1. General Principles
2. The Process
1. General Principles
1.1 The University of Southampton is committed to ensuring
that we provide for our students a high quality educational
experience, supported by
appropriate academic, administrative and welfare services and facilities.
We recognise,
however, that there may
be occasions when students will feel that they have cause for complaint.
In this context, a
complaint is defined as
an expression of dissatisfaction either about the courses, facilities or
services provided by the
University, or about actions
or lack of actions by the University or its staff. Complaints may be made
by individual students
or by groups of students;
they may not be lodged by a representative, a parent or any other third
party. This Complaints
Procedure sets out how students
may seek to have complaints addressed. It should be recognised that the
vast majority of
student complaints can be
handled fairly, amicably, and to the satisfaction of all concerned without
recourse to this
procedure. In the first
instance, students with a complaint should raise it informally with the
relevant member of staff. If this
course of action proves
unsatisfactory, then the procedure set out in this document should be observed.
This procedure
does not cover the
following matters, for which separate procedures exist:
1.2 The "Student Handbook" sets out the general entitlements
and responsibilities of students and is distributed to
every incoming student at
their initial registration; it is also available at http://www.soton.ac.uk/~acreg/studenthbk.
If a
student believes that they
have a legitimate complaint, they should refer in the first instance to
the "Student Handbook" to
clarify what is reasonable
for them to expect from the University in the relevant area, and whether
they themselves have
discharged their corresponding
responsibilities, if applicable. If, having consulted the "Student Handbook",
the student
wishes to proceed with their
complaint, they may invoke the Complaints Procedure set out in this document.
2. The University will seek to ensure that all
complaints are treated seriously, positively and constructively. It will
also seek
to ensure that complaints
are dealt with promptly, with fairness and consistency and with due regard
to the University’s
Equal Opportunities Policy.
If a complaint is found to be justified, the University will take such
action or provide such
remedy as may be appropriate
and will do so promptly. If a complaint is not upheld, the reasons for
the decision will be
communicated to the complainant.
3. Complainants will not suffer any disadvantage
or recrimination as the result of making a complaint in good faith. Only
if
a complaint is judged to
have been made frivolously, vexatiously or with malice, could disciplinary
issues arise in relation to
the complainant.
4. Complainants and those against whom complaints
are made may expect complaints to be dealt with confidentially and
that their privacy will
be respected. However, it may be necessary to disclose information to others
in order to deal with
the complaint and in these
circumstances the parties concerned will be informed of such disclosure.
Whenever in the
course of a complaint being
dealt with, a complainant or a person against whom a complaint is made
is invited to discuss
the complaint orally or
to attend a hearing, they shall be entitled to be accompanied by a friend
or colleague, who may
speak on their behalf.
5. Anonymous complaints will not be dealt with
under this procedure. Staff who receive anonymous complaints will be
expected to use their discretion
and judgement as to how to handle such complaints.
6. The University believes that complaints should
be resolved as near as possible to the incident(s) giving rise to the
complaint. For this reason,
this Complaints Procedure provides for there to be a number of stages,
both informal and
formal, in the handling
of a complaint. Complaints will not be rejected solely on the grounds of
minor procedural
deficiencies on the part
of the complainant. At each stage of the process, the person to whom the
complaint has been
referred shall, if it is
upheld, wholly or in part, apply such remedies as are within their powers.
If they consider that the
remedy is outside their
powers, they shall refer the matter to the appropriate authority.
7. Heads of Departments/Schools and of Services
will monitor on an annual basis complaints which have been referred to
them and will be responsible
for implementing, or recommending to the appropriate authority, changes
to systems or
procedures suggested by
the nature and pattern of the complaints received. Such records will contain:
name (anonymised),
age, gender and ethnicity
of complainant; complainant’s programme of study; summary of complaint;
and summary of
outcome. The outcome of
such monitoring may also inform other processes or activities such as course
design or
postgraduate supervision.
Formal complaints submitted to the Academic Registrar will also be monitored.
Senate and
Council shall receive annually
a report on the outcome of the monitoring processes and shall consider
in the light of the
report whether changes to
the University’s systems and to the Complaints Procedure itself would be
appropriate.
8. This Complaints Procedure may be invoked
by students registered, part-time or full-time, on courses of the University
of
Southampton, except for
students registered at an Accredited College.
9. Advice about the Complaints Procedure may
be obtained from the appropriate Faculty Office; the Advice and Information
Centre in the Students’
Union; or the Co-ordinator of Student Services.
10. This Complaints Procedure was approved by Senate on
14 March 2001 and by Council on 4 April 2001 and forms part
of the University’s overall
quality assurance framework. It is informed by the Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher
Education’s Code of Practice
for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education,
and in
particular by Section 5:
Academic
Appeals and Student Complaints on Academic Matters (March 2000). It
will be
available on the University’s
web site, and a summary will be included in the "Student Handbook."
