1

Developing a Good Practice Framework for student complaints

Penta Hotel, ReadingThursday, 6 June 2013

Rob BehrensChief Executive and

Independent Adjudicator

A Strategic Approach to complaints resolution

rob.behrens@oiahe.org.uk

“Comrades! The first principle of the Revolution is effective time-keeping.”- Govan Mbeki, after being released from Robben Island after 25 years

2

THE OIA AS A STRATEGIC PARTNER• A Classic Ombudsman Scheme – independent complaints

handler of last resort established under 2004 Higher Education Act

• With experience of 10,000 cases and (almost) universal compliance

• Sensitive to special features of Higher Education (R (Mustafa) v OIA [2013] EWHC 1379)

• Free to students and with a year-on-year lowering of unit costs for universities

• Use of Transparency to generate scrutiny, understanding and public trust

• Member of the Regulatory Partnership Group (and partner in developing the sector Operating Plan)

• Engine of Good Practice

3

EVIDENCE OF HIGH VOLUMES AND TRENDS - COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE OIA

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

34 42 52 41 76 56 114

508 544682

859931

1285

1491

0 0

0

00

0

0

2000

Combined for England and Wales

England

Wales

4

WHAT IS COMPLAINED ABOUT: 2012 OUTTURNS

Academic

status

Service

Issu

e (Contra

ct)

Academic

Misconduct,

Plagiarism &

Cheating

Financial

Other

Discrim

ination & Human Rights

Disciplin

ary matters

(not aca

demic)

Welfa

re & Acco

mmodation

Admission

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

71%

9%6%

3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1%

5

REASONS FOR RISE IN COMPLAINTS

• Discussion about rise in fees and then the rise in 2012

• Students as consumers• Decline in deference• Rise in expectations – fall in status of 2.2• Tightening of labour market• Rise in vocational subjects (medicine, law, social

work, teaching – double qualification needed)• OIA becoming more widely known

6

IMPACT OF INSTITUTION SIZE ON COMPLAINT NUMBERS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Smallest institution

Largest institution

Trendline

Number of complaints

7

RELATION BETWEEN INTERNAL COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY OIA

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Number of com-plaints received with COP Letter dated 2012

Number of COP Let-ters issued

Institutions which issued least COP Letters

Institutions which issued most COP Letters

8

EVIDENCE OF HIGH VOLUMES AND TRENDS - COMPLAINTS CLOSED BY THE OIA

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

213

381

639

786886

825

1443

Around 1800

Informing strategic and operational planning through: Comparative engagement

and analysis to learn from other sectors and countries

The Pathway Series Complainant surveys Round-table meetings Routine visits to HEIs and

students unions

ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 1. CONTINUOUS LISTENING AND LEARNING

9

10

ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 2. ADJUSTING MISSION AND VISION

Contributing to high quality student experience by the independent and impartial adjudication and resolution of complaints. And promoting good practice in complaints and appeals handling.

2013 Mission

By 2015 recognised as a key driver of high quality student experience through: exemplary dispute resolution of student complaints; the dissemination of a sector-wide good practice framework for complaints and appeals handling in universities; and effective contribution to the risk-based regulatory framework of higher education.

Defining Mission and Vision builds on analysis of Present-State, Mandates and Resources, and Evidence-based approach.

2013 Vision

11

ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 3. DEVELOPING BUSINESS PROCESSES

Increasing front-line capacity

Decentralisation of responsibility for case decisions – risk based Approval and Management

(Early) Assessment Team developed and expanded to assess Eligibility and explore Settlements

Triage and Settlement Processes to resolve cases as early as possible

Targets for monthly closures

Element of Outsourcing

12

ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 4. FEEDBACK AND PUBLICATION (I)

Errors and lack of consistency in appeals processo Student appealed degree award

on grounds of errors in the examination questions and issues related to final year project. The university:

o Applied different regulations at different stages in the appeal;

o Made errors in the documentation concerning the appeal, for example naming the wrong module;

o Did not produce written minutes of the appeal hearing;

o Took four months to inform the student of the results of the appeal; the regulations stipulated seven days

o Gave the student and the OIA inaccurate information about the frequency of Examination Board meetings.

