Overview
The complainant (Mr C) complained that Edinburgh College of Art (the College) did not handle his son (Mr A)'s academic appeals appropriately and that this disadvantaged him by delaying the start of his professional career.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) there were flaws in the way the College handled the initial approach by Mr A (partially upheld to the extent that the College did not supply Mr A with a copy of the Academic Appeals Policy and Procedures (the Appeals Policy) earlier, and did not advise him of the date of the Preliminary Assessment Panel (PAP));
- (b) the College attempted to influence Heriot-Watt University (the University), as the final point of appeal, inappropriately during the appeal (not upheld);
- (c) the College's responses to the University during the appeals process were inadequate (upheld);
- (d) advice given to Mr A following the initial appeal was inadequate and not documented (no finding);
- (e) procedures identified as potentially misleading following the first appeal (ie undocumented verbal feedback to students) were not corrected before the second (not upheld);
- (f) the attitude of College staff towards Mr C was not appropriate, including legal threats (not upheld); and
- (g) the time taken to deal with the appeals was excessive (partially upheld to the extent that the College's failure to comply with the University's request for comment on the grounds for appeal caused some of the delay in the overall processing of the second appeal);
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the College:
- (i) provide appellants with a copy of the Appeals Policy, or information on where to obtain a copy, when they first acknowledge receipt of an appeal. The College should also advise appellants of the date of the PAP, allowing reasonable time for appellants to seek advice from the Students' Representative Council General Manager and provide further information in support of their appeal;
- (ii) include, in the letter issued to appellants after the PAP, an explanation of why a decision has been reached that there are no prima facie grounds for an appeal to proceed, and an explicit statement of what avenue of appeal remains open;
- (iii) should not supply information to the University relating to an appeal unless that information can be supported by evidence or the information is clearly an opinion or comment given in response to such a request;
- (iv) apologise to Mr A for supplying unsubstantiated information to the University regarding his attendance;
- (v) should in future comply with requests for comment on the grounds for appeal from the University;
- (vi) draw up and implement a clear policy for managing unacceptable behaviour. The Ombudsman encourages the College to refer to the SPSO Unacceptable Actions Policy when drawing up their own policy; and
- (vii) include indicative timescales for holding the PAP and the Academic Appeals Committee in the next version of the Appeals Policy.
The College have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.