SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013
Learning from complaints
Improving complaints handling
Supporting public service improvement
FURTHER EDUCATION
This is the SPSO’s first annual complaints report about the further education sector. It is one of a series of reports through which we aim to put key messages, information and analysis of complaints about individual sectors into the public domain. We anticipate that Parliamentary committees, government departments, scrutiny bodies, regulators and those working and studying in the further education sector will find this an effective means of enhancing the learning from our work and identifying issues arising from the complaints we see. Equally, we hope it will prove useful to members of the public who seek more information about the kinds of complaints that are escalated to us and how we handle them.
December 2013
CONTENTS
Ombudsman’s Introduction
4
Casework
6
Sharing the Learning
12
Improving Complaints Standards
13
Case Studies
16
Further Education Cases Determined 2012/2013
19
OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION
One of the benefits of our process is the transparency of our decisions. Publishing our decisions helps colleges identify improvements they can make, and students and others can gain insights both where we do not uphold complaints and where we do.
Further education came under our remit in 2005. The sector forms a very small part of our caseload; in 2012/13 we considered only 37 complaints about further education. Although the numbers are very small, every complaint matters to the individual and college concerned and has the potential for wider learning. Our service gives people who are still unhappy after the college has considered their complaint an opportunity for the matter to be looked at again by an external independent organisation. We usually report further and higher education complaints together. This year however, given the distinct partnership work that we undertook with each sector to develop model complaints procedures, I have decided to produce two separate reports.
Improving complaints handling We have a statutory obligation to improve complaints standards, and further education was a strong focus of the work of our Complaints Standards Authority in
2012/13. Throughout the year we worked in partnership with a range of stakeholders to develop a standardised model complaints handling procedure (CHP) for the sector. I am very grateful to the many people who were involved, in particular Scotland’s Colleges, College Development Network (which took on responsibility for supporting the sector to deliver best practice, share innovations and develop colleges and their staff after a demerger of Scotland's Colleges in September 2012) and other stakeholders who provided valuable time and expertise throughout the development of the CHP and associated documents. Our aim has always been for the model CHP to be owned by the further education sector and I believe that we are moving to a position where this will be the case. We look forward to working in partnership with college complaints handlers and others to support ongoing improvement of the CHP’s operation through sharing of experience, learning and best practice across the sector.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 4
OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION
Key trends in our figures
Sharing the learning
2012/13 saw an increase in the rate of premature complaints (those that come to us before completing the complaints procedure of the organisation concerned) about colleges. It rose from 40% to 49%, against an average of 40% across all the sectors. We upheld in part or in full all five complaints that we investigated. Given the very small numbers involved, I attach no significance to the uphold rate and only a little to the premature rate, although I would like to see that rate fall.
One of the benefits of our process is the transparency of our decisions. Through the decisions that we publish on our website, colleges can identify improvements they can make to reduce any failings we find. Similarly, students and others can see the kinds of complaints that are made to colleges, gain insights both where we do not uphold complaints and where we do, and find examples of the kinds of redress we are able to recommend. I urge colleges to make the most of these tools and to demonstrate the ways in which they value complaints and how they use them to drive improvement.
In terms of the subjects brought to us, the most striking change compared to the previous year is that we received no complaints at all about college admissions. This was our top category of complaint in 2011/12. In 2012/13 the top subject was policy and administration, which covers a range of issues, as detailed in the report.
Jim Martin Ombudsman
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 5
CASEWORK
Number of complaints received and dealt with During the year we received 36 complaints about this sector – one less than we received during the previous year. The issues raised with us ranged from policy and administration to teaching and supervision. Two complaints were about the assessment and provision of special needs. In 2012/13, we dealt with 37 complaints about further education, two more than we handled in the previous year. The total number of complaints received and dealt with differs because some cases received at the end of 2011/12 were completed in 2012/13.
What we do with complaints At the end of this report, there is a table with the outcomes of all the further education complaints we dealt with. Below, we identify some of the key points and what we do at each stage of our process.
