Originally on Acc Scot when comments were enabled.
Moved to Unacc Scot with Jesus permisssion.
Brief History
During my University degree I made a complaint to the University of Dundee against one of my tutors. With the formal complaint I attached several written evidences.
The University did not uphold my complaint. They ignored my written evidences and based their resolution in my tutor's “past” performance.
Despite I was told by University staff that I had grounds for appeal, my appeal was rejected for lack of grounds. Also the help and support to make a complaint often was not available.
I submitted a complaint to SPSO against the University of Dundee for mishandle my complaint.
The Problem
SPSO accepted to take my complaint against the University of Dundee and investigate:
- 1) University ignoring evidences on my complaint;
- 2) Uni's staff said there were grounds for appeal and later on it was rejected for lack of them; and
- 3) poor support during the complaint procedure.
During the investigation SPSO did not ask the University the fundamental questions on each issue. As consequence SPSO did not have any evidences that support SPSO resolution. And without having asked the basic questions SPSO resolution lack of value.
Expectation
SPSO should have asked the University the fundamental questions to start the investigation. For example; show me that you (the University) considered all the evidences during the student complaint.
On the issue of lack of support during the complaint.
SPSO should have asked to the help recommended by the University; Did you talk with the student during the complaint procedure? And, why not?
Corrective Action Expected
As the SPSO investigation was not done properly, it did'nt ask the fundamental questions, it did'nt have any evidences that support its resolution, SPSO should review the investigation and do it again.
Preventing this happening again
When a SPSO resolution is proved to have mistakes the reviewer should be removed. Perhaps on the first complaint mistake should be given a warning, and on the second or third the reviewer should be removed from investigating complaints and making resolutions.
A worker that doesn’t do his/her job properly should be removed and given an other/different task. I am not saying the reviewer should be fired but just removed from the task of review complaints. To remove a worker from a task or position is more effective than training or qualifications.
NOTE: SPSO means the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Comments made by Members in reverse order - newest first
#7
If AS is looking for a case study of SPSO bad practice, you have to keep in mind that everyone will have two complaints. We can only go to SPSO when we have been left down somewhere else.
Your (Richard B) comments just show that a quick read (as you did) is not enough to understand someone else complaint. And an opinion should not be based on a quick read. Because sometimes it’s a bit complex or confusing to understand some one else complaint.
In fact, for your comments I can see you don’t understand the meaning of my complaint or what I complain for.
I didn’t ask SPSO to look academic decisions, as you are saying. Actually I complained to SPSO because the reviewer enquired on academic matters, and obviously was given academic response. I complained that was against SPSO own rules to enquiry academic matters, and also the reviewer didn’t have the knowledge to understand the academic reply.
On my complaint submitted to SPSO, I specified and named the people from the University, SPSO knew who should enquiry, and actually did. (although didn’t ask the basic questions)
Dear Richard Burton, Honestly I would be very grateful if you could show me SPSO resolution was appropriate. Because I don’t have any desire to feel I have been mistreated, and carry on with this.
SPSO agreed to investigate whether the University considered all the evidences provided by the student (me).
You (Richard B) are not convinced SPSO resolution was inappropriate.
Please tell me what proofs SPSO got that the University considered all the evidences and didn’t ignore any. (I got all communications, enquiries and response between SPSO and the University, and SPSO didn’t even ask)
SPSO agreed to investigate that the support I got from the University was poor. SPSO didn’t even ask to Student Assessor (the main person should help us); did you talked with the student (me)? And, why not? (this was basic question to ask).
SPSO should have asked to Academic Secretary; is it true that you (Academic Secretary) had to ask Student Assessor to meet the student? (basic question) because the Student Assessor ignored the student’s calls.
Rather than say this is not a good example of SPSO acting improperly, because; it is not too detailed, or doesn’t mention who should be questioned. It would make more sense if you just tell me to give you the details you feel are needed. Only then you should say whether you think is a good example or not.
Or perhaps just read the complaint and SPSO response properly, because I see you don’t understand it and got it wrong.
[Posted by RGTR with Mr Sanchez's consent]
However, if the university did reach its conclusion on the basis of the tutor's past record - rather than reviewing the evidence in this particular complaint - it hardly seems a proper way to proceed.
The student must feel a real sense of grievance to have taken it to the SPSO.
[Posted by RGTR with Dr Walter Hume's consent]
It is obvious that he was caught in an internecine war between two protagonists who had been fighting for years.
It is necessary to "stand back" and look at the over all picture NOT the nitty gritty.
Richard T-R
--------------------------------------
His case as presented on our website is only useful as an indication to members of his general circumstances. It should certainly not be more publicly available as it is uninformative and would give a bad impression of AS. We both
have an email from him giving a fuller account.
As a point more generally applicable, he has two complaints - one against the university and one against the SPSO. It helps to distinguish these in our 'dossier'. My impression is that he has good grounds to complain about the uni, though I would not wish to judge.
As for the SPSO, after a quick read through of their long letter of response, I am not convinced that the judgement was inappropriate. They are not empowered to look at academic decisions. Who in the uni should have been questionned who
was not?
My special interest is in clear-cut examples of evidence for the SPSO definitely acting improperly. This does not seem to be such an example.
To make a serious judgement from any case study you need to read all documents, in this case the full complaint and SPSO resolution. I’d even add my complaint for bad service to SPSO.