Quality Handbook Section 17F - Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals Procedures - Requirements

3.1  There are three levels to the formal complaints part of the Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals Procedure:

1. Level One
2. Level Two
3. Level Three: Complaint Review

3.2 Doctoral candidates may use the Research Degrees Complaints Procedure if they are, or have been, enrolled as a doctoral candidate of the University.

3.3 Former doctoral candidates must raise any complaint no later than 60 working days from their last day as a doctoral candidate of the University. For the avoidance of doubt, the submission deadline will be calculated by the NTU Doctoral.

3.4 If doctoral candidates are making a collective complaint with a group of other doctoral candidates, the University will request a single nominated contact for purposes of communication.

3.5 Anonymous complaints will not be considered unless the supporting evidence is exceptional.

3.6 Complaints should be resolved amicably and quickly. Level 2 of the process is only invoked following an attempt to seek a resolution at Level 1.

3.7 Doctoral candidates are encouraged to seek independent advice from the NTSU  Information and Advice Service.

3.8 Doctoral candidates may choose to be accompanied to any meetings related to the complaints procedure either by a representative of the NTSU Information and Advice Centre or by a friend or representative. In this case, NTU Doctoral should be notified of this in advance of the meeting.

4.1 Grounds for a complaint might include (but are not limited to) the following:

1. Dissatisfaction with standards of academic provision (for example, programme design, content and structure, supervision, resources and facilities, information provided to doctoral candidates about the research programme);
2. Failure by the University to meet its obligations (for example, as set out in the NTU Student Charter, the research environment requirements specified in the UK Quality Code or other policies/processes);
3. Deficiencies in the standards of service (which may include problems with support facilities such as student support services or administrative support services e.g. NTU Finance, Academic Registry and/or the Academic School);
4. Harassment, bullying and victimisation;
5. Other deficiencies in the quality of the doctoral degree experience.

5.1 The following are matters that cannot constitute grounds for a complaint under this procedure and will not be eligible for consideration:

1. A challenge to academic judgement. The University defines academic judgment as a judgment made about an academic matter, such as the viva voce outcome, where only the opinion of an academic expert will suffice. For example, for Professional Doctorate candidates, a challenge of academic judgement cannot be made solely because the doctoral candidate believes they should have received a higher grade or mark;
2. Disciplinary issues (which would be considered under the PGR Code of Behaviour);
3. Complaints about the Research Degrees Admissions process;
4. Non-academic matters raised by doctoral candidates studying at partner institutions under a collaborative arrangement. In this case, the partner’s local complaints process should be followed before a complaint can be raised with the University.
5. Complaints about the Students’ Union, which should be directed to the Nottingham Trent Students’ Union.

7.1 Complaints must be raised no later than 60 working days from the incident or cause for concern using the PGR Level 1 Complaint Form and including supporting information and evidence.

7.2 The form and supporting evidence need to be submitted to the Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals inbox at RDcomplaintsandappeals@ntu.ac.uk.

7.3 The PGR Level 1 complaint will be acknowledged within five working days. A response will be conveyed within 20 working days.

7.4 If the doctoral candidate considers their complaint to be unresolved following the Level 1 outcome, or there is dissatisfaction with the outcome, the doctoral candidate may choose to escalate the complaint to Level Two.

8.1 A PGR Level Two Complaint Form must be submitted within 10 working days from the date of the Level 1 outcome.

8.2 Doctoral candidates must explain clearly on the PGR Level 2 Complaint Form why they believe that the complaint remains unresolved. Doctoral candidates should provide detailed information to support the claims and documentary evidence where possible.

8.3 NTU Doctoral will:

1. consider whether the complaint is eligible and has been submitted within the time frame; and
2. consider whether the issues raised in the complaint should be investigated under this procedure or whether they would be more effectively addressed through another procedure.

8.4 If the explanation or any detail on the PGR complaint form is unclear or ambiguous, NTU Doctoral may ask for further clarification or information.

8.5 The complaint will be acknowledged within five working days of receipt.

8.6 If the complaint is eligible, NTU Doctoral will nominate a PGR Complaint Investigator who will assess the claims against the evidence provided, consulting other staff and /or the complainant further where appropriate.

8.7 The doctoral candidate will receive an outcome within 30 working days from receipt of the Level 2 Complaint Form. If the investigation into the complaint will take longer, the doctoral candidate will be notified of the reasons and be provided with an expected date of response. The outcome will be sufficiently detailed for the doctoral candidate to understand the response.

8.8 If the complaint is upheld (in full or in part), a proposed remedy or other form of redress will be offered to the doctoral candidate.