Advice All complaints and enquiries come first to our advice team. Their role is to provide information, signposting and support. Much of this work is conducted by telephone and they provide not only advice about our work but also help people find additional support. They can also make a decision on a complaint if it is clearly a matter that we are not legally able to consider or it has come to us too early. We are normally only able to deal with complaints after they have completed the organisation’s complaints process. If a complaint comes to us too early (we call these premature complaints) we will let the person know how best to make the complaint to the organisation concerned. We can also give advice about organisations (such as student unions or support groups) who can provide advice or help people through the complaints process.
We saw a rise in the number of premature complaints about this sector, from 40% in 2011/12 to 49% in 2012/13. This is higher than the 40% overall rate across all sectors, but is based on very small numbers and as such, while a reduction would be welcome, it is not currently a matter of concern. Our advice team deal with all enquiries and most premature complaints. In 2012/13, the team made decisions about 28 complaints about further education, of which 16 were premature. In most of the other 12 complaints dealt with at this stage, we needed more information before we could look at the complaint, but this was not provided when we asked for it. At the next stage in our process, where complaints receive further detailed review, another two cases were found to be premature.
Assessing complaints In 2012/13, we looked at nine complaints that passed from the advice stage to further detailed review. At this stage, we try wherever possible to talk to the complainant to make sure we understand their complaint and what outcome they want. We aim to see if there is a resolution that would be agreeable and acceptable to all parties. We also have to assess whether there are reasons we should not take the complaint further. We can only investigate where we have the legal power to do so. We know it is frustrating for complainants if we can’t resolve a complaint or take it further, so we try to take this decision as quickly as we can. Last year, we decided at this stage that we could not take four cases further. In two this was because they were premature, and the remaining two were out of our jurisdiction. We provide a breakdown of the decisions we made at this stage at the end of this report.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 6
CASEWORK
Investigating complaints At the investigation stage, to which we took five cases about further education in 2012/13, we decide whether the complaint should or should not be upheld. In order to do so, we consider all the available evidence. This is likely to include the file and/or complaints correspondence, as well as any other information supplied by the person who has made the complaint, or by the college concerned. We assess whether what happened was reasonable in the circumstances, and whether the college followed the correct procedures.
Decisions When we investigate, we always issue a written decision. This is an important record and sets out in detail what we have investigated and how. The organisation and the complainant receive copies. We know these decisions are sometimes about difficult experiences and in 2012/13 we began moving towards supplementing the written record with a telephone discussion with the people who had made the complaints. This has proved successful and is now part of our regular and increased use of direct contact with complainants.
The written record will be in one of two formats. In most cases we issue decisions by letter. This letter remains private between ourselves and the parties. In order to ensure learning is shared, we publicly report a summary of the decision to Parliament. In 2012/13 we issued all decisions on further education complaints by letter, and in these, we upheld or partly upheld all five cases. While it is important to stress that this was on a very small number of cases, it is unusual for us to uphold every case that we see in a sector. Last year, for example, in this sector we investigated three cases and upheld only one. We provide more information about these five cases later in this report. We did not publish any public interest reports about colleges in 2012/13. For information, our criteria are set out below. Our public interest criteria can include: > significant personal injustice > systemic failure > significant failures in the local complaints procedure > precedent and test cases
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 7
CASEWORK
Recommendations Where we find that something has gone wrong, we will uphold the complaint and we usually make recommendations for redress and improvement. In 2012/13, we fully upheld two complaints and partly upheld the remaining three. All the cases were different, and we found no particular theme to the type of cases we upheld. In 2012/13, we made 10 recommendations to colleges. We track every recommendation to ensure that the organisation implement it within a specified timescale and that they provide suitable evidence to show that they have done so effectively. Below and through the case studies at the end of this report, there are examples of the kinds of recommendations we make. There are more case summaries on our website www.spso.org.uk/our-findings.
