spso further education complaints report 2012 13

SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMANANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013

FURTHER EDUCATION

Learningfromcomplaints

Supportingpublic serviceimprovement

Improvingcomplaintshandling

This is the SPSO’s first annual complaints reportabout the further education sector. It is one of aseries of reports throughwhichwe aim to put keymessages, information and analysis of complaintsabout individual sectors into the public domain.We anticipate that Parliamentary committees,government departments, scrutiny bodies,regulators and thoseworking and studying in thefurther education sectorwill find this an effectivemeans of enhancing the learning fromourworkand identifying issues arising from the complaintswe see. Equally, we hope it will prove useful tomembers of the public who seekmore informationabout the kinds of complaints that are escalated tous and howwehandle them.

December 2013

CONTENTS

Ombudsman’s Introduction 4

Casework 6

Sharing the Learning 12

Improving Complaints Standards 13

Case Studies 16

Further Education CasesDetermined 2012/2013 19

Oneof the benefits of ourprocess is the transparency ofour decisions. Publishing ourdecisions helps collegesidentify improvements theycanmake, and students andothers can gain insights bothwherewedonot upholdcomplaints andwherewedo.

Further education came under our remit in2005. The sector forms a very small part ofour caseload; in 2012/13we considered only37 complaints about further education.Although the numbers are very small, everycomplaintmatters to the individual andcollege concerned and has the potential forwider learning. Our service gives peoplewhoare still unhappy after the college hasconsidered their complaint an opportunityfor thematter to be looked at again by anexternal independent organisation.

We usually report further and highereducation complaints together. This yearhowever, given the distinct partnershipworkthat we undertookwith each sector todevelopmodel complaints procedures,I have decided to produce two separatereports.

Improving complaints handlingWe have a statutory obligation to improvecomplaints standards, and furthereducation was a strong focus of the workof our Complaints Standards Authority in

2012/13. Throughout the year we worked inpartnership with a range of stakeholders todevelop a standardisedmodel complaintshandling procedure (CHP) for the sector.I am very grateful to themany people whowere involved, in particular Scotland’sColleges, College Development Network(which took on responsibility for supportingthe sector to deliver best practice, shareinnovations and develop colleges and theirstaff after a demerger of Scotland'sColleges in September 2012) and otherstakeholders who provided valuable timeand expertise throughout the developmentof the CHP and associated documents.

Our aim has always been for themodel CHPto be owned by the further education sectorand I believe that we aremoving to aposition where this will be the case. We lookforward to working in partnership withcollege complaints handlers and others tosupport ongoing improvement of the CHP’soperation through sharing of experience,learning and best practice across the sector.

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 FURTHER EDUCATION PAGE 4


Key trends in our figures2012/13 saw an increase in the rate ofpremature complaints (those that cometo us before completing the complaintsprocedure of the organisation concerned)about colleges. It rose from 40% to 49%,against an average of 40% across all thesectors. We upheld in part or in full all fivecomplaints that we investigated. Giventhe very small numbers involved,I attach no significance to the uphold rateand only a little to the premature rate,although I would like to see that rate fall.

In terms of the subjects brought to us,themost striking change compared tothe previous year is that we received nocomplaints at all about college admissions.This was our top category of complaint in2011/12. In 2012/13 the top subject waspolicy and administration, which covers arange of issues, as detailed in the report.

Sharing the learningOne of the benefits of our process is thetransparency of our decisions. Through thedecisions that we publish on our website,colleges can identify improvements theycanmake to reduce any failings we find.Similarly, students and others can see thekinds of complaints that aremade tocolleges, gain insights both where we do notuphold complaints and where we do, andfind examples of the kinds of redress we areable to recommend. I urge colleges tomakethemost of these tools and to demonstratethe ways in which they value complaints andhow they use them to drive improvement.

