1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current system for handling student complaints about HEIs?

Transcription

1 University: Swansea University General 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current system for handling student complaints about HEIs? (a) The strengths for students: The system is free of charge and easily accessible (unlike Court proceedings which can be costly to issue and complex). This means that students can bring complaints to the OIA themselves without needing legal advice, which can also be expensive particularly for overseas students who are unlikely to be eligible for legal aid. The OIA is also seen as an organisation which acts totally impartially and is removed from the HE system. (b) The strengths for Universities: Again, the system is easily accessible so avoids the University having to fund legal advice for minor complaints. The 15,000 annual fee is not unsubstantial (given the relatively low numbers of cases from the University considered by the OIA each year) However, such sum could be spent or exceeded through legal costs in defending one or two cases before the Courts. So far, none of the University s complaint considered by the OIA have progressed to Court thereafter. The workshops offered by the OIA are useful and offer institutions the opportunity to learn from others experience. Comments from the OIA on our cases, and these of other Universities via the annual reports, are useful when reviewing University procedures. Enhancements to the University s regulations and procedures have been made arising directly from the OIA cases. (c) The weaknesses: Last year the OIA took up to 12 months to decide upon complaints brought against the University. In one case a change in the OIA s case handler appeared to result in very little progress having been made to determine the case for a number of months. Such a delay could, in itself, restrict the range of potential outcomes available to resolve the complaint in the event that such complaint is upheld (i.e. such delay may preclude the student from continuing their studies, leaving financial compensation as the only viable option remaining). [However, generally cases are dealt with far more efficiently and quicker than under the old-style visitor system see 2 below].

2 In some cases, information requested by the OIA s case handler appeared to suggest a new investigation rather than a determination of the way in which the University had reached its own decision i.e. requesting medical evidence which had not been made available by the student at the time of the University level investigation. There is an ever increasing need for those administering the system at institution level to keep detailed notes and minutes which sometimes is not for the benefit of the student or the institution but simply to satisfy the OIA. Decisions are not binding against students and there are no sanctions against students for unfounded or spurious complaints. The fact that the OIA s system is so accessible to students and there exists no sanctions for unfounded or spurious complaints, could result in a continual annual increase in the numbers of students bringing complaints to the OIA. Such an increase in the numbers of cases referred to the OIA would result in an increase in the amount of time and money spent by Universities in defending OIA complaints. This could also give rise to concerns as to the OIA s ability to process within reasonable time-frames increasing numbers of complaints. It would be helpful to have access to informal general advice from OIA case handlers on internal complaints to aid in their resolution before such cases may proceed to the OIA (i.e. to receive telephone advice as to whether a proposed course of action in dealing with an internal complaint would be likely to be viewed as reasonable). This could assist in reducing the numbers of cases which are referred to the OIA. Only a handful of case decisions are reported by the OIA each year. It would be helpful if all decisions were publicised in their current format by the OIA, to aid Universities in considering the likely outcomes of internal complaints and levels of compensation considered appropriate by the OIA. 2. Is the current Scheme an improvement on previous arrangements? Yes, the current system ensures consistency throughout the HE sector and generally the cases are dealt with far more efficiency and quicker than previously. The old-style Visitor system was also far less accessible for students and institutions. The current scheme is transparent and has encouraged institutions to develop and enforce more stringent and transparent procedures, since the threat of a student referring a case to the OIA is far more realistic than previously. The current scheme may also be preventing litigation Courts appear to be indicating that students should exhaust the OIA system before the Court will consider a student s claim.

3 3. Has the existence of the OIA improved the way in which HEIs engage with students in the areas of student complaints and appeals? The existence of the OIA has perhaps encouraged Universities to continually reflect upon and amend their regulations and procedures to ensure they are reasonable and follow best practice. This may have assisted in developing national best practice and in encouraging Universities to work together to develop these standards. The existence of the OIA may also have led to Universities being more transparent in their dealings with students, such as disclosing full information/documentation to students during internal complaints and appeals procedures. Funding of the Scheme 4. Is the current funding model appropriate? If not, are there alternative funding arrangements you would suggest? The OIA system is perhaps so accessible to students that this could result in a continued annual increase in the numbers of students referring complaints to the OIA especially as there are no sanctions for students bringing completely unfounded complaints. Of Concern is the resultant increase in time and money which would be spent by Universities in defending such OIA complaints. Furthermore, such a rise in complaints could give rise to concerns about the OIA s ability to manage the complaints within reasonable time frames through its existing administration without an increase in the annual fees paid by Universities. A possible alternative funding arrangement is for students to pay a nominal fee for bringing a complaint to the OIA (i.e. 60) and for such fee to be refunded to the student only where their complaint is upheld in part or full. This would still be far cheaper for students than Court application fees and may act as a deterrent to students bringing spurious complaints. Whilst this would not replace the current funding arrangement of annual University fees, this may serve to limit the rate of annual increases in the numbers of cases being referred to the OIA (and thus the risk of annual University fees needing to be increased to cover the OIA s increased administration costs in dealing with such cases). Remit 5. Is there a public interest in the OIA developing its remit, for example by: a) including students studying for foundation degrees at Further Education Colleges? Would extending this cause difficulties in terms of the age of these students, parental involvement, and the differences in the way these students are taught? Students pursuing programmes at higher education institutions are expected to have reached a level of maturity and are largely considered adults. That may not be the perception