Recommendations We recommended that a college:
> provide our office with evidence that they maintain complete student records, and ensure these will be kept for an appropriate period, and in particular during the period when a complaint may be taken further > remind staff to ensure that all individual complaints are addressed, and of the need to keep accurate records in line with the college complaints procedure > amend their complaints procedure to ensure that a staff member previously involved in a complaint does not deal with it at later stages > ensure that complaints meetings and appeal hearings are minuted and the complainant receives the outcome in writing > apologise for failing to conduct an adequate investigation into a complaint > provide update training to all staff involved in stage one complaints handling.
> revise their policy to ensure that students who are withdrawn from courses are notified of this in writing > provide partner employers with clear summary information on incentive schemes, after discussion with the scheme providers > contact a group of students to offer a further date for an appeal hearing
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 8
CASEWORK
Key figures in further education complaints 2012/13 > We received
36 complaints and dealt with 37
> The rate of complaints coming to us too early went up from 40% to
49% compared with last year
> The rate of upheld complaints was
100%, up from 33% last year,
but on a very small number of complaints (the overall rate is 46%)
> People who received advice, support and signposting:
28
> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration pre-investigation:
4
> Complaints fully investigated
5 – all were publicly reported to
Parliament*
> We made
*
10 recommendations for redress and improvement
We publicly report the decisions a minimum of six weeks after sending the decision letter. In a small number of cases we do not put information in the public domain, usually to prevent the possibility of someone being identified.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 9
CASEWORK
What do people complain about?
Issues in further education complaints
Top subjects of further education complaints received 2012/13
The issues brought to us in the area of policy and administration ranged from a complaint in which the end date of a student’s time at college, which impacted on her funding, was disputed, to a complaint about breach of copyright, which we decided was out of our jurisdiction as it was a matter for the law. Several of these cases were premature and we said that the person should go back and allow the college to deal with the complaint. In some cases, we were also able to help complainants who had had difficulty in getting an answer from the college to their questions.
Subject
Total
Policy/administration
9
Teaching and supervision
4
Academic appeal/exam results/ degree classification
2
Grants/allowances/bursaries
2
Special needs – assessment and provision
2
Complaints handling
1
Personnel matters
1
The most striking change compared to the previous year is that we received no complaints at all about college admissions. In 2011/12 we received seven, and it was the subject about which we received most complaints. In 2012/13, policy and administration complaints replaced this as the top category, with teaching and supervision complaints remaining at a total of four for 2012/13, the same as the previous year. As well as those in the table above, we received a number of complaints in which we did not have much detail about the subject of the complaint, contact with us was at a very early stage and, although we knew that they were about further education, we were not provided with information to enable us to take these further. We record these as ‘subject unknown’. Many of the complaints about which people contacted us had not been through the college’s complaints procedure. In such cases we asked the person to go back and do that to give the college the chance to resolve the problem. The information we have about such premature cases is, therefore, limited.
Complaints received about teaching and supervision included complaints that coursework had not been assessed using an appropriate marking structure; that expected teaching hours were not provided; and that there was insufficient feedback about progress, which a student said meant they received a lower mark than they had anticipated. We continue to receive a small number of complaints about academic appeals and degree classification. As we pointed out in last year’s annual report, we cannot get markings, assessments or qualification awards changed. We can only look at the process that the college followed in reaching their decision – we cannot make them change the result for an individual who is unhappy with it. We always aim to explain this as clearly as possible in our general information for students, and in all our communication with individuals. Two people approached us with complaints about students with special needs. In one example, a parent was unhappy that his student daughter had not been given extra time to complete an exam, which he said she needed. We could not take these complaints further, however, as they had not yet been through the relevant college complaints procedure.