JimMartinOmbudsman

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

CASEWORK

Number of complaints receivedanddealtwithDuring the yearwe received 36 complaints aboutthis sector – one less thanwe received duringthe previous year. The issues raisedwith usranged frompolicy and administration toteaching and supervision. Two complaints wereabout the assessment and provision of specialneeds.

In 2012/13, we dealt with 37 complaints aboutfurther education, twomore thanwe handledin the previous year. The total number ofcomplaints received and dealt with differsbecause some cases received at the end of2011/12were completed in 2012/13.

Whatwedowith complaintsAt the end of this report, there is a tablewith theoutcomes of all the further education complaintswe dealt with. Below, we identify some of the keypoints andwhat we do at each stage of ourprocess.

AdviceAll complaints and enquiries come first to ouradvice team. Their role is to provide information,signposting and support. Much of this work isconducted by telephone and they provide not onlyadvice about ourwork but also help people findadditional support. They can alsomake adecision on a complaint if it is clearly amatterthat we are not legally able to consider or it hascome to us too early.We are normally onlyable to deal with complaints after they havecompleted the organisation’s complaintsprocess. If a complaint comes to us too early(we call these premature complaints) wewilllet the person knowhowbest tomake thecomplaint to the organisation concerned.We canalso give advice about organisations (such asstudent unions or support groups) who canprovide advice or help people through thecomplaints process.

We saw a rise in the number of prematurecomplaints about this sector, from40% in2011/12 to 49% in 2012/13. This is higher thanthe 40%overall rate across all sectors, but isbased on very small numbers and as such, whilea reductionwould bewelcome, it is not currentlyamatter of concern.

Our advice teamdeal with all enquiries andmostpremature complaints. In 2012/13, the teammade decisions about 28 complaints aboutfurther education, of which 16were premature.Inmost of the other 12 complaints dealt with atthis stage, we neededmore information beforewe could look at the complaint, but this was notprovidedwhenwe asked for it. At the next stagein our process, where complaints receive furtherdetailed review, another two caseswere found tobe premature.

Assessing complaintsIn 2012/13, we looked at nine complaints thatpassed from the advice stage to further detailedreview. At this stage, we try wherever possibleto talk to the complainant tomake sureweunderstand their complaint andwhat outcometheywant.We aim to see if there is a resolutionthat would be agreeable and acceptable to allparties.We also have to assesswhether thereare reasonswe should not take the complaintfurther. We can only investigatewherewe havethe legal power to do so.

We know it is frustrating for complainants if wecan’t resolve a complaint or take it further,sowe try to take this decision as quickly aswecan. Last year, we decided at this stage that wecould not take four cases further. In two thiswas because theywere premature, and theremaining twowere out of our jurisdiction.We provide a breakdown of the decisionswemade at this stage at the end of this report.



CASEWORK

Investigating complaintsAt the investigation stage, to whichwe took fivecases about further education in 2012/13, wedecidewhether the complaint should or shouldnot be upheld. In order to do so, we consider allthe available evidence. This is likely to includethe file and/or complaints correspondence, aswell as any other information supplied by thepersonwho hasmade the complaint, or by thecollege concerned.We assesswhetherwhathappenedwas reasonable in the circumstances,andwhether the college followed the correctprocedures.

DecisionsWhenwe investigate, we always issue awrittendecision. This is an important record and setsout in detail what we have investigated and how.The organisation and the complainant receivecopies.We know these decisions are sometimesabout difficult experiences and in 2012/13webeganmoving towards supplementing thewritten recordwith a telephone discussionwith the peoplewho hadmade the complaints.This has proved successful and is now part ofour regular and increased use of direct contactwith complainants.

Thewritten recordwill be in one of two formats.Inmost caseswe issue decisions by letter. Thisletter remains private between ourselves and theparties. In order to ensure learning is shared, wepublicly report a summary of the decision toParliament. In 2012/13we issued all decisionson further education complaints by letter, and inthese, we upheld or partly upheld all five cases.While it is important to stress that this was on avery small number of cases, it is unusual for usto uphold every case that we see in a sector. Lastyear, for example, in this sector we investigatedthree cases and upheld only one.We providemore information about these five cases later inthis report.

