1. Developing a Good Practice
Framework for student complaints
Penta Hotel, Reading
Thursday, 6 June 2013
Rob Behrens
Chief Executive and
Independent Adjudicator
A Strategic Approach to complaints resolution
rob.behrens@oiahe.org.uk
“Comrades! The first principle of the
Revolution is effective time-keeping.”
- Govan Mbeki, after being released from Robben
Island after 25 years
1

2. THE OIA AS A STRATEGIC PARTNER
• A Classic Ombudsman Scheme – independent complaints
handler of last resort established under 2004 Higher
Education Act
• With experience of 10,000 cases and (almost) universal
compliance
• Sensitive to special features of Higher Education (R
(Mustafa) v OIA [2013] EWHC 1379)
• Free to students and with a year-on-year lowering of unit
costs for universities
• Use of Transparency to generate scrutiny, understanding
and public trust
• Member of the Regulatory Partnership Group (and partner
in developing the sector Operating Plan)
• Engine of Good Practice 2

3. EVIDENCE OF HIGH VOLUMES AND TRENDS -
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE OIA
34 42 52 41 76 56 114
508 544
682
859
931
1285
1491
542
586
734
900
1007
1341
1605
Over 2000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Combined for England
and Wales
England
Wales
3

4. WHAT IS COMPLAINED ABOUT:
2012 OUTTURNS
4
71%
9%
6%
3% 3% 3% 2%
1% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Academic statusService Issue (Contract)Academic Misconduct, Plagiarism & CheatingFinancial OtherDiscrimination & Human RightsDisciplinary matters (not academic)Welfare & AccommodationAdmission

5. REASONS FOR RISE IN COMPLAINTS
• Discussion about rise in fees and then the rise in
2012
• Students as consumers
• Decline in deference
• Rise in expectations – fall in status of 2.2
• Tightening of labour market
• Rise in vocational subjects (medicine, law, social
work, teaching – double qualification needed)
• OIA becoming more widely known
5

6. IMPACT OF INSTITUTION SIZE ON
COMPLAINT NUMBERS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Smallest
institution
Largest institution
Trendline
Number of complaints
6

7. RELATION BETWEEN INTERNAL COMPLAINTS
AND APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
BY OIA
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Number of
complaints received
with COP Letter
dated 2012
Number of COP
Letters issued
Institutions
which issued
least COP Letters
Institutions which issued most COP Letters 7

8. EVIDENCE OF HIGH VOLUMES AND TRENDS -
COMPLAINTS CLOSED BY THE OIA
8
213
381
639
786
886
825
1443
Around 1800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

9. Informing strategic and
operational planning through:
 Comparative engagement
and analysis to learn from
other sectors and countries
 The Pathway Series
 Complainant surveys
 Round-table meetings
 Routine visits to HEIs and
students unions
ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 1.
CONTINUOUS LISTENING AND
LEARNING
9

10. ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 2.
ADJUSTING MISSION AND VISION
Contributing to high quality student experience by the independent and
impartial adjudication and resolution of complaints. And promoting good
practice in complaints and appeals handling.
2013 Mission
By 2015 recognised as a key driver of high quality student experience
through: exemplary dispute resolution of student complaints; the
dissemination of a sector-wide good practice framework for complaints and
appeals handling in universities; and effective contribution to the risk-based
regulatory framework of higher education.
Defining Mission and Vision builds on analysis of Present-
State, Mandates and Resources, and Evidence-based approach.
2013 Vision
10

11. ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 3.
DEVELOPING BUSINESS PROCESSES
 Increasing front-line capacity
 Decentralisation of responsibility for case decisions – risk based
Approval and Management
 (Early) Assessment Team developed and expanded to assess
Eligibility and explore Settlements
 Triage and Settlement Processes to resolve cases as early as
possible
 Targets for monthly closures
 Element of Outsourcing
11

12. ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 4.
FEEDBACK AND PUBLICATION (I)
Errors and lack of consistency in
appeals process
o Student appealed degree award
on grounds of errors in the
examination questions and
issues related to final year
project. The university:
o Applied different regulations at
different stages in the appeal;
o Made errors in the
documentation concerning the
appeal, for example naming the
wrong module;
o Did not produce written minutes
of the appeal hearing;
o Took four months to inform the
student of the results of the
appeal; the regulations
stipulated seven days
o Gave the student and the OIA
inaccurate information about the
frequency of Examination Board
meetings.
Consideration of relevant
information
o Appeal by international
postgraduate student against
award of a Masters rather than a
PhD. From our review:
o Evidence that the appeal did not
consider documentation put
forward in support of the
student.
o Required personnel absent from
the appeal, in breach of
university regulations.
o Evidence that the student had
not been given appropriate
notice or time to make
suggested corrections to his PhD;
o No evidence that the exceptional
circumstances of the student,
who was facing serious criminal
charges, then dropped, while in
his home country, were taken
into account.
Threats to student
Text of email to student:
I spoke with your mother this
afternoon because she called
pleading for us to somehow
reverse the decision of the Board
of Examiners regarding your
failure, which is not going to
happen…..
I do not know what you mean by
"consider this for my appeal" but
if you choose to waste your time
(and ours) by appealing, the
Department will prepare a case
to explain its decision, which I do
not believe will be overturned.
All evidence would be
considered, including your
performance in the first project,
which your mother knew nothing
about…
I will not respond to further
emails from you and I will also
not engage in more telephone
conversations with you or any
member of your family…”
12

13. FEEDBACK AND PUBLICATION (II):
PUBLISHED ANNUAL LETTERS
13

14. IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON –
good practice
Imperial College London changed its
procedures to allow a student to
bring an appeal that did not fall
within the grounds listed in the
College’s procedures. While the
appeal itself was
unsuccessful, leading to the
student’s complaint to OIA, the
College’s flexibility in adapting its
procedures created opportunities for
other students in the future.
LONDON SOUTH BANK –
shortfalls in practice
The OIA upheld a case brought by a
student of the University where it
was found that:
The University’s procedures for
dealing with extenuating
circumstances claims were
inconsistent.
The University was unable to
demonstrate that it had taken full
consideration of the student’s
disability.
FEEDBACK AND PUBLICATION (III) –
PUBLIC INTEREST DECISIONS
14

15. ADDRESSING HIGH VOLUMES: 5.
INCENTIVISING INTERNAL RESOLUTION
• Broad support for revised funding model in
context of trend of significant annual
increases in complaints, and a growing
interest of ‘alternative suppliers’ in joining
the Scheme.
• Important to create a user pays principle
without closing off complainant access to
the OIA.
• Revised model retains, the simplicity and
clarity of the current arrangements based
on core subscription calculated by
numbers of enrolled students,
• And builds on them incrementally to
include initially a small case-related
element from 2014.
• Letter to Vice-Chancellors in December
2012 announced revisions.
• Case-related element based on points
relating to 2013 case profiles and provide
an estimated 10 per cent of OIA income.
• Each band has a ‘free’points threshold
with 3 points for cases reviewed to
Complaint Outcome, 2 for cases Settled or
Withdrawn and 1 for Not Eligible.
• Cost per point above the thresholds is
£200.
15

16. HOW THINGS GO WRONG
• University failed to follow its procedures
• Breaches of the duty to act fairly (natural justice)
• Information not properly considered (or not
demonstrated that it was)
• Delay or maladministration
• Non-implementation of appeal panel decision
• Cohort dealt with inconsistently
• Inadequate supervision/tuition/equipment
• Poor communication or misinformation
• Discrimination issues, especially disability
16

17. EARLY RESOLUTION INITIATIVE
 Campus Ombudsmen as suggested
by 2011 HE White Paper ?
 Diversity of existing provision
 Student Services Offices
 Students Union Advice Centres
 Student Conciliators
 Graduate Interns
 Complaint Mediation Schemes
 Mediation
 No “one size fits all”
 Canterbury Christ Church – wider
use of mediation
 University of South Wales – Student
Conciliators
 Sheffield – facilitated discussion
 Kingston – training in complaint
handling and mediation
 Huddersfield – student conciliators
 ARC linking pilots to good practice
procedure
17

18. FRAMEWORK OF GOOD PRACTICE (I)
80 per cent of Pathway 3
submissions agreed that a
framework focusing on
operational complaints and
appeals resolution would be
extremely useful.
This framework will be:
 Consultative
 Jointly developed
 Non- statutory
 A living document (web-
based) and
 Complement QAA Quality
Code
18

19. FRAMEWORK OF GOOD PRACTICE (II)
• Project steering
• Comparative analysis –
Scotland compared with
England and Wales
• Scope of Framework
• What non-statutory means
• Time-lines
• Consultation
• Implementation
19