The complaints that students bring to us reflect their experiences and the things that matter to them. In 2022 our caseload was more varied than in 2021.
Our casework and engagement with students gives us an insight into concerns beyond the specific issues raised in complaints. During the year students and providers were contending with multiple challenges, including the cost of living crisis, accommodation issues, concerns relating to international student recruitment, and disruption to studies from industrial action in higher education and more widely, as well as the longer-term impacts of the pandemic.
Student wellbeing
During the year we heard from students, their representative bodies and providers, and from our two Advisory Panels, about the different pressures and worries that many students were facing. Students’ mental health and wellbeing is being significantly impacted and this is a major concern. In 2022 we continued to see a rise in the number of students experiencing significant distress and mental health difficulties, and this was also reflected in the issues raised in students’ complaints.
Case summary 1
A student was studying for a degree in business with a foreign language. The student was affected by mental health difficulties and during their first year of study they had discussed and agreed with the provider what support would be helpful. The student complained in the second year that the provider was not making reasonable adjustments to support them in their studies. They complained that material made available on the virtual learning environment was disorganised, that they had not received additional time in some assessments, and that they did not want to participate in any interactive sessions nor answer questions in class. The student was upset that a tutor had criticised them for not attending presentations by other students, because their disability sometimes affected their ability to attend teaching sessions.
The provider investigated the complaint. It concluded that speaking and listening in a group setting in a foreign language was a competence standard for the course so it was not a reasonable adjustment to allow the student not to participate at all. But it found that, although there were systems in place so that staff would be aware of adjustments that should be made, these were not working very well in practice. It said that communication with the student about what adjustments could be made and how these would work could have been better.
The student complained to us. We upheld some parts of the student’s complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified). It was reasonable for the provider to say that speaking and listening in a foreign language was a competence standard. But the provider should have explored in more detail some of the other adjustments the student asked for. The tutor should not have criticised the student’s attendance. The provider was already taking action to address some of the issues in the systems and how they were used by staff. We recommended that the provider should pay the student £1,000 in compensation for the distress they had experienced, and should arrange a further meeting between the student, academic staff and wellbeing staff to discuss the student’s ongoing support.
“I am also very grateful for [your] kind and compassionate approach to me in what has been a difficult time.”
Case summary 2
A disabled student and their provider agreed a support plan during their second year of studies. In the final year of the course, the student sought help managing deadlines because their mental health was declining. The provider met with the student and agreed a new support plan. The student and provider discussed taking time out and completing the dissertation in the next academic year as an external student.
The student did not submit their dissertation at the usual time and the provider decided to award the student a 2:2 based on the credits they had successfully completed. The student submitted an academic appeal, based on personal circumstances that had affected their performance, and saying that the decision to make the award had been unfair.
The provider partly upheld the appeal. It said that the student had not submitted new evidence about their personal circumstances. But it accepted that the student wanted to complete the dissertation, and it offered the opportunity for them to do so.
The student complained to us. We upheld some of the student’s complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified). It was reasonable for the provider to offer the student the chance to complete their dissertation. But the provider had not kept clear records about what had been agreed as the student’s new support plan and its communication with the student about the dissertation had caused them some distress. We recommended that the provider offer the student an apology and £350 in compensation for distress.
“Thanks for the update. It is a disappointing outcome [...] but thank you for your sympathetic approach and explaining your reasons so that I could understand why.”
Case summary 3
A student was completing a year studying at a university in another country as part of their undergraduate degree. Towards the end of this year the student was told that the modules they had chosen could not count towards their qualification. The student had an existing mental health condition and became very distressed by this news. They failed some assessments and stayed abroad longer than they had originally planned to complete some additional work and resits. The student became more unwell and took a break from their studies. They complained to the provider where they were studying their degree about what had happened at the overseas provider.
The provider upheld the student’s complaint. It said that there had been things that the student had a responsibility to do which would have lessened some of the problems. But it acknowledged that it should have done more to support the student and to manage the study abroad partnership. It put in place some changes to stop this happening in the future. It apologised to the student, reimbursed the student’s additional accommodation costs, and offered compensation of £2,500 for the distress caused. It also offered to waive the remainder of the student’s tuition fees when they returned to study.
The student complained to us. The student had a valid complaint but the provider had offered a reasonable remedy, so we didn’t uphold the student’s complaint to us (we decided the complaint to us was Not Justified on the basis that the provider had made a reasonable offer).
