When is a “notification” a “complaint” to the Office for Students?

It said that a group of circa 80 Indian PGTs would not be able to re-sit a module because it is being scrapped and combined with another – suggesting that that could affect those students’ right to work in the UK on graduation.

Vaz now chairs the Integration Foundation, which he says provides citizens and in particular diaspora communities with access to decision-makers, and enables individuals, organisations, and communities “to understand issues of process and governance”.

As such the piece was reporting on a letter Vaz had written to the university, copying in the Office for Students (OfS) and the Indian high commissioner to London. He said:

If not addressed, this matter has severe consequences for the university, including potential damage to its reputation, legal ramifications, and the loss of trust from prospective students and their families.

Broadly, the piece suggested that the students concerned had failed in one module, with significant implications:

Without a resolution these young men and women will have their lives ruined… Research conducted reveals that each overseas student brings in £96,000 in economic benefits to the UK. We need them, and we need to treat them fairly.

At the time Eastern Eye obtained a comment from DMU as follows:

De Montfort University operates clear, independent and rigorous assessment processes, and we strongly refute these allegations… Inclusion and fairness are core to our values as an institution and we are confident we have treated students fairly and supported them to achieve their potential, while ensuring that we adhere to the very highest academic standards.

What’s especially interesting is Eastern Eye’s follow up story from last Friday. Under the headline “Exclusive: Regulator will investigate how De Montfort University handled racism claims”, it says that OfS Chair Lord (James) Wharton himself has now written to Vaz confirming that his colleagues will ask DMU for an explanation.

The information that you provided alongside your letter was passed immediately to our regulation team,..

I also understand that, since your letter, the OfS has been contacted by at least seven of the affected students directly… My colleagues are assessing all of the information sent by you and the students themselves to assess whether we have concerns related to our conditions of registration… We use all of the information shared with us, to build a picture of the risks posed to students and consider what, if any, regulatory action may be appropriate.

The usual caveat of “OfS cannot get involved when it comes to individual disputes between students and universities” is included, but the piece says that on this occasion OfS is taking the “unusual step” of stepping in:

On this occasion, we have decided it is appropriate for us to engage with the provider more broadly regarding its investigation into the matter.

As such, OfS seems to be treating the contact from both Vaz and the students as a “notification”. Both the process of and outcomes from making “notifications” to the Office for Students (OfS) – ostensibly to suggest that a provider might be in breach of one or more of the conditions of registration – tends to be pretty opaque. But apparently not this time.

There seems to be two issues in play. One is a large group of students failing a module. But the other is Eastern Eye reporting that some students complained they were told all their subjects were compulsory only after they arrived in the UK – “even though DMU marketed the module they failed as optional.” On the marking issue, a DMU spokesperson said:

De Montfort University operates clear, independent and rigorous assessment processes, and we strongly refute these allegations.

That includes:

…robust procedures for grading… [including]… marking by a first internal examiner, moderation of a sample of the work by a second internal examiner, a subsequent review by an examiner external to the university, and a final submission to an assessment board for full ratification of the marks.

Academic judgement is a tough one for any student to challenge. But the switch of a module to compulsory from optional is more interesting.

On that one, the DMU spokesperson said:

When we changed the status of one module from an optional to a core module, we did so following the correct university process and made all students on the course aware at the earliest opportunity. We also informed those starting later in the year about the change before they began at DMU. We received no complaints from students in response to these communications.

In its guidance, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) says that where any pre-contract information that universities have already provided changes, universities should obtain a student’s express agreement/consent to the change. It also says that students need to be given a genuine right to cancel and switch HE providers if changes are made. The right to cancel must be “real and capable of being exercised in practice”.

As such the case may well turn on whether OfS thinks that DMU has complied with Condition C1, which requires universities to give “due regard” to relevant guidance about how to comply with consumer protection law.

There’s no reference to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIAHE) in either of the pieces – and unless OfS uncovers some egregious issues in the marking, it’s hard to believe that the “fail” thing will change. But a public intervention in a consumer protection law case is more interesting.

If some rustling around from OfS (and/or the CMA) does cause something to happen, the open question is how or why other students with concerns can trigger such an intervention, apparently bypassing the OIA in the process. Not all students can get Keith Vaz to intervene on their behalf, and not all students can get the OfS Chair to write back publicly over a specific issue. This will be one to watch.