The OIA’s remit and review process The OIA’s remit and review process ONLINE SEMINARS – JUNE/JULY 2015 Felicity Mitchell – Deputy Adjudicator Hilary Jones – Membership Project Co-ordinator

HOUSEKEEPING FOR ONLINE SEMINARS   Using a laptop or desktop? Please click on the ‘audio box’, select ‘telephone’ and then dial-in by telephone also using the number provided to you   Using a tablet? Don’t forget to ‘unmute’ and then click on the ‘audio box’ and select ‘microphone and speakers’   We have prepared a short presentation BUT will pause regularly to invite questions. If you wish to ask a question, please ‘raise your hand’ through the software   We will update the guidance on our website to reflect any key issues coming out of each group of seminars september-2015.aspx september-2015.aspx 2

WHO ARE WE? WHAT DO WE DO? Operator of students’ complaint scheme Since 2005 Ombudsman of last resort Free to students Over 10,000 complaints Almost universal compliance Review complaints about acts or omissions of member providers Recommend changes to practice and/or remedies for students Promote good practice in handling complaints and academic appeals 3

Complaints Received 4

5 Complaints Closed

Complaints closed in 2014 by principal category 6

Common areas of complaint Academic appeals Extenuating circumstances Teaching provision and facilities Disciplinary matters Academic misconduct (including plagiarism) Bullying and harassment Fitness to practise Discrimination What we cannot look at Admissions Academic judgment Matters subject to legal proceedings Student employment OUR REMIT (1) 7

OUR REMIT (2)   We will not normally consider complaints that have not been through the internal procedures at the member provider   We will not normally consider complaints about events that happened before the member provider joined the OIA Scheme   We may do so if the events formed part of a course of conduct which continued after the provider became a member   We will not consider complaints where we receive the Complaint Form more than 12 months after the conclusion of the provider’s internal procedures 8

QUESTIONS ANY QUESTIONS? 9

OUR REVIEW   We review student complaints to see whether they are Justified, Partly Justified or Not Justified   Focus of our review is the provider’s final decision evidenced in the Completion of Procedures (COP) letter   In deciding whether a complaint is Justified we consider the following three key issues:   Did the provider properly apply regulations and follow procedures?   Were those procedures reasonable?   Was the provider’s decision reasonable in all the circumstances? 10

WHY MIGHT WE FIND A COMPLAINT JUSTIFIED?   The member provider has failed to follow its procedures or has acted unfairly   Insufficient evidence to indicate information properly considered   Delay or maladministration   Inadequate teaching or facilities   Poor communication or misinformation   Discrimination issues, including disability   The OIA does not make findings of discrimination as a court would 11

QUESTIONS ANY QUESTIONS? 12

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS   Principal aim: to put the student back into the position they were in before whatever they complained about happened.   Types of recommendation include:   Provider to rehear academic appeal or reconsider complaint   Provider to change its internal procedures   Provider to pay financial compensation   Our recommendations have resulted in:   Students being readmitted to courses or having their results improved (following re-hearing of appeal by provider)   Students being allowed further assessment opportunities   Changes in providers’ internal procedures 13

QUESTIONS ANY QUESTIONS? 14

OUR REVIEW PROCESS: INITIAL ASSESSMENT   Student submits a Complaint Form to us; online or through post   Acknowledgement of receipt sent to student (and representative, if applicable) and our Point of Contact (POC) at the provider   If student has a representative, we will correspond with them (not student) during review process   Initial assessment made by our Enquiries Team   Has student submitted COP letter?   Any other missing information?   Straightforward eligibility decisions 15

OUR REVIEW PROCESS: TRIAGE STAGE   Initial review – eligibility   Student’s complaint is sent to provider for response   Provider’s representations are sent to student for comment   Opportunities for informal resolution considered at every stage   Optional and agreed by both parties   Quicker than full review, avoids need for formal adjudication 16

OUR REVIEW PROCESS: ADJUDICATION   Consider how best to resolve complaint   Settlement?   External mediation?   Our Rules permit oral hearings   Complaint Outcome   Justified (J), Partly Justified (PJ), Not Justified (NJ) decision   May make Recommendations if J/PJ decision   Opportunity for the parties to comment on practicalities of any Recommendations   Compliance by provider   May make Suggestions if NJ Decision   intended as good practice 17

TRANSPARENCY 18  All relevant case material shared with the parties  Three Pathway consultations with the sector  Annual published letters to each provider, setting out its record in complaints handling  Instances of non-compliance published in Annual Report (very rare)  Publish case studies, including by name of provider where there is public interest in doing so

QUESTIONS ANY QUESTIONS? 19