Summary
Mr C complained about the university's handling of his complaint, and about financial redress offered to him by the university.
We found that the university considered all relevant events that led to Mr C's complaint, as well as relevant evidence from Mr C and from university staff and records. Mr C disagreed with the university's conclusion but that disagreement, of itself, was not evidence of an administrative failing by the university.
The university accepted that they took too long to deal with Mr C's complaint. In responding to Mr C, the university apologised for and explained the delay, and they took steps to prevent a similar situation from happening again.
The university offered financial redress for periods of Mr C's study that were affected by failings they identified, rather than the whole period of study as Mr C wanted. We concluded that the university's offer was reasonable in the circumstances. Mr C requested that the money be paid directly to him, however, the university intended to pay the money directly to Mr C's financial sponsor. We concluded that the university's decision to do this was also reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201604173 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018