continued > SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 10
CASEWORK
This is an area in which we receive complaints each year across the further and higher education sectors, and some of our higher education investigations provide examples of what can go wrong when a student’s special needs are not taken into consideration and appropriate adaptations made. These are highlighted in our separate report about the higher education sector. We will continue to monitor these kind of complaints, take them forward where it is appropriate for us to do so and encourage organisations to share learning from them. A complaint about complaints handling (case 201102379) is included as a case study towards the end of this report. In this case, which involved a number of international students, we did not uphold much of the complaint as there was
little evidence that we could consider. This was in part because the college concerned had destroyed records, including information about teaching hours delivered, before the students had the opportunity to complain to us. This is unusual and the Ombudsman expressed his concern about this in the decision letter. Organisations under our jurisdiction should be aware, and should tell members of the public, that our jurisdiction has a time limit. Although we have discretion to extend this in appropriate circumstances, members of the public have twelve months (from the date on which they first knew about the issue about which they want to complain) in which to bring the complaint to us. We expect organisations to retain their important and relevant records for at least this period of time.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 11
SHARING THE LEARNING
Each month, we publish reports of as many cases as we can and lay them before Parliament. We published all five decision reports about further education in 2012/13, making them publicly available to raise awareness and to support learning within and across sectors. In doing this, we are careful to protect the identity of the person who complained and the person about whom the complaint was made. Although we publish the vast majority of our decisions, in a very small number of cases we take the view that even publishing anonymously might identify the individual, or that there are other reasons for not publishing, such as a person’s vulnerability. In these rare circumstances we will exclude a case from publication. The bulk of the reports we publish are summary reports of decision letters. These detail the complaint, our decision and whether recommendations were made. We also publish some full investigation reports each month (although there were none about the further education sector in 2012/13) where the public interest makes it important that all the detail is in the public domain. All the reports are searchable on our website by organisation, date and outcome and they provide a wealth of information for complainants and organisations. We promote learning from the reports through the Ombudsman’s monthly e-newsletter which highlights themes and issues from our casework. It is sent to over 2,000 recipients, including MSPs, scrutiny bodies, service providers, advocacy agencies and the media.
We also publish a leaflet for students to help them understand how to complain about their college, and to explain what happens if they complain to us.
Working with others We worked throughout the year with stakeholders from the further education sector, including Scotland’s Colleges, College Development Network and representatives from a number of colleges, to develop a model complaints handling procedure (CHP) for the sector. This is covered in detail in the next section.
Consultations The complaints that people bring us provide a valuable source of information about the direct experiences of people in further education. As we have said, we put as much of this as possible in the public domain and use recommendations to seek to prevent the same problems happening again. We use our knowledge of the complaints system and people’s experience of that system when we respond to inquiries and consultations. We also respond to consultations that may affect our remit or the complaints that reach us – for example when, in January 2013, we responded to the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee on the post–16 Education (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum.
To read our decisions or search by subject, organisation or case reference number, visit www.spso.org.uk/our-findings and to read our information leaflets, visit www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 12
IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS 2012/13 was a significant year in moving towards our vision of introducing a standardised complaints handling procedure across the public sector. Our Complaints Standards Authority (CSA) worked closely with sector representatives during the year to develop the further education model complaints handling procedure (CHP).
Developing the model complaints handling procedure In partnership with Scotland's Colleges and a number of college representatives, a working group was formed to help develop the model CHP. The group met regularly during the first six months of the year to develop and refine the procedure ahead of its publication on 19 December 2012 with an implementation date of 30 August 2013. In November 2012 the model CHP was discussed with College Development Network. Issues covered included the journey to developing the CHP, the key requirements of the CHP, the implementation phase and arrangements for monitoring compliance. We also worked closely with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) to provide clarity within the model CHP on the different routes for escalating complaints depending on the issue being complained about. The SQA is responsible for ensuring that colleges deliver its qualifications to the correct standard and is the appropriate body to consider complaints about assessment in relation to SQA qualifications. We carried out a number of outreach activities with the sector throughout the year. These were crucial in ensuring both senior-level commitment to improving complaints handling and the quality of the arrangements that organisations were putting in place. They were used to explain the requirements of the model CHPs, provide feedback on developing CHPs and organisational plans for implementation, and provide tailored advice on improving complaints handling processes and culture.
