Case SummariesBack to Case Summaries
Coronavirus - CS112006
Case summary November 2020 | Not Justified
A student complained to their provider about the disruption to their studies resulting from industrial action, and the coronavirus lockdown. The student wanted financial compensation or a fee refund.
A student complained to their provider about the disruption to their studies resulting from industrial action in November/December 2019 and February/March 2020, and the nationwide coronavirus lockdown from March 2020. The student wanted financial compensation or a fee refund for missed learning, a reduction in quality teaching time, and a lack of access to facilities. The provider upheld part of the student’s complaint but did not give the student any financial compensation.
The student complained to us. We decided the complaint was Not Justified.
We looked at the following relevant factors:
- Whether the provider acted reasonably and treated the student fairly.
- What the provider did at the time to minimise disruption for students affected by the circumstances, to try to put things right.
- What the provider promised, and what the student could reasonably expect in terms of contact hours and other learning opportunities.
- What the provider did to ensure that students were not disadvantaged academically and could achieve their learning outcomes.
- What the provider delivered, and whether that matched what was promised and what students reasonably expected, and was broadly equivalent to its usual arrangements.
- Where there has been a shortfall of delivery, what were the consequences for the student, and whether the provider has considered those consequences.
We decided that the provider had taken steps to make sure that students were not academically disadvantaged by the disruption during the year and that they could meet their learning outcomes. The provider had needed to adapt teaching, learning and assessment as a result of the pandemic in order to comply with public health advice and protect the health and safety of students, staff and the general public. It had made adjustments to assessments to ensure that students were not assessed on any material that had not been taught. It had extended and staggered assessment deadlines and introduced open book assessments. It introduced a “no detriment” policy to ensure that students were able to progress with their studies provided they had met their learning outcomes.
The student had not told the provider which teaching they had missed out on during the disruption. The provider said that many teaching sessions had gone ahead as planned during the industrial action and that the student, who was in their first year, would be able to sit in on any missed lectures in the second year. During lockdown the provider had made available to students recorded lectures from the previous year and facilitated remote discussion groups so that students could continue interacting with each other and teaching staff. Library and other services were made available online. Student support and well-being services continued to operate and the provider ran a programme of virtual events including lunchtime concerts and outings. Overall we were satisfied that the provider had taken reasonable steps to put in place measures that were broadly equivalent to its usual arrangements.Previous Next