Summary of Points Raised and Issues Identified in Initial Consultation Sessions through 2
June 2014 and at the Quality Assurance Working Group held on 29 May 2014
A range of consultation discussion sessions have been held to inform the development of the
proposal for an integrated Student Complaints Resolution Pathway in the light of the University
Feedback and Complaints Resolution Framework. The proposals have continued to be refined in
the light of the critical success factors and risks raised and these will be taken into account when
developing the underpinning procedure and operational protocols as well as the associated
information, advice and guidance.
In addition to a range of information discussion sessions held, the Quality Assurance Working
Group considered and discussed the proposals at its meeting held on 29 May 2014 as set out in
paper QAWG.18/13-14. The proposal to pilot an integrated Student Complaints Resolution
Pathway was endorsed. The following points were raised at the meeting:





Clarity and transparency of the process was extremely important from a student perspective
and, therefore, there should be an easily accessible summary diagram of the process
available online for students (acknowledging the internationally diverse audience) with
appropriate links to further information in addition to the full procedure document.
Appropriate training and briefing was crucial to being successful in having as many concerns
and complaints resolved at the informal Stage 1 level as well as in appropriately escalating
and resolving at Stage 2. This includes frontline staff in academic and administrative and
professional service departments, those advising students (including Student Support
Services, Student Receptions/PG Hub, SU Advice and Welfare Centre, etc.); those
investigating complaints, and those servicing and serving on the Stage 3 Complaint Panel
(bearing in mind this would need to be undertaken for Sabbatical Officers on an annual
basis).
There was benefits from a student perspective in integrating service complaints into the
Student Pathway (in particular Warwick Accommodation).
Ensuring enhancement of student engagement and feedback evaluation with a view to
service improvement was seen as extremely important and this needed to be explicitly part of
the Framework albeit not perhaps a specific stage of the integrated Student Complaints
Resolution Pathway (bearing in mind the need to align where deemed appropriate to the OIA
Framework which has three stages similar to that outlined in the diagram).
It was confirmed that, while the OIA Framework consultation document did not currently
incorporate bullying and harassment complaints, the proposals for the Warwick pilot would.
The QAWG resolved (unconfirmed minute QAWG 27/13-14 refers):
(a)
That it would be necessary to ensure that adequate resources are in place to support the
operation of the proposed new student complaints pathway in order to assure its success;
(b)
That the means to recognise the commitment of those volunteering to train as mediators in
departmental workload models be explored further;
(c)
That any additional comments on the proposals be forwarded to the Director of Delivery
Assurance following the meeting.
and recommended to the Academic Quality and Standards Committee:
That the proposal from the Director of Delivery Assurance to develop a new integrated student
complaints pathway within the context of a revised University Feedback and Complaints
Resolution Framework, be approved as set out in paper QAWG 18/13-14, to be introduced as a
pilot during 2014/2015 inclusive of a review stage in the Summer term 2015.
In addition to points related to those outlined above from the QAWG meeting, the following is a
summary of those made within the initial consultation sessions:
 Within Warwick, the Department served as an important level at which complaints should be
resolved and that there was value in retaining a somewhat decentralised model as it was
typically best to resolve a complaint as close to its origin as possible.
 The mechanisms for and individuals involved in resolving informal complaints within
academic and service departments varied, but that Heads of Department and administrative
staff would value having one central contact point from which to seek advice and guidance.
[That enhanced communication between central services and departments in relation to
ongoing cases was important, as well as more effective ways of capturing and monitoring the
status of a complaints (and appeals).]
 Students should be encouraged to seek advice prior to submitting a formal complaint,
particularly if it is in relation to areas within the Dignity at Work and Study Policy and relevant
signposting and links should be embedded in the process.
 While there should be mechanisms whereby feedback can be provided anonymously within
departments, it is acknowledged that to resolve a complaint a student’s identity would need
to be disclosed and while it would be dealt with as confidentially as possible, it should be
clear that the contents of the complaint would typically need to be shared in order to resolve.
 The staged process incorporating a clear entry point to the formal complaint Stage 2 has
been strongly supported, though any ‘eligibility’ requirements for escalating complaints
needed to be provided as well as when complaints might be ‘de-escalated’ even if the Stage
2 form is completed and submitted (for instance, if there was insufficient resolution sought at
the informal frontline stage and no exceptional reason this couldn’t be undertaken).
 OIA timelines proposed seemed extremely tight and consideration needed to be given as to
how achievable they would be given the current, albeit recently increased, central resource
committed to this area as well as structures that might be put in place to expedite the
process. The need to engage senior academic staff on an ad hoc case by case basis was
highlighted in particular as lack of availability had often lengthened timelines in the past.
 A level of consistency across decisions relating to student complaints and appeals needed to
be achieved (and this linked to the training, advice and guidance available to those involved
in these processes).
 The development of mediation as an early resolution tool was strongly supported,
acknowledging that training in mediation would not only be beneficial for those acting as
mediators within complaints but also those who quite often deal with complaints regularly on
the frontline (e.g. personal tutors) .
 That further work would be undertaken to dovetail the integrated Student Complaints
Resolution procedure with: the academic appeals process, student disciplinary processes,
the University Research Code of Practice/Misconduct processes, the Students’ Union
complaints process, staff related processes particularly relating to student complaints
involving staff (acknowledging how distressing this can be for both parties).