CHP compliance While ensuring that bodies have adopted the CHP and its requirements in full, we want to be as light-touch as possible in monitoring implementation of the model CHPs. The SPSO Act 2002 now contains powers for the Ombudsman to monitor and report on non-compliance, but our aim in publishing the model CHPs was to work with regulatory and sponsor bodies to develop a consistent method for monitoring compliance against these within existing regulatory structures, including, wherever possible, through self-assessment. Compliance with the model CHP will, therefore, be monitored by the SPSO, in conjunction with the Scottish Funding Council (SFC). Compliance with the CHP will be a requirement of the SFC’s Financial Memorandum which sets out the formal relationship between the SFC and colleges.
Complaints handling performance One of the aims of the CHPs is to improve the information available about complaints to help develop a performance culture in complaints handling across the public sector in Scotland. In addition to requiring bodies to analyse and report complaints information internally on a regular basis, CHPs require service providers to publish annual information on complaints performance statistics. With each of the model CHPs we published indicative performance indicators, designed to be broadly consistent across the sectors. In conjunction with College Development Network we will work to further develop these indicators to provide a greater consistency of reporting on complaints across the sector and provide a basis for developing benchmarking arrangements for comparing how sectors are performing in their complaints handling. For the first time members of the public will have access to clear, transparent and consistent information on the volume of complaints received by colleges and how they have handled these.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 13
IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS
Our CSA team: Francesca Richards, Paul McFadden, John Stevenson
We are very grateful for the support that Scotland’s Colleges and College Development Network have shown in the development and implementation of the further education model CHP. In particular we appreciated the commitment to support Cumbernauld College in developing a shared service IT solution for use by all colleges, helping to ensure a consistency of recording and reporting across the sector.
supporting complaints handling practitioners, sharing best practice and learning, developing standardised reporting frameworks and providing a forum for benchmarking performance against SPSO indicators. The network will also provide a voice for the sector on specific issues affecting complaints handling.
Supporting colleges A key objective of the CSA is improvement through monitoring, promoting and facilitating the sharing of best practice in complaints handling and supporting service providers in improving their complaints handling. We aim to achieve this through developing and coordinating networks of complaints handlers, promoting good complaints handling by providers through the sharing of best practice and by developing and delivering high quality training.
Network of complaints handlers As with other sectors our aim is to establish a network of complaints handlers for the further education sector, led by individuals from the sector. The aims of the network will include
For the first time members of the public will have access to clear, transparent and consistent information on the volume of complaints received by colleges and how they have handled these.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 14
IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS
Valuing Complaints website and online forum
Training
In 2012/13 we facilitated the sharing of knowledge and best practice in complaints handling through the launch of our dedicated CSA website at www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk. The website, launched in May 2012, provides:
Our training unit worked closely with the CSA throughout 2012/13, meeting a steep increase in demand for direct delivery training courses resulting from the introduction of the model CHPs and our engagement with the various sectors including further education. Classroom-based training for complaints investigators and others involved in complaints handling remains crucial to improving the way that organisations handle complaints, particularly on reaching the right decisions first time.
Training courses
> information on the CSA and progress on roll-out across the sectors, including access to model CHPs and the requirements to implement these; > good practice guidance on complaints handling and links to relevant sources of information and best practice in complaints handling; > an online community forum for discussion and sharing best practice in the professional complaints handling community, both within and between sectors. > an SPSO training centre providing access to our e-learning resources, and information about directly provided courses offered by the SPSO training unit. Our aim over the year has been to develop the website and forum and increase its usage as a central information point for complaints handlers. The aim of the online forum, in particular, is to facilitate the effective professional networking of complaints handlers and support the sharing of experiences and learning.
