Office of the Independent Adjudicator


The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education is a Company Limited by Guarantee and a registered charity which has been designated under the Higher Education Act 2004 to run the higher education student complaints scheme within England and Wales. The outline the complaints that it can and cannot review, these contain new rules from the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The OIA has no regulatory powers over higher education providers, such as universities or colleges, and is unable to punish or fine them. The OIA is a recognised ADR.

History

As a result of recommendations from the Dearing Report, consultations began about an independent body to which students could make complaints. A white paper in 2003 set out the government goal of establishing the body via legislation. The OIA was established in 2003 and began running a voluntary scheme in 2004 with it becoming the designated operator of the student complaints scheme in 2005. The OIA has effectively replaced the role of the Visitor, as student complaints were specifically excluded from the remit of the Visitor in the Higher Education Act 2004. By law, all higher education bodies are required to abide by the rules of the OIA's Complaints Scheme. The OIA is not a "public authority" and therefore not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or required to answer requests for information. but is covered by a subject access request.

Student complaints scheme

The OIA is funded by compulsory annual subscriptions from over 800 higher education providers that are members of its Scheme., receiving £5.4 million in 2019 from subscriptions. The has 15 members.
Making a complaint to the OIA does not prevent a student from bringing legal proceedings against the higher education provider if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of an OIA review. In making a decision about a complaint the OIA may consider whether or not the higher education provider properly applied its regulations and followed its procedures, and whether or not the higher education provider’s decision was reasonable. The OIA has absolute discretion whether to review a complaint.
Disagreeing with the OIA's decision would be covered by a judicial review which can Its remit is limited to complaints which have completed the internal procedures of a higher education provider. Under the OIA's Rules, a provider will send the student a letter, called a Completion of Procedures Letter, confirming when the provider's internal processes are completed. The OIA cannot review a complaint about the academic judgment of a higher education provider. The OIA must receive a student’s Complaint Form within 12 months of the date of the Completion of Procedures Letter.
The OIA looks at a wide range of "procedural issues" but it does not adjudicate on issues of "academic judgment". It functions by seeking information from both complainant and the Higher Education Institution and allowing each party to comment. Results can include payment of compensation from the higher education institution where the complaint is upheld and so far compensation payments have exceeded £700,000 with the largest single award being £45,000 compensating a student for legal expenses. In 2015, 20 complainants in all received more than £5,000. The other 210 received an average of less than £1,500.. In 2010, the number of complaints represented just 0.05 per cent of the 2.2m enrolled in higher education.
In 2019, only 3% of complaints reviewed by the OIA were Justified, 11% were Partly Justified, 9% Settled, 17% were classed as Not Eligible, 10% were withdrawn and 50% were Not Justified.. The OIA has discretion to publish summaries of complaints
The OIA is required to report to the board and publish in his annual report any non-compliance with recommendations by a university.
The rules of the OIA are arranged to allow the OIA maximum discretion in the way they make their decisions and in what information they make available. This discretion is used to keep the number of successful complaints down to a minimum as well as making their own role in bias towards Universities unaccountable and hidden from those who do not wish to see v OIA'. For example, Jan Harris is a solicitor whose firm 'Eversheds LLP' used to represent Universities against student complaints prior to the OIA, had a hand in drafting the OIA rules.
JAN HARRIS “PRACTICAL ADVICE AND INVALUABLE EXPERTISE” LEGAL 500
Jan started her career working in university departmental administration at the University of York. She then read law at the University of Essex and qualified as a solicitor with Eversheds LLP in 1992.
Prior to becoming a founding partner in JG Poole & Co LLP in 2013, she worked in senior roles at both Eversheds LLP and Mills & Reeve LLP. Jan has had extensive experience of advising the higher education sector over the last twenty years.
A litigator by background, Jan has advised higher education institutions on a wide variety of student matters including claims of discrimination, discipline issues and complaints by students to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. Jan has a particular interest in OIA matters, as when the OIA was set up, Jan drafted the rules and procedures to which the OIA was working. Jan also advises on student/pupil discipline, policies and procedures and contractual terms and conditions. Jan advises regularly on matters of HE governance. Her work in this area includes advising on updates and amendments to constitutional documents, including liaising with the Privy Council as part of the approval process. In addition, Jan’s area of expertise also covers information law and she provides advice in respect of matters of compliance with the Data Protection and Freedom of Information regimes, including internal and external appeals. Jan is ranked by Chambers and Partners who say “she has a wealth of expertise in higher education and has the ability to help you find sustainable solutions to issues”. https://www.jgpoole.co.uk/the-team/
Eversheds LLP continue to maintain a presence on the OIA board, further compromising the integrity of independence
In addition, there are certainly four bars to the openness and transparency claimed to be an integral part of the OIA values.
For example, Bar 1:- the case-handler has absolute discretion over what materials are reviewed or omitted from the rationale for the decision. Rule 9.2. “Our review does not have to follow the same rules of evidence as legal proceedings and we do not have to follow decisions we have made about other complaints.” and “When we have decided that we have all of the information relevant to the complaint we will contact the student and the higher education provider to tell them this. It is up to the person reviewing the complaint to decide when they have all the information they need to make a decision on the complaint. The person reviewing the complaint also decides what, if any, questions they need to ask about the student’s complaint.”. This unfettered and blanket discretion translates into an arbitrary selection of evidence review, with no means of predicting what materials will be considered and if omitted from that review, why no weight was given to it. The OIA case-handler has absolute discretion as to what materials/ evidence is considered within the complaint. There is evidence from several sources including the OIA’s own commissioned study that many complainants perceive of an extreme bias in favour of the providers over the complainant, with either the provider’s word taken at face value as the interpretation of evidence submitted by complainants, or where the evidence provided is simply omitted altogether from the review. See the full peer reviewed publication for further details
There is widespread dissatisfaction with the remedies awarded to successful students at the OIA. There is also widespread dissatisfaction with the remit of the OIA.. In a Report commissioned by the OIA, titled Student Satisfaction with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, said "in all, the predominant emotions felt by students at the end of the OIA process are highly negative, and very similar to those felt by students at the end of the HEI process that led them to the OIA."
Lord Justice Longmore in R v OIA'' considered whether, because the OIA is funded by higher education providers, it is unable to avoid the appearance of bias. Lord Justice Longmore concluded "In all these circumstances I just do not see how it can be said that any fair-minded and informed observer could say that there was a real possibility that the OIA in general or its Independent Adjudicator or any individual case-handler was biased in favour of the under scrutiny in any particular case or lacked independence in any way".