4 for individuals in Further Education Colleges, to whom the institution may be deemed to have a higher legal duty of care. This would also result in a dual system being operated within FE Colleges, with some students being precluded from the complaining to the OIA, whereas others will have access to your services, on an issue of common concern. b) reviewing individual complaints about pre-registration admissions? At present, Swansea University handles very few complaints relating to preregistration admissions. The University feels that it would not be in the public interest to extend the OIA remit into this area for several reasons. The length of time that the OIA needs to take to process cases would not fit well with the timing of the admissions cycle. Complaints made may not be resolved in time for admission on to the relevant cohort. The decision to admit a student into highly competitive academic areas often needs to include a subjective element, usually an interview. A resolution to a complaint relating to why a candidate was not accepted may not exist because there are simply not enough places on a particular programme or the candidate is just not suitable (i.e. particularly for professional programmes). c) including in the Scheme non qualifying institutions such as private degree awarding bodies? Of concern would be the level of increase in complaints to the OIA through the above which could cause further delays in the OIA s dealing with cases. However, it is recognised that the new bodies would also pay annual fees to the OIA which meet the OIA s increased administration costs in managing the higher numbers of complaints received. Accessibility 6. Do you think that the current mechanisms for making students aware of OIA processes are adequate? What improvements, if any, would you suggest? Are there specific areas where students are not aware that they can bring a complaint? We believe that the current mechanisms are adequate. Students are advised of their right to complain to the OIA within all completion of procedures letters and within the University s Handbooks (provided to each student and accessible on the University s website).

5 7. Do the existing arrangements ensure that the OIA is sufficiently accessible for students to make a complaint? How might the OIA improve its website and communications? Yes. Efficiency and Effectiveness 8. How might the OIA increase its operational efficiency and improve the timeliness of decision making? Attempt to prevent (where possible) changes to the OIA s case handler dealing with a complaint. Of concern is the fact that some complaints have taken 12 months for the OIA to determine and this does not seem a reasonable time-scale. 9. Do you have any comments about the way in which the OIA reviews complaints or about the quality and consistency of its decisions? There is a slight perception that the remit of the OIA does extend beyond the scope of whether an institution has applied its procedures and whether these procedures are fair and reasonable. It is of concern to institutions that the OIA will investigate and comment on aspects of students complaints which might not have been considered by the institution during the original investigation (i.e. because the student had not raised such issues during the internal investigation stages). Judgements are sometimes very complex and open to interpretation. Consistency of the OIA s decisions cannot easily be judged as only a small proportion of cases are reported each year [please see 1(c) above]. Little reasoning is given in Judgements for the levels of compensation recommended which may enable students to challenge easily such compensation levels through the Court. 10. Are existing OIA processes sufficiently user friendly and transparent? Processes are user friendly and transparent. 11. Do you have any suggestions for amending the OIA Rules to increase effectiveness? No.

6 Impact 12. Does the OIA offer effective and appropriate remedies for students whose complaints are upheld? In our experience, remedies are appropriate. The problem is that students are not obliged to accept them and there are no penalties for students who make unfounded or malicious complaints. It may also be easy for students to rely upon an OIA judgement in their favour (as to the merit of their complaint) but seek higher levels of compensation through the Court than recommended by the OIA, as little reasoning is provided within OIA Judgements for recommended levels of compensation. 13. Should OIA adjudications be published? Yes, to serve a reference for other institutions but not by institutional name. We would suggest that, in respect of key decisions, it would be more helpful if the Formal Decision Letters were published by the OIA in full - but omitting the student, institution and any other person s names. This would be far more useful as a guide to the determination of such key cases than the very brief summaries currently reported and would be consistent with the publication of transcripts of Court Judgements. Such key decisions could include cases where principles relevant to the sector were determined for the first time and where the OIA considered it necessary to recommend high levels of compensation. 14. How might the OIA share better its knowledge and experience of complaints handling and promote good practice? Publish more cases as examples and Formal Decision Letters in full in respect of key decisions (as explained above). Offer informal advice (i.e. telephone advice line). Continue to host training sessions. Arrange more visits to institutions. Such visits should be aimed for and involve the University authorities and the Students Union officers. Governance 15. Is the independence and impartiality of the Scheme safeguarded sufficiently? The independence and impartiality of the Scheme is sufficient. However there may be a need to share experience internally to ensure consistency of treatment of similar cases and outcomes.

7 16. Is the present composition of the Board appropriate? Should there be additional student representation? It is difficult to comment on this, not being able to comment on the effectiveness of the current Board. 17. Have you anything further to add? The University welcomes the opportunity to engage in this consultation. We have found the OIA as an organisation and the staff of the OIA to be approachable as was demonstrated by the fact that two senior members of staff attended and participated in an internal seminar, held at the University