Summary
Ms C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A), who is a medical student. She said that the university had not reasonably investigated concerns about her son's attendance before they referred the matter to a progress committee. Ms C said that the concerns amounted to misunderstandings that arose over the evidence of her son's attendance on particular placements, and that there were procedural errors in respect of the committee. She said that her son had not been given clear reasons for the referral to the committee, that the meeting was convened at short notice, and that information available on the day of the committee meeting had not been sent to him in advance. Ms C said her son was completely unprepared for the meeting. The committee decided that Mr A should repeat a year of study.
We did not uphold Ms C's complaints. Our investigation found that the referral to the progress committee was appropriate. Mr A had received a prior warning that any further absence would result in referral, and after this had taken two days sickness absence without following the agreed notification process. We did find that the committee meeting had been convened at short notice, but also that Mr A had agreed to this and had been told that the matter under discussion would be his persistent absence. We found no evidence that Mr A was unreasonably led to believe that only his most recent absences would be under discussion, and it was appropriate in the circumstances for the committee to take account of his full absence history including periods of absence in earlier academic years. Whilst the university ultimately accepted Mr A's account of his attendance on the placements, they considered that it would be appropriate for him to repeat a year of study to gain further clinical knowledge, and to remedy issues in following instructions and fulfilling professional responsibilities.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201301690 as a PDF (11.48 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018