We did not publish any public interest reportsabout colleges in 2012/13. For information, ourcriteria are set out below.

Our public interest criteria can include:

> significant personal injustice

> systemic failure

> significant failures in the localcomplaints procedure

> precedent and test cases


CASEWORK

RecommendationsWherewe find that something has gonewrong,wewill uphold the complaint andwe usuallymake recommendations for redress andimprovement. In 2012/13, we fully upheld twocomplaints and partly upheld the remainingthree. All the caseswere different, andwe foundno particular theme to the type of casesweupheld.

In 2012/13, wemade 10 recommendations tocolleges.We track every recommendation toensure that the organisation implement it withina specified timescale and that they providesuitable evidence to show that they have doneso effectively.

Below and through the case studies at the end ofthis report, there are examples of the kindsof recommendationswemake. There aremore case summaries on ourwebsitewww.spso.org.uk/our-findings.

RecommendationsWe recommended that a college:

> revise their policy to ensure that studentswho arewithdrawn fromcourses arenotified of this inwriting

> provide partner employerswith clearsummary information on incentiveschemes, after discussionwith theschemeproviders

> contact a group of students to offer afurther date for an appeal hearing

> provide our officewith evidence that theymaintain complete student records, andensure thesewill be kept for anappropriate period, and in particularduring the periodwhen a complaintmay be taken further

> remind staff to ensure that all individualcomplaints are addressed, and of the needto keep accurate records in linewith thecollege complaints procedure

> amend their complaints procedure toensure that a staffmember previouslyinvolved in a complaint does not dealwith it at later stages

> ensure that complaintsmeetings andappeal hearings areminuted and thecomplainant receives the outcome inwriting

> apologise for failing to conduct anadequate investigation into a complaint

> provide update training to all staff involvedin stage one complaints handling.


CASEWORK

> Wereceived36complaints and dealtwith37

> The rate of complaints coming to us too earlywent up from40%

to49%comparedwith last year

> The rate of upheld complaintswas 100%, up from33% last year,

but on a very small number of complaints (the overall rate is 46%)

> Peoplewho received advice, support and signposting:28

> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration

pre-investigation:4

> Complaints fully investigated5– allwere publicly reported toParliament*

> Wemade10recommendations for redress and improvement

* Wepublicly report the decisions aminimumof sixweeks after sending the decision letter.In a small number of caseswedonot put information in the public domain, usually to preventthe possibility of someonebeing identified.

Key figures in further education complaints 2012/13

Themost striking change compared to theprevious year is that we received no complaintsat all about college admissions. In 2011/12 wereceived seven, and it was the subject aboutwhich we receivedmost complaints. In 2012/13,policy and administration complaints replacedthis as the top category, with teaching andsupervision complaints remaining at a total offour for 2012/13, the same as the previous year.As well as those in the table above, we receiveda number of complaints in which we did not havemuch detail about the subject of the complaint,contact with us was at a very early stage and,although we knew that they were about furthereducation, we were not provided withinformation to enable us to take these further.We record these as ‘subject unknown’.

Many of the complaints about which peoplecontacted us had not been through the college’scomplaints procedure. In such cases we askedthe person to go back and do that to give thecollege the chance to resolve the problem.The information we have about such prematurecases is, therefore, limited.

Issues in further education complaintsThe issues brought to us in the area of policyandadministration ranged froma complaint inwhich the end date of a student’s time at college,which impacted on her funding, was disputed,to a complaint about breach of copyright, whichwe decidedwas out of our jurisdiction as it was amatter for the law. Several of these caseswerepremature andwe said that the person shouldgo back and allow the college to deal with thecomplaint. In some cases, wewere also able tohelp complainantswho had had difficulty ingetting an answer from the college to theirquestions.