Case summary 4
A student on a healthcare-related course had a mental health condition. The student was supported by the provider and completed the academic modules and a placement successfully. The student was not able to start their second placement on time because of their mental health condition. The placement provider terminated the placement because the student had missed the mandatory induction sessions and it said it wasn’t possible to arrange alternative sessions. The provider temporarily withdrew the student while it tried to arrange another placement. The student complained but the provider did not uphold their complaint.
The student complained to us. We partly upheld the complaint (we decided it was Partly Justified). It was beyond the provider’s control that the placement provider didn’t offer alternative induction sessions. Finding placement opportunities was very difficult at the time because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. But the provider should have prioritised the student’s need for a placement, or at least guaranteed them a placement the following year, possibly exploring options with placement providers in other areas. The student had since withdrawn from their studies and so we recommended that the provider should offer them a partial refund of tuition fees, and some compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Delays in internal processes
Providers and student organisations are generally working hard to support students, but are themselves facing other significant challenges at the same time as student support needs are increasing. Over the last year many students, student representative bodies and providers told us their concerns about delays in their providers’ internal processes. We understand how challenging it is to balance rising caseloads, increasing complexity, and pressures on staff. But resourcing complaints handling and student support and advice services effectively, even when finances are stretched, leads to better outcomes for students.
We continue to see a number of students bringing their complaint to us before they have completed their provider’s internal processes. Some of these are students who are very frustrated by delays and this can affect their ability to engage with internal processes and with our processes effectively. Sometimes the delay becomes the subject of a new complaint about the provider’s process, running alongside the student’s original complaint.
We made Recommendations that providers should pay compensation to students for delays in the internal processes in a number of cases in 2022. We also found in some cases that significant delays in resolving complaints made a practical remedy more difficult or even impossible, when one might otherwise have been available. For some students this meant that financial compensation was the only remaining remedy available.
Group complaints
Complaints from groups of students continue to be a regular part of our casework. The group cases we see most often involve students complaining about a particular module or course, or about laboratory or studio facilities. Sometimes a group complaint may arise from an issue that affects students on different courses, for example, a closure of leisure or support facilities. Some of the case summaries below illustrating common issues in our casework are from groups of students.
Some students find it easier to make a complaint with others, and it can be helpful if the students’ union or other student representatives can provide support with organising the group. Managing cases as a group can also help providers by reducing the administrative burden.
Sometimes students in the groups we see have been affected by the issues raised in the complaint in different ways. It’s important that providers consider carefully the best way to approach a group complaint in circumstances like this. For example, it can be helpful to split the complaint into sub-groups, such as by organising them into different module or programme groups. It may be better to handle some of the complaints individually or to look at remedies individually, for example because an individual student may have been impacted very differently because of a disability or personal circumstances.
Finding a way to resolve group complaints at an early stage is likely to be beneficial to the students and the provider. It’s important for providers to have clear processes for students to follow, and for students to engage with those processes so that appropriate remedies, including practical remedies, can be put in place at the time. This can be especially important in situations where students may be thinking about signing up to group legal action. Many complaints are successfully resolved in providers’ internal processes, and if students don’t raise their complaints in this way, they may miss the opportunity to have their concerns addressed if the legal action doesn’t proceed or is not successful.
We included additional guidance on group complaints in the revised Handling complaints and academic appeals section of the Good Practice Framework, which we published in 2022.
Large group complaint
In 2022 we completed our review of complaints from a group of over 400 students at a provider about the disruption to their arts-based courses caused by Covid-19. The complaints were received before the introduction of our Large Group Complaints process so we considered them under our usual processes. The complaints were suspended for some time in 2021 because the provider had not considered them at the course level or cohort level during the internal procedures.
We decided that the complaints were Partly Justified because the provider had not properly addressed some of the issues the students had raised about the disruption to their courses and had not provided sufficient information to show that it took reasonable steps to deliver the learning opportunities that it had promised. We also thought that it took the provider too long to consider the complaints.
We held a series of mediated discussions with representatives of the group to identify a suitable remedy for different cohorts that have been affected differently by the disruption. We divided the group into sub-groups based on their cohort and the extent to which their studies had been impacted by the disruption, recommending different remedies for the different sub-groups, ranging from an apology to £2,000 in compensation. In some cases we were able to help the provider and the representatives of the group to reach agreement on which cohorts should fall into which sub-group. Where there was no agreement, we made decisions based on the evidence provided by the students and the provider. We also recommended that the provider should apologise to the students and should pay compensation for delays in handling the complaints process. In total the students received around £640,000 in compensation.