2. The Process
Stage One: Informal Complaint
2.1 The majority of complaints can be resolved satisfactorily
on an informal basis. If possible, the complainant should first raise
their complaint either orally
or in writing with the individual who is the subject of the complaint,
stating the remedy they are
seeking. The complaint must
normally be made within two months of the actions (or lack of actions)
which prompted the
complaint. The person who
is the subject of the complaint shall respond to the complaint normally
within ten working days
of the complaint being made;
and shall retain a note of the substance of the complaint and any action
taken. If it proves
impossible to respond fully
within
ten working days, the complainant shall be informed of the timescale
for the receipt of
a full response. If making
or responding to the complaint involves face to face contact between the
complainant and the
person against whom the
complaint has been made, both shall be entitled to be accompanied by a
friend or colleague. If
the person who is the subject
of the complaint rejects the complaint, they must state their reasons for
doing so.
2.2 If a complaint is of a general rather than specific
nature, it may be more appropriate to ask the relevant student
representative to raise
it at the Staff/Student Liaison Committee or other departmental or School
committee.
Stage Two: Written Complaint to Head of Department or Service
2.3 If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response
they receive from the person who is the subject of the complaint,
or if they feel unable to
approach that person directly, they should submit, within ten working
days of receiving the
response, a written complaint
to the Head of Department or School (if it relates to an academic matter)
or to the Head of
the Service concerned, e.g.,
the Librarian, the Director of Computing Services, or the Director of Business
Services. If the
Head of the Department or
School is the subject of the complaint, then the written complaint should
be made to the Dean
of the Faculty. If the complainant
is unsure whom to approach at this stage, they may seek advice from the
Co-ordinator
of Student Services or the
Advice and Information Centre in the Students’ Union. The written complaint
should set out
briefly: the nature of the
complaint; the informal steps already taken (if any); details of the response
received; and a
statement as to why the
complainant remains dissatisfied and, without prejudice to any formal remedy
which might be
determined, the remedy they
are seeking. The Head of Department or Service shall acknowledge in writing
receipt of a
complaint within five
working days. The Head of the Department or Service shall investigate
the complaint and shall
submit an interim written
response to the complainant normally within fifteen working days
of the receipt of the
complaint. If it should
prove impossible to respond fully within fifteen working days, the complainant
shall be informed in
writing of the timescale
for the receipt of a full response. If the investigation involves a face
to face meeting between the
Head of Department/School
or Service and the complainant and/or the person against whom the complaint
has been
made, the latter two shall
both be entitled to be accompanied by a friend or colleague. If the complaint
is not upheld,
reasons for this decision
must be stated.
Stage Three: Written Complaint to the Academic Registrar
2.4 If, having pursued the matter to this point, the complainant
remains dissatisfied with the written response, they
should, within ten working
days of receiving the response, refer the matter in writing to the
Academic Registrar and
should enclose copies of
the correspondence exchanged during the earlier stages of the procedure
and any other relevant
papers.
2.5 The Academic Registrar shall acknowledge in writing
receipt of a formal complaint within five working days. Subject
to
his/her being satisfied
that the complainant has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter
informally, using the
procedures in paragraphs
2.1/2.3, above, the Academic Registrar shall appoint a person or persons
within the University,
having no material interest
in the complaint, to carry out an investigation. The investigator(s) may
seek to resolve the issue
on the basis of documentation,
after having sought further information from the members of staff involved
in the earlier
investigation of the complaint
and from the complainant; or may, at the investigator(s) discretion, call
a hearing at which the
complainant and any other
persons involved may submit their respective cases. The complainant and
the person who is the
subject of the complaint
may each be accompanied at any such hearing by a friend or colleague, who
may speak on their
behalf if appropriate. In
the unavoidable absence of any parties in the hearing, the hearing may
be postponed, but the
voluntary absence of one
of the parties shall not prevent the hearing from proceeding.
2.6 After investigation of the complaint, the investigator(s)
shall decide whether the complaint is justified or not and shall
submit a report in writing
to the Academic Registrar, containing such recommendations as may be appropriate.
The
Academic Registrar shall
determine what action, if any, shall be taken and shall communicate this
in writing to the
complainant and all other
relevant parties, normally within thirty working days of the date of acknowledging
receipt of the
formal complaint. The Department/School
or Service may be asked to meet the reasonable and proportionate incidental
expenses necessarily incurred
by a successful complainant.
Stage Four: Written Appeal to the Vice-Chancellor
2.7 Following formal investigation of a student complaint
there shall be no right of appeal as to the merits of the case.
Dissatisfaction as to the
outcome of the complaint shall not in itself constitute an acceptable reason
for appeal. However, if
a complainant believes that
their complaint was not handled properly or fairly in accordance with the
procedures set out in
paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6,
then they may submit a letter of appeal to the Vice-Chancellor, requesting
a review. The letter
must set out the reasons
for requesting the review, should normally be submitted within ten working
days of notification
of the decision on the complaint
by the Academic Registrar, and should include copies of all previous correspondence
and
relevant papers.