Complaints received about teachingandsupervision included complaints that courseworkhad not been assessed using an appropriatemarking structure; that expected teaching hourswere not provided; and that therewas insufficientfeedback about progress, which a student saidmeant they received a lowermark than theyhad anticipated.

We continue to receive a small number ofcomplaints about academic appeals anddegree classification. Aswe pointed out inlast year’s annual report, we cannot getmarkings, assessments or qualificationawards changed.We can only look at theprocess that the college followed in reachingtheir decision –we cannotmake themchangethe result for an individual who is unhappywith it. We always aim to explain this as clearlyas possible in our general information forstudents, and in all our communicationwithindividuals.

Two people approached uswith complaintsabout studentswith special needs. In oneexample, a parent was unhappy that hisstudent daughter had not been given extra timeto complete an exam,which he said she needed.We could not take these complaints further,however, as they had not yet been through therelevant college complaints procedure.


CASEWORK

What do people complain about?Top subjects of further education complaintsreceived 2012/13

Subject Total

Policy/administration 9

Teaching and supervision 4

Academic appeal/exam results/degree classification 2

Grants/allowances/bursaries 2

Special needs – assessmentand provision 2

Complaints handling 1

Personnel matters 1

continued>


CASEWORK

This is an area inwhichwe receive complaintseach year across the further and highereducation sectors, and some of our highereducation investigations provide examples ofwhat can gowrongwhen a student’s specialneeds are not taken into consideration andappropriate adaptationsmade. These arehighlighted in our separate report about thehigher education sector.Wewill continue tomonitor these kind of complaints, take themforwardwhere it is appropriate for us to do soand encourage organisations to share learningfrom them.

A complaint about complaints handling (case201102379) is included as a case study towardsthe end of this report. In this case, which involveda number of international students, we did notupholdmuch of the complaint as therewas

little evidence that we could consider. Thiswas in part because the college concernedhad destroyed records, including informationabout teaching hours delivered, before thestudents had the opportunity to complain to us.This is unusual and the Ombudsman expressedhis concern about this in the decision letter.Organisations under our jurisdiction should beaware, and should tellmembers of the public,that our jurisdiction has a time limit. Althoughwe have discretion to extend this in appropriatecircumstances,members of the public havetwelvemonths (from the date onwhich theyfirst knew about the issue about which theywantto complain) in which to bring the complaint tous.We expect organisations to retain theirimportant and relevant records for at leastthis period of time.


SHARING THE LEARNING

Eachmonth, we publish reports of asmanycases aswe can and lay thembefore Parliament.We published all five decision reports aboutfurther education in 2012/13,making thempublicly available to raise awareness and tosupport learningwithin and across sectors. Indoing this, we are careful to protect the identityof the personwho complained and the personabout whom the complaint wasmade. Althoughwe publish the vastmajority of our decisions, in avery small number of caseswe take the view thateven publishing anonymouslymight identify theindividual, or that there are other reasons fornot publishing, such as a person’s vulnerability.In these rare circumstanceswewill exclude acase frompublication.

The bulk of the reports we publish aresummary reports of decision letters. Thesedetail the complaint, our decision andwhetherrecommendationsweremade.We also publishsome full investigation reports eachmonth(although therewere none about the furthereducation sector in 2012/13) where the publicinterestmakes it important that all the detailis in the public domain. All the reports aresearchable on ourwebsite by organisation,date and outcome and they provide awealth ofinformation for complainants and organisations.We promote learning from the reports throughthe Ombudsman’smonthly e-newsletter whichhighlights themes and issues fromour casework.It is sent to over 2,000 recipients, includingMSPs,scrutiny bodies, service providers, advocacyagencies and themedia.

We also publish a leaflet for students to helpthemunderstand how to complain about theircollege, and to explainwhat happens if theycomplain to us.

Workingwith othersWeworked throughout the yearwith stakeholdersfrom the further education sector, includingScotland’s Colleges, CollegeDevelopmentNetwork and representatives fromanumber ofcolleges, to develop amodel complaints handlingprocedure (CHP) for the sector. This is covered indetail in the next section.

