Summary
Mr C complained in his own right and on behalf of a fellow student (Ms A). He complained that the university failed to provide parts of the course as stated on the university website and in course handbooks.
We found the website did not categorically state that the specific points raised by Mr C and Ms A were core parts of the course. However, the wording was unclear and, in response to Mr C and Ms A's complaint, the university acted reasonably by removing the unclear wording. We also found that what Mr C and Ms A said was advertised but not provided was, in fact, available to students. Mr C and Ms A said they were disappointed in the standard of the course, in particular module content, and how the course was described in the module handbook compared to what was actually delivered. We found that all modules were delivered as part of the accredited programme. In terms of what specific subject matter was taught, we explained to Mr C and Ms A that we cannot investigate the exercise of academic judgement, therefore, we could not reach a finding on the specific academic issues they raised. We did not uphold the complaints.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201605965 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018