2.8 Following receipt of an appeal, the Vice-Chancellor
shall designate one of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors to consider the
appeal. The Vice-Chancellor
will acknowledge receipt of the appeal within five working days
and will inform the
appellant which Deputy Vice-Chancellor
will handle the appeal. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor so designated shall
consider
the circumstances of the
case on the basis of the documentation and, having taken such advice as
he/she deems
necessary, shall determine
whether there is prima facie evidence to support the appeal that
the case had not been handled
properly or fairly. If the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor determines that no prima facie evidence exists,
then the appeal shall be
dismissed. If, however,
the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that there is prima facie
evidence to support the appeal,
then he/she shall review
the case. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor shall inform the appellant normally
within
thirty working
days of receipt of
the appeal either that there is no prima facie evidence to support
the appeal, and therefore that the
appeal has been dismissed,
or that the case is to be reviewed.
2.9 Reviews will normally be conducted by means of scrutiny
of written documentation. Following completion of a review,
the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
shall report its outcome to the Vice-Chancellor, and shall make such recommendations
as
he/she may deem appropriate.
The Vice-Chancellor (or the Academic Registrar, on his/her behalf) shall
ensure that any
appropriate action arising
from the report and its recommendations is taken, and shall inform the
appellant accordingly.
The Department/School or
Service may be asked to meet the reasonable and proportionate incidental
expenses
necessarily incurred by
a successful complainant.
Stage Five: Appeal to Council
2.10 The decision of the Vice-Chancellor is final, subject only to the
provisions of Section 17(20) of the Statutes of the
University. If the mechanisms
described above do not produce a solution which the student finds acceptable,
it is possible
under the University’s Statutes
(number 17(20)) to ask the Council "to entertain, adjudicate upon, and,
if thought fit,
redress any grievance."
In such instances a special committee is set up to reach a view whether
there is a prima facie case
for consideration, and,
if so, to consider the matter in detail and to reach an adjudication on
behalf of Council. Students
wishing to initiate a grievance
to Council should write to the Secretary and Registrar, setting out the
grounds on which they
feel aggrieved; and documenting
the action they have taken to attempt to resolve the problem.
Stage Six: Petition to the Visitor
2.11 There also exists an external mechanism for review of the
University’s actions: this is currently Her Majesty the Queen
in her capacity as Visitor
who operates through the President of the Privy Council. A statement issued
by the Privy
Council entitled "Petitions
To the President Of The Council In Her Role As Visitor" explains what matters
are, or are not,
suitable for a petition
to the Visitor; how a petition should be prepared; and how petitions will
be dealt with. The Privy
Council Office statement
can be accessed at http://www..privy-council.org.uk/president/1999/petitions.html.
The
paragraphs that follow (2.11.1/8)
are extracted from this document.
2.11.1 The Visitor may consider a petition only if the University’s
own internal procedures have been exhausted. The Visitor
will not intervene on matters which turn purely on academic assessment.
The Visitor’s role is to review the application
by the University of its own internal procedures. The Visitor will not
normally intervene unless it can be shown that the
University has failed to observe its own rules or procedures; or that,
although it has followed the proper procedures, it
has reached a decision that no reasonable body, properly directing itself,
and taking account of all relevant factors,
could have arrived at.
2.11.2 There is no set format for a petition, and there is no
need to use legalistic language, nor does a petition need to
be lengthy. A petition should: set out the facts clearly in chronological
order; be specific about the particular procedures
which are alleged to have been breached; enclose copies of the relevant
rules and regulations and any other relevant
documents, including any correspondence which bears on the case; say clearly
what action the Visitor is being asked to
take. Petitioners should try to avoid emotive language and to adopt a neutral
and factual tone.
2.11.3 Petitions should be addressed to: The Clerk of the Council,
Privy Council Office, 2 Carlton Gardens, London SW1Y
5AA. They should be clearly marked "Petition to the Visitor."
2.11.4 Petitions are initially examined to see whether there is
a prima facie case for the Visitor’s intervention. (See 2.11.1,
above.) at this stage, there may be correspondence with the petitioner
to clear up any queries that arise.
2.11.5 If there appears to be no prima facie case, the
petitioner will be informed that, on the evidence so far presented,
there appear to be no grounds for the Visitor to intervene, with reasons.
It is open to the petitioner to provide
additional evidence to show that the case is, in fact, one in which the
Visitor can intervene.
2.11.6 If the petition appears to show a prima facie case
for the Visitor’s intervention, it will be forwarded to the University
for
an answer. The Visitor will formally direct the University to provide an
answer within six weeks. The University’s
response will then be sent to the petitioner, who will be able to respond
to the points made in it.
2.11.7 Once any response the petitioner wishes to make has been
received, the case will be submitted to the Visitor, who
will normally decide on the basis of the three sets of documents (the original
petition, the University’s answer and the
petitioner’s response). There will not normally be an oral hearing.
2.11.8 The petitioner and the University will then be informed of the Visitor’s decision, with the reasons for it.
3. Further Information
Further information about, or clarification of these procedures is available
from Dr R J Green, Senior Assistant Registrar, University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ; telephone: 023-80-593062; fax: 593037; e-mail <rjg1@soton.ac.uk>.