ConsultationsThe complaints that people bring us provide avaluable source of information about the directexperiences of people in further education. Aswehave said, we put asmuch of this as possible inthe public domain and use recommendations toseek to prevent the sameproblemshappeningagain.Weuse our knowledge of the complaintssystemandpeople’s experience of that systemwhenwe respond to inquiries and consultations.We also respond to consultations thatmay affectour remit or the complaints that reach us – forexamplewhen, in January 2013,we responded tothe ScottishParliament FinanceCommittee onthe post–16Education (Scotland) Bill: FinancialMemorandum.

To read our decisions or search by subject, organisation or case reference number,visitwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings and to read our information leaflets, visitwww.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

www.spso.org.uk/our-findings


IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS

2012/13was a significant year inmoving towardsour vision of introducing a standardised complaintshandling procedure across the public sector. OurComplaints Standards Authority (CSA) workedclosely with sector representatives during the yearto develop the further educationmodel complaintshandling procedure (CHP).

Developing themodel complaintshandling procedureIn partnershipwith Scotland's Colleges and anumber of college representatives, aworkinggroupwas formed to help develop themodelCHP. The groupmet regularly during the firstsixmonths of the year to develop and refinethe procedure ahead of its publication on19December 2012with an implementationdate of 30 August 2013.

InNovember 2012 themodel CHPwas discussedwith CollegeDevelopmentNetwork. Issuescovered included the journey to developing theCHP, the key requirements of the CHP, theimplementation phase and arrangements formonitoring compliance.

We alsoworked closely with the ScottishQualifications Authority (SQA) to provide claritywithin themodel CHP on the different routes forescalating complaints depending on the issuebeing complained about. The SQA is responsiblefor ensuring that colleges deliver its qualificationsto the correct standard and is the appropriatebody to consider complaints about assessmentin relation to SQA qualifications.

We carried out a number of outreach activitieswith the sector throughout the year. Thesewerecrucial in ensuring both senior-level commitmentto improving complaints handling and the qualityof the arrangements that organisationswereputting in place. Theywere used to explain therequirements of themodel CHPs, provide feedbackon developing CHPs and organisational plans forimplementation, and provide tailored advice onimproving complaints handling processes andculture.

CHPcomplianceWhile ensuring that bodies have adoptedthe CHP and its requirements in full, wewantto be as light-touch as possible inmonitoringimplementation of themodel CHPs.The SPSOAct 2002 now contains powers forthe Ombudsman tomonitor and report onnon-compliance, but our aim in publishing themodel CHPswas toworkwith regulatory andsponsor bodies to develop a consistentmethodformonitoring compliance against thesewithinexisting regulatory structures, including,wherever possible, through self-assessment.

Compliancewith themodel CHPwill, therefore,bemonitored by the SPSO, in conjunctionwith theScottish Funding Council (SFC). Compliancewiththe CHPwill be a requirement of the SFC’sFinancialMemorandumwhich sets out the formalrelationship between the SFC and colleges.

Complaints handling performanceOne of the aims of the CHPs is to improve theinformation available about complaints to helpdevelop a performance culture in complaintshandling across the public sector in Scotland. Inaddition to requiring bodies to analyse and reportcomplaints information internally on a regularbasis, CHPs require service providers to publishannual information on complaints performancestatistics.

With each of themodel CHPswe publishedindicative performance indicators, designedto be broadly consistent across the sectors.In conjunctionwith CollegeDevelopmentNetworkwewill work to further develop theseindicators to provide a greater consistency ofreporting on complaints across the sector andprovide a basis for developing benchmarkingarrangements for comparing how sectors areperforming in their complaints handling. For thefirst timemembers of the public will have accessto clear, transparent and consistent informationon the volume of complaints received by collegesand how they have handled these.