E-learning courses During the year we launched a number of e-learning modules on complaints handling. They aim to increase awareness of the importance of good complaints handling and the role of frontline staff in complaints, and help improve the skills required for successful frontline resolution. The modules are available free of charge to public sector staff and can be accessed through the training centre of our Valuing Complaints website. The modules provide an opportunity for staff to think about complaints and how they handle them. They include real life scenarios so learners are able to practice new knowledge and skills in a safe environment, and they also demonstrate how complaints can be used to improve services. We are grateful to our further education sector partners for their help in tailoring these products to make them relevant to their sector.
For more about the CSA, visit www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk and to learn about our training activities, visit www.spsotraining.org.uk
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 15
CASE STUDIES These case studies are from investigations we have published about complaints about further education in 2012/13. They show how things can go wrong when policies are not followed, or complaints are not investigated properly. One shows positive action taken in response to a complaint. To share this good practice, reports on our website normally highlight where an organisation has taken such action. Communication and complaints handling Case 201202599 An employer complained that a college did not give him all the information about what he needed to do to qualify for an incentive scheme and receive the payment that he expected for employing a young person. Our investigation found that there was a lack of clear and consistent written communication from the college about the scheme and its requirements. We also found that the college had not conducted an adequate investigation into the complaint as, although they considered all the information they held, they did not fully explore contradictions in communications and did not ask for all the employer’s evidence.
Recommendations The college, after discussion with the scheme providers, provide their partner employers with clear summary information on such schemes and apologise for failing to conduct an adequate investigation into the complaint.
Feedback procedures and complaints handling Case 201201264 A student complained that he had not received adequate feedback from a college during his studies. He said that as he had been unable to progress to the next year of his course he had to enrol for it elsewhere. This meant that he had to undertake work he had already completed and that he lost his student funding. We made several enquiries of the college and examined their complaints and assessment procedures, as well as considering information from the student. We also asked for more information about the student being unable to progress. The college explained that they had in fact offered him the opportunity to continue his studies, and this was supported by the evidence we saw. We did, however, find that the college had not followed their procedures for giving feedback. We also found that they had not addressed one of the complaints, and that their recordkeeping was poor as they could not produce a report that they said had been written. This was contrary to their procedure which said that they would keep accurate and complete records of all complaints received and the resulting correspondence, interviews and actions.
Recommendations The college remind staff to ensure that all individual complaints are addressed, and of the need to keep accurate records in line with the college complaints procedure.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 16
CASE STUDIES
Failure to address complaints Case 201102379 A group of former college students complained that their college did not deliver timetabled teaching hours or provide additional support that was necessary because of their particular needs. They said that the college did not address or listen to their informal complaints, and did not reasonably handle two formal complaints and an appeal. When we investigated, we found that the college had destroyed their records, and could supply no information about the teaching or support provided. This meant that we could not find evidence to support or contradict these concerns, and we could not uphold this complaint. There was no evidence available, either, to prove that the students had made informal complaints, or that they submitted the first formal complaint, so we could not look at these. We looked at the evidence for the second complaint and the appeal and found that the college handled the complaint reasonably, but not the appeal. The staff member who handled the appeal had also dealt with the complaint, so should not have been involved. In addition, there was no minute of the appeal hearing and its outcomes. Because of this, we upheld the complaint about complaints handling. In investigating these complaints, we were hampered by a lack of evidence. We were particularly concerned that the college destroyed records before the students had the opportunity to complain to us. We accepted the students’ complaints as being in time for us to look at (the law that set up our office says they can do so within a year of knowing about the matter they are complaining about). Although we encourage people to approach us as soon as possible after completing the organisation’s complaints process, it does not matter whether they do so in the first or the twelfth month after the event – they have a right to complain during that time. We would, therefore, expect the college to have kept important records relating to these students and their complaints for that period of time. As the college no longer had the records, and given apparent discrepancies between some of the destroyed and the remaining records, we were concerned that natural justice might not have been served. In our view, the college gave weight and credibility to the anecdotal evidence of staff, while dismissing and discrediting the anecdotal evidence of students without keeping the evidence they considered during the complaint.
