Law student complaints: Brunel University
Universities were asked to provide the following information:
1. For each of the years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (to date of this request):
(a) The number of students at the university on (i) LLB / BA Law and (ii) (if offered) GDL/CPE programmes who, to the knowledge of the university, complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA).
(b) The number of students on (i) LLB / BA Law and (ii) (if offered) GDL/CPE programmes whose complaints were regarded by the OIA as wholly or partly justified.
(c ) In the case of those complaints which were regarded by the OIA as wholly or partly justified please provide copies of the formal decision and recommendation(s) of the OIA.
The information provided is set out in the table below
Law student complaints - Brunel University
| Complaints to OIA | Complaints regarded by OIA as wholly/partly justified | Comments | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 1 | 1 | LLB | |||
| 2006 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2007 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| 2008 | 1 | 0 | LLB | |||
| 2009 | 1 | 0 | LLB | |||
2. The number of students on (i) LLB / BA Law and (ii) (if offered) GDL/CPE programmes between September 2004 and the date of this request who, having made a complaint to the university, (whether or not to the OIA), were awarded compensation by the university in respect of the complaint. And, in each case, the nature of the complaint and the amount of compensation awarded.
Student compensation payments
| Number of complaint | Nature of Complaint | Comments | Compensation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In 2005 a student complained about handling of her appeal against expulsion for plagiarism. (see above) | The OIA found that the Disciplinary Appeals Panel’s finding that there was no prima facie case for an appeal was not reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and recommended that ‘a fresh Disciplinary Appeals Panel should meet as soon as possible to decide whether there is a prima facie case. In doing so the Panel should take into account the ambiguity of its rules and general considerations of fairness discussed in this decision.’ In addition, it recommended that ‘the University should make a payment of £250 to [the complainant] forthwith in recognition of the inconvenience and stress caused by the delays and administrative errors…identified in this decision.’ | £250 | |||
–
| Links | Click | |
 |
CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS |
Criminal Law Online |
 |
REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS. For information about the next programme - click the pic. |
QED LAW REVISION |
–
