Office of the Independent Adjudicator

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) is a company that handles students' complaints against universities within England and Wales . The OIA does not investigate the merits of the original complaint, which can only be done through a court. It does however review if the higher education institution followed their own procedures. Their remit is limited to those complaints that have first been taken through the procedures of a higher education institution's own internal system without reaching a satisfactory conclusion in the view of the complainant. All complaints to the OIA must be made within three months of the conclusion of the internal investigation by the higher education institution, which should usually have resulted in issue of a 'Completion of Procedures' letter.

The OIA is the operator of the students complaint scheme as established in the Higher Education Act 2004. The OIA has effectively taken on board the powers of the visitor of an higher education institution 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 scheme.

It should be noted though that there are some very serious questions about the genuine independence of the OIA. In short, the University funded OIA is compiled from individual board members with successful careers since graduating, some of whom are former high ranking HEI staff members whilst others are currently serving. The OIA, drafted its own rules with the assistance of Eversheds, a firm of solicitors reputed for representing HEI's. These rules allow the OIA to exercise the widest possible range of discretion in terms of what evidence it reviews or ignores. Furthermore, the OIA does not consider academic or professional judgement issues and only considers whether the HEI followed its own rules or not during the internal complaint phase. This so called 'review' is conducted through the OIA 's principal method of a complaint 'file' system, which as the OIA have been made aware, is open to abuse by HEI 's, in that the OIA allow HEI 's to control and manipulate what information is omitted or communicated to the OIA (including:- dishonest; fabricated and malice materials). The outcome of this remarkable arrangement is that complaints are found to be in favour of HEI's on a statistically significant number of occasions (p<0.05; approximately ¾ of all cases annually). The OIA refuse to make visible the feedback comments of the majority of complainants about their own service, whilst publishing a few examples, which they 'hand-pick', thus a misleading picture is presented. However, the overwhelming number of feedback examples that have been published independently of the OIA, converge on the same point (i.e., that the OIA ignore evidence against HEI 's on issues of substance, which in turn can serve to justify decisions in support of HEI's, against the weight of that ignored evidence). This is facilitated through the unregulated audit process of the complaint 'file' system and the discretion of the individual decision making at the OIA. Furthermore, they do not come under the authority of the Law society nor do they have obligations to release information under the Freedom on Information Act, so they really are in a position of being unaccountable to the public. They simply do not have to reveal the details of any case or number of cases that do not fit the misleading image that they present of themselves. The OIA drafted its own rules (with the assistance of Eversheds, a firm of solicitors reputed for representing HEI 's [1]), which were based along the lines of deciding on the outcome of a complaint depending on whether the HEI followed its own rules or not when deciding on a complaint internally. The OIA does this primarily by reviewing the contents of the complaint file and without seeking full disclosure of how the contents were compiled. Furthermore, as the OIA must realise, there is no independent body deciding on whether the HEI 's internal complaint rules are fair to start with. The OIA, having had a hand in making its own rules, have absolute discretion on which individual items of evidence they choose to consider or not when reviewing a complaint. Given the unregulated complaint file system, from which the OIA decide on the HEI 's internal handling of the complaint, the opportunity for manipulating the complaint file's contents is vulnerable to extreme abuse by HEI 's, both in terms of the HEI 's claims about its handling of the complaint and about any attacks it chooses to make regarding the complainant's character or motives, both for making a complaint to the OIA and for the initial complaint to the University (HEI). The independent multiple negative feedback comments available so far, suggest that this abuse is wide spread (For example, see the NUS report in the 'Speak Out if you Dare' Guardian publication, dated 17th February 2009.

History

As a result of recommendations from the Nolan and Dearing reports, 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 first independent adjudicator was Baroness Deech. Following her retirement in May 2008, Robert Behrens was appointed Independent Adjudicator and chief executive.

Prior to the establishment of the OIA, universities offered internal processes there was a widespread belief that these were frequently ineffective and often perceived by students as impractical. However, the students claim the current system is also frequently ineffective, biased, and often perceived by students as impractical. Some cases taking more than two years to be decided on.

The OIA is not classed as a 'public authority' but is classed as a private company. The OIA is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and not oblidged to answer requests for information.

Remit

The OIA's 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. The independent adjudicator is required to report to the board and publish in his annual report any non-compliance with recommendations by a university. 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.

The OIA claim not to be able to review or comment on already closed cases as it affects their independence. However, in a recent judicial review they reviewed an already closed file. The OIA reached a new judgement before the judicial review hearings commenced.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator complaints procedure

It is very difficult to complain about procedural issues and customer service within the OIA as a complainant due to its apparent remit on being fair, independent, and unbiased. Students have criticised their policy and due difficulty in complaining about cases, which the OIA consider in all circumstances closed after their judgments. It has also been condemned by independent reviewers hired by the OIA.

Judicial review

An OIA decision can be reviewed by judicial review. The application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grievance arose.

External links

• OIA Homepage
• A student's criticisms of the OIA
• Student complaints rise, but fewer are justified, The Times
• Critical judgment for complaints watchdog, The Times