Recommendations The college amend their complaints procedure to ensure that a staff member previously involved in a complaint does not deal with it at later stages; ensure that complaints meetings and appeal hearings are minuted and the complainant receives the outcome in writing; contact the students to offer a further date for their appeal hearing; and provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the college now maintain complete student records, and have a policy that ensures that these will be kept for an appropriate period, and in particular during the period when a complaint may be taken further.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 17
CASE STUDIES
Complaints handling Case 201202303 Positive action taken by organisation A student complained that a college did not respond to his complaints about the teaching staff on his course. We found a number of shortcomings in their handling of his complaints. It took them too long to respond, not all the issues he raised were properly considered, and there was a lack of robust follow up action to improve his learning experience. The college apologised unreservedly and reimbursed all the student’s fees.
Recommendations The college provide update training to all staff involved in stage one complaints handling.
Complaints handling Case 201201691 A college withdrew a student from her course. When the awards agency then contacted the student to recover some of her student award, her father complained to us, and this highlighted that the date on which his daughter’s studies ended was disputed. Her father said that she was still attending after the date on which the college said they withdrew her from her studies. This affected the amount of student award she was due to repay. The college investigated and decided that the evidence supported their recorded withdrawal date. As part of our investigation, we reviewed their evidence for this, along with her father’s evidence. We considered the college's position to be reasonable and did not uphold the complaint. However, we noted that the student had not received formal notification that she had been withdrawn. Telling her this might have avoided the disagreement and the complaint, and we made a recommendation to address this. The student’s father was also unhappy with the time it took to complete the complaints process. We found that stage one of the process was informal and that three members of staff dealt with him before his complaint was formalised and escalated to stage two. We thought this took too long. After this, although the complaint was handled reasonably, the college failed to signpost him to the next stages. We upheld this complaint, but as a new standardised complaints handling procedure for colleges, which would address this, was about to be introduced in conjunction with the SPSO’s Complaints Standards Authority, we made no other recommendations.
Recommendations The college revise their policy to ensure that students who are withdrawn from courses are notified of this in writing.
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 18
0
Total
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
Admissions
Note ‘No decision reached’ includes not duly made, withdrawn and resolved There were no further education complaints determined at Investigation 2 stage in 2012/13
2
0
No decision reached
2
0
Not upheld
Total contacts
0
Partly upheld
0
Total 0
0
Not upheld
Fully upheld
0
Partly upheld
1 0
Total
Fully upheld
0 1
0
No decision reached
Premature
0
Matter out of jurisdiction (non-discretionary)
Outcome not achievable
0
Matter out of jurisdiction (discretionary)
1
0
Outcome not achievable
Total
1
No decision reached
0
0
Matter out of jurisdiction (non-discretionary)
Premature
0
Matter out of jurisdiction (discretionary)
0
0 0
Enquiry
Total
Outcome
Academic appeal/exam results/degree classification
Total complaints
Investigation 1
Early Resolution 2
Early Resolution 1
Advice
Total enquiries
Advice & signposting
Enquiry
Complaint
Stage
Case type 0
Complaints handling
3
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grants/allowances/bursaries
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Out of jurisdiction
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Personnel matters
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Policy/administration
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Special needs – assessment and provision
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subject unknown
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
8
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
Teaching and supervision
4
4
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Total
38
37
2
0
0
1
1
3
0
2
1
4
2
0
0
1
1
28
16
0
9
3
0
1
1
STATISTICS Further information about this sector is available on our website at www.spso.org.uk/statistics Further Education Cases Determined 2012 – 2013
SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012 > 2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 19
SPSO 4 Melville Street Edinburgh EH3 7NS Tel Fax Web CSA
0800 377 7330 0800 377 7331 www.spso.org.uk www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk