigation1

Fully

upheld

10

00

00

00

00

20

00

01

04

Partly

upheld

10

00

10

00

00

10

00

01

04

Not

upheld

30

00

20

00

01

20

00

02

010

Node

cision

reached

01

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Total

51

00

30

00

01

50

00

04

019

Investigation2

Partly

upheld

00

00

00

00

01

00

00

00

01

Total

00

00

00

00

01

00

00

00

01

Totalcom

plaints

303

21

101

21

15

181

21

1111

1101

Totalcon

tacts

313

21

101

31

15

181

21

1111

1103

Note:

Node

cision

reache

d'includ

esno

tdulymad

e,withdraw

nan

dresolved

.

Academicappeal/examresults/degreeclassification

Accommodation

Admissions

Anti-socialbehaviour

Complaintshandling

Facilities

Grants/allowances/bursaries

Outofjurisdiction

Personnelmatters

Plagiarismandintellectualproperty

Policy/administration

Pre-contractualorcommercialmatters

Specialneeds–assessmentandprovision

Studentdiscipline

Subjectunknown

Teachingandsupervision

Welfare

Total

www.spso.org.uk/statistics

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

Tel 0800 377 7330Fax 0800 377 7331Web www.spso.org.ukCSA www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

spso higher education complaints report 2012 13

Documents

complaints handlingwe

kinds of complaints

considered91 complaints

highereducation complaints

higher education page

higher education sectorand

annual complaints reportabout

higher educationwas