The review of this group was challenging and time-consuming, but the learning from it will be extremely useful for any future large groups, and the Large Group Complaints process will make future reviews less cumbersome. Some of the learning will also inform the way we manage smaller groups.
Complaints about course delivery
The complaints that students bring to us show that many different aspects of their studies are important to them. These include issues such as the course content and structure being as described in promotional materials, contact hours and mode of delivery (in person or online), frequency and timeliness of feedback, external accreditation, access to placements, clear information about any prerequisites or special requirements, access to laboratory or studio facilities, equipment and materials, and efficient administrative arrangements.
Sometimes in the complaints we see, there have been issues with course delivery that the provider has not adequately addressed. But in others, the student’s expectations are not realistic or reasonable and may not relate to what the provider is actually offering.
Of course, it’s important that providers deliver what was promised and what students reasonably expect. But they also need to help students to understand what they can expect during their studies. Students need clear and easily accessible information about what to expect when they begin studying, what might change over the course of their studies and why, and the different options that are available to them so that they can make informed choices. Even small changes can have a significant impact, for example changing the timing of scheduled teaching hours might be difficult for students with caring responsibilities or other commitments.
It’s also important that providers have good lines of communication with students and their representatives, so that the provider becomes aware of any issues at an early stage and can take steps to address them before they evolve into complaints.
Case summary 5
A small group of students enrolled on a postgraduate taught programme. The programme had been advertised as accredited by a professional organisation and the students had chosen the course because of this. After starting the course the students discovered that it was no longer accredited. They complained to the department and staff accepted that the information about the course was incorrect and the students had been misled. But when the students made a formal complaint the provider told them they had to prove that they had been given misleading information. The provider offered the students £500 as a gesture of good will.
The students complained to us. We looked at the information the students were given about the course and evidence the students had of conversations during which staff members had accepted that they’d been given misleading information. We asked the provider to reconsider its offer. The provider offered a full refund of the tuition fees and compensation of £5,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The students accepted the offer and the complaint was Settled on that basis.
Case summary 6
A group of students was studying a distance learning course. The students complained that the course didn’t live up to their expectations, based on the prospectus and other marketing materials. The structure of the course allowed students to select individual modules and take breaks between them. The students complained that it had not been clear to them that some modules would run less frequently than others. They complained that the course was too theoretical and lacked practical elements that had been promised. The students also complained that students without a science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) background would find the course very challenging. They raised concerns about the availability of staff, and the quality of teaching materials which contained factual errors. Assessments had also caused problems, with one exam being an hour shorter than it should have been and another using a question that had been used before and which some students had had access to as a revision aid.
The provider completed its review of the complaint after nine months. It accepted that there had been some errors in the course materials and issues with some assessments, which it was taking steps to address. It did not uphold most aspects of the students’ complaints.
The students complained to us. We upheld the students’ complaints (we decided they were Justified). The provider’s investigation had not directly addressed a number of the students’ concerns. In some places the investigator had relied on summary statements from departmental staff about the content of documents rather than reviewing the documents in full. The full documents included evidence that supported the students’ concerns. For example, the course validation documents included a comment from the external examiner that the course may be challenging for students with no STEM expertise. Some academic staff had complained that they felt unable to support the number of students being recruited to the course.
We recommended that the provider should undertake a quality review of the programme and that it should review its marketing materials to ensure that these are accurate. We also recommended that the students receive compensation, which varied according to the number of modules studied by each member of the group. We shared information about this complaint with the Office for Students under our information-sharing arrangements, having notified the provider that we would do so.
Case summary 7
A student complained to their provider about delays in giving them their timetable, changes to the scheduling of their classes, poor communication, and other administrative errors. The provider partly upheld the student’s complaint and offered them compensation. The student wasn’t happy with the amount offered and complained to us.
We didn’t uphold the student’s complaint to us. We agreed that the student had valid complaints about the administration of the course. But the provider had accepted that there were delays with the timetable, communication problems, and some other administrative issues and it had apologised and offered the student compensation. We thought the issues had caused the student some inconvenience and uncertainty over a short period of time, but that they had not had any impact on them academically. We decided that the compensation the provider had offered was reasonable. This meant that the complaint to us was Not Justified on the basis that the provider had made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint.
Case summary 8
A student enrolled on a part-time postgraduate taught programme, intending to complete it whilst working full time. They were told before enrolling that they would need to commit to around 10 hours a week of teaching and personal study time. The student made it clear that they weren’t able to commit to more hours. But when the student started, the time commitment was much higher and they weren’t able to manage it on top of their full-time job. The provider accepted that the student had been given incorrect information and offered a refund of a proportion of the tuition fees they had paid.
The student complained to us. We thought that the student would not have enrolled had they been given correct information about the time commitment and we asked the provider to reconsider its offer. The provider offered a full refund of tuition fees and the student accepted the offer. The complaint was Settled on that basis.
Harassment and sexual misconduct
We saw some increase in complaints relating to harassment and sexual misconduct, but numbers remain small. It can be very hard for students who have experienced unwanted behaviours to make a complaint, and these cases can be difficult to resolve fairly.
Case summary 9
A former student complained to the provider about the behaviour of a member of academic staff several years earlier. The student said the staff member had coerced them into a sexual relationship, which continued after they had graduated. Because of the seriousness of the student’s complaint the provider agreed to consider it even though they were no longer a student. The provider upheld the student’s complaint but said that because of data protection confidentiality issues it could not tell them the outcome of the subsequent staff disciplinary proceedings. The provider offered to pay for counselling sessions for the student.
The student complained to us that the investigation was intrusive, and the outcome lacked transparency and that the provider had not offered them a meaningful apology for the trauma they had experienced. The student was concerned about other students and wanted to be told what action the provider had taken against the member of staff.
We explained to the student that it was reasonable for the provider to keep the details of the staff disciplinary proceedings confidential. We proposed to attempt to settle the complaint to help the student find some closure and the student agreed with this course of action.
We discussed the issues with the provider. The provider offered the student a meaningful apology from a senior member of staff, an opportunity to have a facilitated meeting with the provider and the OIA, to discuss safeguarding for future students, and a sum of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The student accepted the offer and the complaint was Settled on that basis.
When the student felt ready we facilitated the meeting. At the meeting, the provider outlined what actions it had taken as a result of the student’s complaint, and the student was able to ask questions and comment on the way the provider had conducted the investigation into their complaint. The provider thanked the student for the courage they had shown by coming forward with the complaint.
Case summary 10
Student A was accused by another student, Student B, of sexual assault. Student B complained to the provider that Student A had sex with them when they were too intoxicated to give consent. The provider investigated the complaint under its disciplinary procedures. The provider interviewed both students. Student A said that they reasonably believed that Student B consented to sex. Student A attended a disciplinary hearing with a legal representative after which the provider decided they had breached its sexual misconduct policy and should be expelled. Student A appealed but the provider rejected the appeal.
Student A complained to us. We did not uphold their complaint (we decide it was Not Justified).
We concluded that the provider had followed a fair process and that Student A had a fair opportunity to put their case. This included the opportunity to challenge Student B’s evidence by putting questions to them through the disciplinary panel. It was reasonable for the provider not to allow Student A to cross examine Student B directly. It was also reasonable for it to take into account text messages between the two students soon after the incident and to conclude those messages indicated Student A was aware that Student B had been too intoxicated to give consent. The provider reached a reasonable decision on the balance of probabilities that Student A had breached its sexual misconduct policy by having sex with Student B without their consent, and gave a reasonable explanation for deciding that it was proportionate to exclude Student A, and that a lesser penalty wasn’t appropriate.
Case summary 11
A student was accused of inappropriate behaviour by several other students. Two students said that the student had touched them inappropriately and without consent and other students said that the student had made them feel uncomfortable by frequently entering their personal space during gym sessions, and waiting for them outside the gym. The provider started disciplinary proceedings. Following an investigation, the provider decided the student’s behaviour was sexual harassment and that they had breached the provider’s code of conduct. The student was given a final written warning and their access to certain buildings was restricted. The provider also required the student to attend counselling at the provider’s expense. The student appealed the decision and the provider rejected the appeal.
The student complained to us. We did not uphold their complaint (we decided it was Not Justified).
We decided that the provider acted reasonably in how it investigated the allegations about the student’s behaviour and that it followed a fair process. The student was given full information about the allegations and had a proper opportunity to respond to them. The provider reached a reasonable conclusion that the student’s behaviour, both verbal and physical, was unwanted and inappropriate and that it fell within its definition of major misconduct. The written warning was the least serious penalty that the provider could apply for major misconduct and we concluded that imposing that penalty, along with the restriction and counselling, was proportionate.
In 2022 we continued to work with other organisations in the higher education sector to help develop thinking around good practice in this area, including the importance of having effective processes and ensuring that students are given an outcome to their complaint.
We contributed our learning from complaints to the development of UUK guidance on tackling staff to student sexual misconduct. We also fed into the evaluation of the impact of the Office for Students’ statement of expectations for preventing and addressing harassment and sexual misconduct affecting students in higher education.
