Senate
Subject: Annual
Report on Student Complaints 2007/08
Origin: Academic
Registrar
1. Background
The
University’s formal student complaints procedures are set out in
Ordinance XXXVIII. Informal resolution
at departmental level is encouraged but if students remain dissatisfied,
complaints may be referred to the Academic Registrar who will refer them to the
relevant Dean and/or the Chief Operating Officer depending on the nature of the
complaint. Students who remain
dissatisfied after their complaint has been considered through these procedures
may refer the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher
Education (OIA) whose scheme became compulsory in January 2005. Students who have exhausted other procedures,
e.g. academic or disciplinary appeals procedures may also submit their
complaints to the OIA for independent review.
The
Ordinance states that a report on operation of the complaints procedure will be
made to Senate and Council on an annual basis. This opportunity has also been taken to report
on the University’s dealings with the OIA in 2007/08. Due to the timing
of the preparation of this report, it will be submitted first to Council (27
March 2009) and then to Senate (1 July 2009).
The
Registry is very grateful to colleagues in academic departments and support
services for their help in dealing with student complaints at Loughborough.
2. Student
Complaints 2007/08 – Internal Procedures
2.1 Formal Complaints under Ordinance XXXVIII
The number
of formal complaints under the Ordinance remained approximately the same in
2007/08 (6 complaints) as in 2006/07 (5 complaints) representing a fall from
the 9 received in 2005/06. Appendix 1 provides some breakdown of the statistics
by type of student. Whilst 80% in 2006/07 related to support services rather
than academic departments, the balance was more even in 2007/08, as it had been
in 2005/06. As overall numbers remain small, no attempt has been made to
prepare diversity statistics. Half of complaints in 2007/08 were from research
students and all three cases involved complex and difficult issues, two of
which were satisfactorily resolved. It was pleasing that no cases were referred
to the Student Complaints Committee in this year and no legal fees were
incurred. However, two complaints which were rejected by the Dean/COO resulted
in the students subsequently taking their cases to the OIA. The undergraduate
complaint concerned disability support and was rejected by the OIA. However,
the PGR case, which was one of a series of complaints since 2005 made by the
same individual, has been particularly complex and time-consuming and a draft
decision has only recently (March 2009) been received from the OIA (see below).
2.2 Informal
Around 11
significant cases were again dealt with by the Academic Registrar either
directly or by providing advice to the head of the department or section
concerned. Numbers remained at a similar level to 2006/07 and 2005/06. However,
all were from current or former students or third parties whilst a quarter had
been from applicants to the University in 2006/07 (who do not have access to
the Ordinance XXXVIII procedure or OIA). Many were initiated by emails or
letters being sent directly to the Vice-Chancellor.
It was
generally possible to address these complaints via explanation of the situation
or recognition that a misunderstanding had taken place. However, a number
required detailed responses which were time-consuming to prepare. Two cases
involved financial redress to achieve a resolution, in one case the refunding
of the placement fee of around £600 as a goodwill gesture and in the second, a
complex research student case, a payment of £6,000 as the Department was no
longer able to offer appropriate supervision. Including the case above, two
involved complaints about the placement year. Another very time-consuming case
involved a final year undergraduate student who alleged bias against a member
of staff marking her work. Although the allegations were not substantiated, a
number of special arrangements were put in place to provide reassurance to the
student and her parents. Ultimately she achieved a 2.1 degree with which she
was satisfied.
It is
recognised that this is a small proportion of the complaints being handled informally
at different levels across the University.
2.3 Nature of Complaints
The nature
of the complaints continued to be very varied and no discernable patterns are
particularly apparent. Involvement of parents was perhaps more noticeable in
2007/08 compared to previous years.
3. Cases
Referred to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator
Whilst such
cases fell to 6 in 2006/07, 10 were submitted in 2007/08, returning to the
level of 2005/06. Legal advice was required in one case whilst it was not used
in the previous two years. The pattern
of OIA cases is rather different to those of formal complaints to the
University, with 7 of the 10 cases in 2007/08 following on from an unsuccessful
academic appeal by a taught student (2 of the 6 cases in 2006/07 and 8 of the
10 in 2005/06). In 2007/08, there were no cases related to the action taken
under the student disciplinary procedures (there had been one in each of the
previous two years) whilst one case related to the academic misconduct
regulations. It was pleasing that only 1 of the 2007/08 cases (the unjustified
case referred to in section 2.1 above) involved a disability support issue compared
to higher numbers in previous years. Overall in 2006/07 of the 10 cases, 2 were
dismissed, 6 found not justified and 2 partly justified. One of the latter is
noted in section 2.1 above for which a draft decision only has been received at
present. The other involved substantial complaints but the part found to be justified
related only to delays in the handling of the appeals process for which the
University was required to pay £50 compensation. Again there is no pattern in
the complaints by department.
The OIA are
receiving significant increases in the number of complaints each year. The
latest data is set out in its 2007 annual report. Nationally, 734 applications
were received in 2007, 588 in 2006 and 531 in 2005. Subscriptions from HEIs
were increased significantly in the last year to enable more staff to be
employed to address this growth. Average completion time remained around 24
weeks in 2007, similar to the previous year. Around 26% of complaints were found
to be fully or partly justified in 2007 so it is pleasing to note that
Loughborough’s rate of 20% is slightly below the national average.
The
OIA’s status is becoming increasingly established. A number of
dissatisfied students have taken their cases beyond the OIA and sought judicial
review. On only two occasions has judicial review been granted and the students’
cases have then been dismissed.
4. The
Future
It is
disappointing to note that the decline in the number of complaints to the OIA experienced
in 2006/07 was reversed in 2007/08. Unfortunately, current complaint levels for
2008/09 suggest that numbers may be growing further.
The OIA has
been undertaking a review of its scheme in 2008/09 and any changes to the
scheme will be noted in the next annual report.
Dr Jennifer
Nutkins
18 March 2009