8.9 If the complaint is not upheld, the doctoral candidate will be provided with an explanation for the decision.

8.10 The PGR Complaint Investigator may decide that the complaint is best considered by a Complaint Panel. Should this be the case, the doctoral candidate will be informed of this decision and the following will apply:

1. The Complaint Panel will comprise of:
   1. NTU Doctoral Standards and Quality Manager (or nominee);
   2. A member of University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) from outside the Academic School in which the doctoral candidate is enrolled;
   3. One member of staff from outside the School in which doctoral candidate is enrolled (or others involved in the complaint);
   4. A representative from the Students’ Union Executive Committee.
2. The doctoral candidate may be accompanied to the Panel Meeting by a friend or representative and the area of concern may be represented by up to two NTU members of staff. If the complaint relates to the actions of an NTU staff member (or more than one staff member), that NTU staff member may attend the Panel Meeting and has the right to bring a friend or representative.
3. All relevant papers will be provided to the members of the Panel and to the doctoral candidate. The doctoral candidate will be informed of the composition of the Panel five working days before the Panel Meeting. If the doctoral candidate feels that a Panel member has a conflict of interest, the doctoral candidate can submit a request in writing to the Complaint Investigator for a replacement.
4. If the doctoral candidate fails to attend the Panel Meeting, the Panel will decide whether to consider the complaint in their absence, dismiss the complaint, or invite the doctoral candidate to a re-convened Panel Meeting.
5. Where a Complaint Panel Investigation is deemed appropriate by the Complaint Investigator or nominee, the doctoral candidate will be provided with an amended date of response since the Level Two timeframe will not be applicable.

8.11 If any named individuals in the Complaints Panel are directly implicated in the case, they will be replaced.

8.12 The Other staff at the University may be informed of the complaint outcome with due regard to confidentiality, as appropriate.

9.1 Should the doctoral candidate feel dissatisfied with the outcome of the Level 2 complaint, the doctoral candidate may request a Complaint Review by completing the PGR Level 3 Complaint Review Form. The doctoral candidate must complete Level 2 before they can request a Complaint Review.

9.2 The request for a Complaint Review must be received within 10 working days from the date of the Level 2 outcome.

9.3 The only permissible grounds for a Complaint Review are:

1. That there was a procedural irregularity in the consideration of the complaint, which has materially affected the outcome; or
2. The doctoral candidate has new material evidence which could not have previously been made available, for valid reasons.

9.4 The doctoral candidate’s request for a PGR Complaint Review will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt.

9.5 The PGR Complaint Investigator will nominate a member of staff (not involved in any previous stages) to undertake a review of the complaint.

9.6 The PGR Complaint Review will not consider new or previous issues of the complaint afresh, nor will it involve further investigation. It will consist of a review of the evidence submitted in relation to the permissible grounds.

9.7 The doctoral candidate will receive a Completion of Procedures Letter within 15 working days from receipt of the request for a PGR Complaint Review. This letter will confirm that the doctoral candidate has completed the University’s internal procedure and will indicate how they may submit a complaint to the OIA. This is the end of the University’s internal procedure.

10.1 If a doctoral candidate remains reasonably dissatisfied with the outcome once the University’s internal processes have been completed, then the doctoral candidate may request an independent external review of the case by the OIA. The doctoral candidate must complete the University’s internal procedures before they can request an OIA review.

10.2 The complaint must be submitted to the OIA within 12 months from the date of the Completion of Procedures Letter from the University and must be submitted using the OIA’s form. The doctoral candidate must include the Completion of Procedures Letter with their submission.

10.3 Further information can be found on the OIA’s website.

Specific expectations related to Admissions Appeals

11.1 The University expects that all interactions between prospective candidates, supporters and staff are conducted with mutual understanding and respect. Any unacceptable behaviour will not be tolerated and may prejudice an application or appeal. In exceptional cases, where the seriousness of the behaviour has breached accepted norms, further action may be taken including, but not limited to, withdrawing an offer.

11.2 In exceptional circumstances, the University may feel morally or legally obliged to report its findings to other authorities.

11.3 The University is committed to the provision of an admissions service to all prospective candidates which is fair, efficient and transparent. However, the University recognises that there may be instances where a prospective candidate feels aggrieved with the research degrees admissions decisions or processes and wishes to bring their concerns to our attention either formally or informally.

Applicant Admissions Appeals Procedure

11.4 This procedure can only be used by applicants applying for admission to the University (where the admissions procedure is the sole responsibility of the University).

11.5 The University, where possible and whilst being sensitive to the concerns of the prospective candidate, will aim to deal with issues informally. Many issues can be dealt with appropriately in this manner and the University’s admissions appeals procedure has been designed with this in mind. This is not to say they will be treated with less importance and will still form an important part of the University’s regular review of its service delivery.