Consideration of relevant informationo Appeal by international

postgraduate student against award of a Masters rather than a PhD. From our review:

o Evidence that the appeal did not consider documentation put forward in support of the student.

o Required personnel absent from the appeal, in breach of university regulations.

o Evidence that the student had not been given appropriate notice or time to make suggested corrections to his PhD;

o No evidence that the exceptional circumstances of the student, who was facing serious criminal charges, then dropped, while in his home country, were taken into account.

Threats to studentText of email to student:I spoke with your mother this afternoon because she called pleading for us to somehow reverse the decision of the Board of Examiners regarding your failure, which is not going to happen…..I do not know what you mean by "consider this for my appeal" but if you choose to waste your time (and ours) by appealing, the Department will prepare a case to explain its decision, which I do not believe will be overturned. All evidence would be considered, including your performance in the first project, which your mother knew nothing about…I will not respond to further emails from you and I will also not engage in more telephone conversations with you or any member of your family…”

13

FEEDBACK AND PUBLICATION (II): PUBLISHED ANNUAL LETTERS

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON – good practice

Imperial College London changed its procedures to allow a student to bring an appeal that did not fall within the grounds listed in the College’s procedures. While the appeal itself was unsuccessful, leading to the student’s complaint to OIA, the College’s flexibility in adapting its procedures created opportunities for other students in the future.

LONDON SOUTH BANK – shortfalls in practice

The OIA upheld a case brought by a student of the University where it

was found that:The University’s procedures for

dealing with extenuating circumstances claims were

inconsistent.The University was unable to

demonstrate that it had taken full consideration of the student’s

disability.

FEEDBACK AND PUBLICATION (III) – PUBLIC INTEREST DECISIONS

14

ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 5. INCENTIVISING INTERNAL RESOLUTION

• Broad support for revised funding model in context of trend of significant annual increases in complaints, and a growing interest of ‘alternative suppliers’ in joining the Scheme.

• Important to create a user pays principle without closing off complainant access to the OIA.

• Revised model retains, the simplicity and clarity of the current arrangements based on core subscription calculated by numbers of enrolled students,

• And builds on them incrementally to include initially a small case-related element from 2014.

• Letter to Vice-Chancellors in December 2012 announced revisions.

• Case-related element based on points relating to 2013 case profiles and provide an estimated 10 per cent of OIA income.

• Each band has a ‘free’points threshold with 3 points for cases reviewed to Complaint Outcome, 2 for cases Settled or Withdrawn and 1 for Not Eligible.

• Cost per point above the thresholds is £200.

15

16

HOW THINGS GO WRONG

• University failed to follow its procedures• Breaches of the duty to act fairly (natural justice)• Information not properly considered (or not

demonstrated that it was)• Delay or maladministration• Non-implementation of appeal panel decision• Cohort dealt with inconsistently• Inadequate supervision/tuition/equipment• Poor communication or misinformation• Discrimination issues, especially disability

EARLY RESOLUTION INITIATIVE

Campus Ombudsmen as suggested by 2011 HE White Paper ?

Diversity of existing provision Student Services Offices Students Union Advice Centres Student Conciliators Graduate Interns Complaint Mediation Schemes

Mediation No “one size fits all”

Canterbury Christ Church – wider

use of mediation University of South Wales – Student

Conciliators Sheffield – facilitated discussion Kingston – training in complaint

handling and mediation Huddersfield – student conciliators ARC linking pilots to good practice

procedure

17

FRAMEWORK OF GOOD PRACTICE (I)

80 per cent of Pathway 3 submissions agreed that a framework focusing on operational complaints and appeals resolution would be extremely useful. This framework will be:

Consultative Jointly developed Non- statutory A living document (web-based) and Complement QAA Quality Code

18

FRAMEWORK OF GOOD PRACTICE (II)

• Project steering• Comparative analysis –

Scotland compared with England and Wales

• Scope of Framework• What non-statutory means• Time-lines• Consultation • Implementation

19