Weare very grateful for the support thatScotland’s Colleges andCollegeDevelopmentNetwork have shown in the development andimplementation of the further educationmodelCHP. In particular we appreciated thecommitment to support Cumbernauld College indeveloping a shared service IT solution for use byall colleges, helping to ensure a consistency ofrecording and reporting across the sector.

Supporting collegesA key objective of the CSA is improvementthroughmonitoring, promoting and facilitating thesharing of best practice in complaints handlingand supporting service providers in improvingtheir complaints handling.We aim to achieve thisthrough developing and coordinating networks ofcomplaints handlers, promoting good complaintshandling by providers through the sharing of bestpractice and by developing and delivering highquality training.

Network of complaints handlersAswith other sectors our aim is to establish anetwork of complaints handlers for the furthereducation sector, led by individuals from thesector. The aims of the networkwill include

supporting complaints handling practitioners,sharing best practice and learning, developingstandardised reporting frameworks and providinga forum for benchmarking performance againstSPSO indicators. The networkwill also provide avoice for the sector on specific issues affectingcomplaints handling.

Our CSA team: FrancescaRichards, PaulMcFadden, JohnStevenson

For thefirst timemembersof the publicwill have accessto clear, transparent andconsistent information onthe volumeof complaintsreceived by colleges andhow they have handledthese.



ValuingComplaintswebsiteand online forumIn 2012/13we facilitated the sharing of knowledgeand best practice in complaints handling throughthe launch of our dedicated CSAwebsite atwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk. Thewebsite,launched inMay 2012, provides:> information on the CSA and progress on

roll-out across the sectors, including accesstomodel CHPs and the requirements toimplement these;

> good practice guidance on complaints handlingand links to relevant sources of informationand best practice in complaints handling;

> an online community forum for discussionand sharing best practice in the professionalcomplaints handling community, bothwithinand between sectors.

> an SPSO training centre providing access toour e-learning resources, and informationabout directly provided courses offered by theSPSO training unit.

Our aim over the year has been to develop thewebsite and forumand increase its usage as acentral information point for complaints handlers.The aim of the online forum, in particular, is tofacilitate the effective professional networking ofcomplaints handlers and support the sharing ofexperiences and learning.

TrainingTraining coursesOur training unit worked closely with the CSAthroughout 2012/13,meeting a steep increase indemand for direct delivery training coursesresulting from the introduction of themodel CHPsand our engagementwith the various sectorsincluding further education. Classroom-basedtraining for complaints investigators and othersinvolved in complaints handling remains crucialto improving theway that organisations handlecomplaints, particularly on reaching the rightdecisions first time.

E-learning coursesDuring the yearwe launched a number ofe-learningmodules on complaints handling.They aim to increase awareness of the importanceof good complaints handling and the role offrontline staff in complaints, and help improve theskills required for successful frontline resolution.Themodules are available free of charge to publicsector staff and can be accessed through thetraining centre of our Valuing Complaints website.

Themodules provide an opportunity for staff tothink about complaints and how they handle them.They include real life scenarios so learners areable to practice new knowledge and skills in a safeenvironment, and they also demonstrate howcomplaints can be used to improve services.We are grateful to our further education sectorpartners for their help in tailoring these productstomake them relevant to their sector.

Formore about theCSA, visitwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk and to learnabout our training activities, visitwww.spsotraining.org.uk

www.spsotraining.org.uk

www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk


CASE STUDIES

These case studies are from investigationswehavepublishedaboutcomplaints about further education in 2012/13. They showhow thingscangowrongwhenpolicies arenot followed, or complaints arenotinvestigatedproperly. Oneshowspositive action taken in response to acomplaint. To share this goodpractice, reports onourwebsite normallyhighlightwhereanorganisationhas takensuchaction.

An employer complained that a college did not give him all the information about what heneeded to do to qualify for an incentive scheme and receive the payment that he expectedfor employing a young person. Our investigation found that therewas a lack of clear andconsistent written communication from the college about the scheme and its requirements.We also found that the college had not conducted an adequate investigation into thecomplaint as, although they considered all the information they held, they did not fullyexplore contradictions in communications and did not ask for all the employer’s evidence.

