Decision report 201002672

Summary
Mr C complained about an academic appeal about his postgraduate studies. He complained that the university did not handle the appeals process properly; did not maintain adequate records in relation to the faculty appeal; failed to take into account documentary evidence during the senate appeal; and took unnecessary amounts of time to provide requested documentary evidence. Mr C also complained that a departmental representative provided false, misleading or incomplete evidence during the senate appeals committee meeting.

When we investigated, we found that the university did handle the appeals process fairly and properly and acted in line with their academic appeals procedure. We also found there was no evidence that they did not take relevant evidence into account, and they did not take too long to provide evidence to Mr C. In addition, we did not find any reason to question the departmental representative's evidence to the senate appeals committee. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.