Summary
Mr C complained that the university had unreasonably withdrawn him from his course of study. He considered that, contrary to the findings of the university's appeal process, he had appropriately corresponded with the university and engaged with his studies. He was removed for not responding to correspondence and not adhering to obligations of his visa with respect to attendance, particularly that he missed a number of face-to-face meetings.
We found that the university had corresponded with Mr C with respect to his studies, and a progress report for a number of months identified that he had failed to attend organised meetings. However, the university had not communicated with Mr C directly regarding his attendance or to remind him about the obligations in this regard, which was required under the university policy on student engagement.
We found that whilst the university should have issued additional communications to Mr C regarding his attendance, overall, the communication was reasonable as the progress reports correctly recorded that he had not attended as he should have. Mr C should have been aware of his obligations to attend, and there was an expectation on him to raise the very difficult circumstances which had impacted on his ability to attend meetings.
Overall, the communication was reasonable, Mr C confirmed he understood his obligations with respect to attendance at the subsequent hearing regarding his appeal, and the decision to remove him from his studies was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201808647 as a PDF (24.43 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020