RecommendationsThe college, after discussion with the scheme providers, provide their partner employerswith clear summary information on such schemes and apologise for failing to conduct anadequate investigation into the complaint.

Communication and complaints handlingCase 201202599

A student complained that he had not received adequate feedback froma college during hisstudies. He said that as he had been unable to progress to the next year of his course he hadto enrol for it elsewhere. Thismeant that he had to undertakework he had already completedand that he lost his student funding.Wemade several enquiries of the college and examined their complaints and assessmentprocedures, aswell as considering information from the student.We also asked formoreinformation about the student being unable to progress. The college explained that they hadin fact offered him the opportunity to continue his studies, and this was supported by theevidencewe 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 record-keepingwas poor as they could not produce a report that they said had beenwritten. Thiswas contrary to their procedurewhich said that theywould keep accurate and completerecords of all complaints received and the resulting correspondence, interviews and actions.

RecommendationsThe college remind staff to ensure that all individual complaints are addressed, and of theneed to keep accurate records in line with the college complaints procedure.

Feedback procedures and complaints handlingCase 201201264


CASE STUDIES

A group of former college students complained that their college did not deliver timetabledteaching hours or provide additional support that was necessary because of their particularneeds. They said that the college did not address or listen to their informal complaints, anddid not reasonably handle two formal complaints and an appeal.Whenwe investigated, wefound that the college had destroyed their records, and could supply no information aboutthe teaching or support provided. Thismeant that we could not find evidence to support orcontradict these concerns, andwe could not uphold this complaint. Therewas no evidenceavailable, either, to prove that the students hadmade informal complaints, or that theysubmitted the first formal complaint, sowe could not look at these.We looked at theevidence for the second complaint and the appeal and found that the college handled thecomplaint reasonably, but not the appeal. The staffmemberwho handled the appeal had alsodealt with the complaint, so should not have been involved. In addition, therewas nominuteof the appeal hearing and its outcomes. Because of this, we upheld the complaint aboutcomplaints handling.

In investigating these complaints, wewere hampered by a lack of evidence. Wewereparticularly concerned that the college destroyed records before the students had theopportunity to complain to us.We accepted the students’ complaints as being in time for usto look at (the law that set up our office says they can do sowithin a year of knowing aboutthematter they are complaining about). Althoughwe encourage people to approach us assoon as possible after completing the organisation’s complaints process, it does notmatterwhether they do so in the first or the twelfthmonth after the event – they have a right tocomplain during that time.Wewould, therefore, expect the college to have kept importantrecords relating to these students and their complaints for that period of time. As the collegeno longer had the records, and given apparent discrepancies between some of the destroyedand the remaining records, wewere concerned that natural justicemight not have beenserved. In our view, the college gaveweight and credibility to the anecdotal evidence of staff,while dismissing and discrediting the anecdotal evidence of studentswithout keeping theevidence they considered during the complaint.

RecommendationsThe college amend their complaints procedure to ensure that a staff member previouslyinvolved in a complaint does not deal with it at later stages; ensure that complaintsmeetings and appeal hearings areminuted and the complainant receives the outcome inwriting; contact the students to offer a further date for their appeal hearing; and provide theOmbudsmanwith evidence that the college nowmaintain complete student records, andhave a policy that ensures that these will be kept for an appropriate period, and in particularduring the period when a complaintmay be taken further.

Failure to address complaintsCase 201102379


CASE STUDIES

A student complained that a college did not respond to his complaints about the teaching staffon his course.We found a number of shortcomings in their handling of his complaints. It tookthem too long to respond, not all the issues he raisedwere properly considered, and therewasa lack of robust follow up action to improve his learning experience. The college apologisedunreservedly and reimbursed all the student’s fees.