11.6 Any admissions appeal will be handled in isolation from the application and will not prejudice current or future applications.

11.7 The University will only normally accept an admission appeal directly from the prospective candidate, unless a third party has the explicit consent to act on their behalf.

11.8 Prospective candidates who feel that they have grounds for appeal should raise the matter within 10 working days of the last action/correspondence or admissions decision of the University.

11.9 For this procedure, an appeal is defined as a request from an unsuccessful prospective candidate to review the outcome of an admissions decision and should only be submitted on the following grounds:

1. they can evidence that the University has deviated from its own policy, procedures and practice; or
2. further information, which was not available at the time of application, is presented to the University; or
3. there is a perception or indication that the prospective candidate has been treated differently from another applicant in a similar situation.

11.10 It should be noted that prospective candidates have no right of appeal against decisions that are based on the academic or professional judgement of the University about suitability for admission. For example, academic judgement may be used to determine the suitability of prior learning (accredited or otherwise) for entry in lieu of formal qualifications, or an assessment of the suitability of subject knowledge from less traditional qualifications.

Procedure for Submitting an Admissions Appeal

11.11 Stage One: Request for feedback or clarification: Before submitting an appeal, a prospective candidate should normally contact Academic Registry (PGR) in writing to request feedback or to discuss their concerns.

11.12 Stage Two: Admissions Appeal: Before submitting an admissions appeal, the prospective candidate should ensure that they have read the grounds permitted for an admissions appeal. They should then submit an appeal using the appropriate form to NTU Doctoral using RDcomplaintsandappeals@ntu.ac.uk.

11.13 Stage Three: Where the prospective candidate remains dissatisfied with the outcome at Stage Two, they may request a review of the Stage Two decision. The prospective candidate must provide clear reasons/evidence for requesting a review (for example, evidencing that information had not been taken into account at Stage Two). The outcome of Stage Three will be considered final, and, therefore, the prospective candidate is unable to take the matter further with the University. A review can be requested from the Director of Research Culture and Environment (RCE) using RDcomplaintsandappeals@ntu.ac.uk.

11.14 As a minimum guideline, an Admissions Appeal (Stage Two) should include the following information:

1. Prospective candidate’s name and any relevant application reference numbers provided by the University;
2. Contact details;
3. Details of the grounds for the Admissions Appeal;
4. Any further information that the prospective candidate feels is relevant to their case.

11.15 An acknowledgement of an Admissions Appeal (Stage Two) or Review of an Admissions Appeal (Stage Three) will normally be made within five working days. The NTU Doctoral Administration Manager, or their nominee (e.g. Director of Doctoral Programmes DDP in the relevant Academic School), will investigate in conjunction with any relevant Academic School(s) and the outcome will be communicated within ten working days from acknowledgement. If, for any reason, these timescales for response cannot be met, the prospective candidate will be updated with the expected timescales within the ten working days from acknowledgement.

11.16 Where the Admissions Appeal relates to a selection decision and is upheld, the University cannot guarantee admissions to the academic year initially requested; however, where possible, an alternative point of entry may be offered.

Scope and Coverage

12.1 This Research Degrees Appeals Procedure allows for a doctoral candidate to bring an appeal against decisions made by the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB), where the decision relates to the doctoral candidate’s performance and progress and enables investigation of those concerns by the University.

12.2 This procedure applies to all NTU doctoral candidates.

12.3 Separate procedures and frameworks also exist for the following:

1. Procedure for investigating alleged research misconduct;
2. Disciplinary issues – PGR Code of Behaviour;
3. Doctoral candidates pursuing a Nottingham Trent University award at another institution under the University’s collaborative provision arrangements are referred to Section 20 of this procedure.

12.4 Doctoral candidates are reminded that this procedure may only be used to request a review of a formal decision about a doctoral candidate’s performance or progress made by the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB). This procedure should not be used where doctoral candidates wish to report dissatisfaction about supervision-related or service-related provision, which should be dealt with under the Research Degrees Complaints Procedure.

12.5 Disagreement with the academic judgement of the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) cannot in itself constitute a reason to appeal. Academic judgement is a judgement that is made about a matter where only the opinion of an academic expert will suffice.

12.6 An appeal can only be made in relation to the fairness of the procedure or facts of a case.

13.1 There are two stages to the Research Degrees Appeal Procedure, as follows:

1. Stage One: A doctoral candidate may wish to appeal against the decision of the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) or viva voce examination outcome. Such an appeal must be made within the permitted grounds set out in paragraph 15.2; and
2. Stage Two: A doctoral candidate may submit an appeal against the outcome of the subsequent outcome of Stage One. Such an appeal must be made within the permitted grounds set out in paragraph 17.2.

