Ombudsman reveals secret world of student complaints

Rows over accusations of plagiarism, inaccurate marking and incorrect grades all feature in a report published today by the new students' ombudsman, detailing the first seven cases it has dealt with.

The report looks set to keep academic tongues wagging until Christmas, as each case has been anonymised to protect the identity of the university involved.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), which is headed up by Dame Ruth Deech, is charged with resolving student complaints against their universities. It kicks into action when an institution's internal procedures have failed to resolve a dispute.

Three of the complaints to the office were upheld, with the student receiving some compensation, while one appeal to the high court by an institution against the adjudicator's decision was refused.

The ombudsman began its work on March 29 and is currently voluntary - universities don't have to take part in its hearings. However from 2005 the scheme will become a statutory scheme which all higher education institutions in England and Wales must join. Details of the cases are only published with identifying factors removed.

The cases include two involving students contesting accusations of bullying and five where students had a complaint about the universities' marking of their work. One believed that they should have got a first instead of the 2:1 they were awarded and a second said that their dyslexia had not been properly taken into account.

Dame Ruth said: "These results show that disputes in universities can be settled without a lawyer, and that complaints are low. Only a tiny minority complain, that's a tribute to the universities. However, complaints at some universities take too long and are too complicated.

"It is important that all students are made to feel there is somewhere they can go when things go wrong. I know they are subsidised, but they do increasingly feel like customers and deserve a good service."

Case one: the plagiarist who had no time to do his own work

A was a postgraduate student at the University of ZZ. A admitted plagiarism in a piece of coursework. He claimed extenuating circumstances - he had had to work long hours in order to finance his studies, which had left him with too little time to complete the coursework in question and, as a result, he had copied a fellow student's work. The university found him guilty of a major offence and as a penalty required him to retake the module and pay the fees for it again. A appealed to the university against the payment of fees and his appeal was dismissed. A complained to the OIA, which found A's complaint unjustified: the plagiarism had been correctly categorised as a major offence within the university's regulations and the penalty imposed was fair and reasonable.

Case two: the dyslexic stopped from entering his final year

F was a student at the University of UU. He complained that the university would not allow him to progress to the fourth year (honours level) of the course, although he was able to graduate with a general degree after three years. F underwent an assessment that established that he suffered from dyslexia. F complained that the university's refusal to allow him to enter the fourth year of his course was unfair because it discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability; it applied stricter criteria to him than to others progressing to the fourth year; and it had breached its own internal appeals procedures. His appeal to the university was dismissed. The OIA found his complaint unjustified. The university had fulfilled the requirements of the relevant disability legislation in providing F with special assistance, but there was no requirement to award a student higher examination marks because he is disabled. The application of criteria was fair and reasonable and the appeal process had been properly conducted.

Case three: the 2:1 student who felt she deserved a first

G was a student at the University of TT. She was awarded an upper second class degree. She appealed, unsuccessfully, to the university against this classification and then to the OIA on the following grounds: that the university had discriminated against her in that she had not been allowed to take a module that others in similar circumstances had been allowed to take; that the university had failed to take account of extenuating circumstances when classifying her degree; that the timing of examinations had been unreasonable; and that it had failed to comply with its own internal appeal procedures. The OIA cannot look at issues of academic judgement. Nevertheless it found that the complaint was justified in part. The university had treated G inequitably in denying her an option that was allowed to others; there was confusion surrounding the question whether or not extenuating circumstances could be taken into account in deciding on the degree; the reasons given by the university in rejecting her complaint were unsubstantiated, but the university did not act improperly in relation to the timing of examinations. None of these were grounds for reconsidering the classification of G's degree. The OIA recommended that the university should consider redrafting its regulations on extenuating circumstances to remove any ambiguity and pay G ?400 compensation.