RecommendationsThe college provide update training to all staff involved in stage one complaints handling.

Complaints handlingCase 201202303 Positive action takenby organisation

A collegewithdrew a student fromher course.When the awards agency then contacted thestudent to recover some of her student award, her father complained to us, and thishighlighted that the date onwhich his daughter’s studies endedwas disputed. Her father saidthat shewas still attending after the date onwhich the college said theywithdrew her fromherstudies. This affected the amount of student award shewas due to repay.

The college investigated and decided that the evidence supported their recordedwithdrawaldate. As part of our investigation, we reviewed their evidence for this, alongwith her father’sevidence.We considered the college's position to be reasonable and did not uphold thecomplaint. However, we noted that the student had not received formal notification that shehad beenwithdrawn. Telling her thismight have avoided the disagreement and the complaint,andwemade a recommendation to address this.

The student’s fatherwas also unhappywith the time it took to complete the complaintsprocess.We found that stage one of the processwas informal and that threemembers of staffdealt with him before his complaint was formalised and escalated to stage two.We thoughtthis took too long. After this, although the complaint was handled reasonably, the college failedto signpost him to the next stages.We upheld this complaint, but as a new standardisedcomplaints handling procedure for colleges, whichwould address this, was about to beintroduced in conjunctionwith the SPSO’s Complaints Standards Authority, wemade noother recommendations.

RecommendationsThe college revise their policy to ensure that students who are withdrawn from coursesare notified of this in writing.

Complaints handlingCase 201201691


Further information about this sector is available on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/statisticsFurtherEducationCasesDetermined2012–2013

STATISTICS

Cas

ety

peS

tage

Out

com

e

Enqu

iryA

dvic

e&

sign

post

ing

Enqu

iry0

10

00

00

00

01

Tota

l0

10

00

00

00

01

Tota

lenq

uirie

s0

10

00

00

00

01

Com

plai

ntA

dvic

eM

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

00

00

00

00

00

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

00

00

11

00

10

3

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

10

00

00

20

51

9

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

00

00

00

00

00

0

Pre

mat

ure

00

12

00

32

80

16

Tota

l1

01

21

15

214

128

Early

Res

olut

ion

1M

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

00

00

01

00

01

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

00

00

00

00

01

1

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

00

00

00

0

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

00

00

00

00

00

0

Pre

mat

ure

10

10

00

00

00

2

Tota

l1

01

00

01

00

14

Early

Res

olut

ion

2Fu

llyup

held

00

00

00

10

00

1

Par

tlyup

held

00

00

00

10

01

2

Not

uphe

ld0

00

00

00

00

00

Tota

l0

00

00

02

00

13

Inve

stig

atio

n1

Fully

uphe

ld0

00

00

00

00

11

Par

tlyup

held

00

10

00

00

00

1

Not

uphe

ld0

00

00

00

00

00

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

00

00

00

0

Tota

l0

01

00

00

00

12

Tota

lcom

plai

nts

20

32

11

82

144

37

Tota

lcon

tact

s2

13

21

18

214

438

Not

e‘N

ode

cisi

onre

ache

d’in

clud

esno

tdul

ym

ade,

with

draw

nan

dre

solv

edTh

ere

wer

eno

furt

here

duca

tion

com

plai

nts

dete

rmin

edat

Inve

stig

atio

n2

stag

ein

2012

/13

Academicappeal/examresults/degreeclassification

Admissions

Complaintshandling

Grants/allowances/bursaries

Outofjurisdiction

Personnelmatters

Policy/administration

Specialneeds–assessmentandprovision

Subjectunknown

Teachingandsupervision

Total

www.spso.org.uk/statistics

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

Tel 0800 377 7330Fax 0800 377 7331Web www.spso.org.ukCSA www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

www.spso.org.uk

spso further education complaints report 2012 13

Documents

complaints handlingwe

kinds of complaints

only37 complaints

highereducation complaints

annual complaints reportabout

education casesdetermined

education page

education sectorand