13.2 The following are matters that cannot constitute grounds for either Stage One or Stage Two and will not be eligible for consideration:

1. Disagreement with the academic judgement of the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB), as detailed in the introduction to this procedure;
2. Claims that academic performance was adversely affected where there is no contemporaneous, independent, medical or other evidence to support the application;
3. Frivolous vexatious or mischievous appeals.

15.1 A doctoral candidate may formally request a review of:

1. A viva voce examination outcome; or
2. The decision of the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) to terminate registration for a doctorate.

15.2 After notification of an outcome after a University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) or viva voce examination, a doctoral candidate may request a review of a decision on the following grounds only:

1. That there has been a material irregularity in the conduct of progress reviews of the candidate undertaken by the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB), or in the conduct of the viva voce examination; or
2. That there exist extenuating circumstances affecting the candidate’s performance, of which the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) or viva voce examination team were not aware when their decision was made.

15.3 A request for review must be submitted in writing using the appropriate form provided by NTU Doctoral and must be addressed to the Director of Research Culture and Environment (RCE). Such a request must be submitted not later than 10 working days from the date of notification of the viva voce examination decision or termination of registration and must demonstrate that it meets one or more of the permitted grounds for appeal. Where a doctoral candidate is unable to meet this timescale, they must state in their request why they have not been able to meet the deadline and provide the appropriate evidence to corroborate this. It will be the decision of the Chair of the Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee (of the University Research Degrees Committee) whether or not the submission is accepted and considered.

16.1 Where a request for review is submitted by a doctoral candidate, they will receive an acknowledgement confirming receipt of the request.

16.2 The doctoral candidate’s request will be considered by the Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee of the University Research Degrees Committee. To ensure no conflict of interest, the Chair will not have been and will not be involved in the doctoral candidate’s studies. NTU Doctoral will undertake an initial investigation and provide the relevant paperwork to the Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee.

16.3 The Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee will determine whether the submission:

1. is made on the permitted grounds; and
2. appears to be substantiated by the evidence provided.

16.4 The Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee may consult with the relevant supervisory team, the Chair of the relevant University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB), Professional Doctorate Course Leader, Director of Doctoral Programmes and any other relevant persons where the Committee believes that it is appropriate to do so.

16.5 The decision of the Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee, including reasons for that decision, will be communicated to the doctoral candidate (with a copy being provided to the Director of Doctoral Programmes, Professional Doctorate Course Leader if applicable, Director of Studies/Lead supervisor and  and Academic Registry (PGR)) within 20 working days of receipt of the doctoral candidate’s request and supporting evidence.

16.6 The decision of the Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee may include, but is not limited to, one of the following:

1. The submission is deemed not to have been made on one or more of the permitted grounds;
2. The submission is not deemed to be substantiated by the evidence presented;
3. The submission is deemed to be substantiated.

16.7 If the Research Degrees Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee deems a submission to be substantiated, it will be referred back to the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) for reconsideration.

16.8 NTU Doctoral will inform the doctoral candidate of the action that the University intends to take, within 10 working days of receiving the decision from the Complaints and Appeals Sub-Committee. This action may include a request for further evidence, in which case, the Chair of the Committee shall have discretion to either take Chair’s action and amend the original decision or convene an Exceptional Meeting of the relevant committee.

16.9 Any such determination that the University Research Degrees Progression Board (URDPB) should review its original decision does not guarantee a subsequent change to that original decision.

16.10 An Academic Registry (PGR) Administrator will record the outcomes on the doctoral candidate’s file.

18.1 An appeal against the outcome of Stage One must be submitted in writing using a form which will be provided by NTU Doctoral and must be addressed to the Director of Research Culture and Environment (RCE).

18.2 Appeals must be submitted not later than 10 working days from the date of last communication from the University from the Stage One outcome.

18.3 Where a doctoral candidate is unable to meet this timescale, they may seek an extension to the timescale from the Director of Research Culture and Environment (RCE). In exceptional circumstances, the Director of Research Culture and Environment (RCE) (or nominee) has the discretion to accept late submissions where the doctoral candidate has shown serious and valid reasons for the late submission and the failure to seek an extension earlier.

18.4 NTU Doctoral will collate the necessary investigation and relevant paperwork in relation to the doctoral candidate’s appeal.

20.1 Submission of request for review or an appeal should be to the host institution and further guidance can be found in the collaborative operational documentation as part of the joint collaboration agreements. These are managed in accordance with the processes set out in the Collaborative Operational documentation and associated collaborative agreements.