Bringing this to a close.
Statement of Reasons for SPSO not investigating my complaint.
As promised, here is the response I received from the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
“Firstly, I was sorry to learn you had cause to complain to University of Edinburgh (the
University).
Secondly, I do want to note that this letter includes the information that is required for
me to explain the reasons for my decision on your complaint. While I have carefully
reviewed all of the evidence available to me during the course of my assessment,
this report does not include every detail of that information. I want to reassure you
that my concise response is not intended to take away from your strength of feeling
on this matter but rather to avoid repeating information which all parties are aware of.
1. You have raised concerns about the attitude/conduct of a university staff
member. However, I understand that at the root of your complaint you
disagree with the University’s Dignity and Respect Policy which you feel
undermines free expression and academic freedom, and ultimately you are
seeking for the University to review the contents of the policy in light of your
concerns.
2. I have given careful consideration to all the information you submitted to our
office. I also requested some additional information from the University and
took account of the University’s Complaint Handling Procedure and their
Dignity and Respect Policy.
3. While I recognise your strength of feeling about these matters, I must tell you
that my decision is that your complaint is not one we will investigate. That is
because the University have responded reasonably to your complaint, and we
could not achieve the outcomes you told our office you are seeking.
4. The remit of this office is set out in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Act 2002.
5. It is not the role of this office to tell the University what its Dignity and Respect
Policy should be, which is a discretionary decision for them.
6. Rather, our role is to consider whether the University’s administrative handling
of this matter was reasonable i.e. whether they adhered to existing
policies/procedures, and how they handled your complaint.
7. Although you are clearly perfectly entitled to disagree with, or question the
University’s decisions, including their policies, that does not mean that there
has been administrative error or failing for which this office could investigate
further.
8. I would also add that complaints about attitude or about what was said
between individuals where there are no independent witnesses are difficult for
this office to determine. Please note that it is not a question of whether we
believe either version, but rather the matter cannot be substantiated due to a
lack of corroboration.
9. On the basis of the evidence I have seen, my view is that the University’s
response to your complaint appears reasonable. This is because they have:
i. provided a clear response which addressed your points of concern
(notably those about the staff member’s conduct during the meeting in
February 2024 and events leading up to it)
ii. explained the steps they took to investigate, including the
reasons why investigating officer had felt it not necessary to interview
you (notably the issues to be investigated had been clear)
iii. explained the reasons for their position not to uphold the complaint
based on their consideration of the evidence available to them
iv. apologised to you that their investigation wasn’t concluded within the
target 20-working days.
10.Furthermore, the University’s position that an explanation about the principles
underlying the policy would not be provided to you on the basis this falls
outwith the scope of their Complaint Handling Procedure (CHP) also appears
reasonable.
11.From a complaints handling perspective, the University have acted
appropriately by acknowledging the sensitivity of your concerns, and providing
a reasonable response, within the scope of their CHP, to the issues you had
raised.
12.It appears, however, that your continued disagreement is with the University’s
Dignity and Respect Policy itself, specifically the legitimacy of it, rather than
the way it has been applied.
13.As explained at point 5 above, it is not for this office to tell the University what
its Dignity and Respect Policy should be, nor could we offer any view on its
fitness for purpose or lawfulness. Only the courts could say whether the
University’s policy is discriminatory or is in violation of your rights regards
expression and opinion.
14.Again, I do recognise your strongly held views about these matters.
Nevertheless, an additional investigation by the SPSO would not be able to
helpfully add to the responses the University have already provided to you in
this matter, or achieve more for you, including the outcomes you said you
were seeking.
15.If you feel the University have discriminated against you, you may wish to
seek legal advice.