Give us a truly fair and impartial student complaints system!
The dissatisfaction with the student complaints system that currently exists is huge. So for the majority, you must be wondering why you haven't heard. Well the reason is that you probably haven't complained yet. By the time you do, it will already be too late for you to get justice. There are hundreds of students who already learned too late that the current adjudication system is not fit for purpose, and for some it has already cost them their careers. The law is not generally open to students, some have brought cases, but most of those have been rejected by the courts, who have, for the most part, denied that these cases are being heard in the correct forum. As a result there is only a dubious, second hand justice for most to take a long shot at, and only a small percentage of those will succeed. The rest are left chasing fog. Not planning on complaining? No, most of those who do weren't either! They assumed that if they did what they had set out to do, then there would be no reason to. Unfortunately, the university environment can be likened to driving, in that, even if you are the most careful driver on the planet, that does not guarantee some wanton lunatic won't crash into you. Universities have their own special brand of wanton lunatics.
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Your story is no different from the many that I have now been involved with. The clear issue is that the OIA are NOT a complaints system at all but a clearing house for those of us who have been deemed to be unfit to be in higher education for whatever reason, by elitists within that system.
For any student reading this, I can testify to the devastating truth of what Rich says here. The OIA are just a clearing house acting on behalf of the universities and the government to clear out the 'problem' with as little trouble to them as possible, Universities are autonomous, i.e. they govern themselves and their own affairs. They DO NOT have any relationship with the Education sector, they come under the governmental umbrella of the BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS DEPARTMENT, headed by David Willetts, and whatever high-minded ideas they might like to sell to you, they are taking your money and then arbitrarily deciding your future, and whether or not you are academically capable (i.e. your whole purpose for being there), is not a factor they necessarily consider.
For any student reading this, I can testify to the devastating truth of what Rich says here. The OIA are just a clearing house acting on behalf of the universities and the government to clear out the 'problem' with as little trouble to them as possible, Universities are autonomous, i.e. they govern themselves and their own affairs. They DO NOT have any relationship with the Education sector, they come under the governmental umbrella of the BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS DEPARTMENT, headed by David Willetts, and whatever high-minded ideas they might like to sell to you, they are taking your money and then arbitrarily deciding your future, and whether or not you are academically capable (i.e. your whole purpose for being there), is not a factor they necessarily consider.
(edited 10 years ago)
I do think most universities are like 'little Kingdoms' and they are given a lot of freedom to deal with their internal issues internally. Governments don't want to get involved since they don't want to be seen as infringing academic freedom.
How about your MP actually? I don't know if that'd be useful but just an idea.
How about your MP actually? I don't know if that'd be useful but just an idea.
Original post by arson_fire
But what`s actually wrong with OIAHE, and why should the taxpayer spend money fixing something which doesn`t appear to be broken?
Hi
I am guessing that you have never had a complaint with them, and have therefore never had a need to read the legislation which brought them into existence. [Higher Education Act 2004] I also am guessing that you have never read any documentation relating to decisions made by this organisation, alongside of evidence supplied by the aggrieved student. If you had, I am sure that you would not be so comfortable with believing that it isn't broken.
I don't blame you for believing that it isn't broken, because a lot of people in high places spend a great deal of money ensuring that a majority of interested people continue to believe that very thing. However, can you honestly, hand on heart, claim that the OIAHE are fit for purpose when:
•
The legislation that brought them into existence only requires them to have a set of rules, and then to abide by those rules?
•
Their rules can be anything?
•
They do not have to look at any or all evidence presented to them?
•
They do not attempt to put the student back into the position they were in prior to the event which caused the complaint?
•
They do not have to interpret legal words in the same way as the courts?
•
They do not have to explain to a student that their outcomes, even in the event of a success, are ALWAYS arbitrary, inadequate and bear no relation to the actual loss that the student has incurred?
•
They allow universities to claim actions to be about academic judgement when those actions can be clearly shown, with unambiguous evidence, to be a misuse of the University's assessment procedures?
•
They do not have to have an opinion on points of law such as whether a student has been discriminated against?
This list goes on and on and on...the OIA are a law unto themselves, and by the time they have finished mishandling your complaint, it is too late to take any other route to resolution.
The courts won't touch student complaints. If you try to go via that route, they just re-refer you to the OIAHE, even though any other person who was not a student would have a remedy in the law courts.
The only way to challenge the OIAHE is via Judicial Review. That means that, if like me, your University made sure that you would not gain work, then you will probably not be able to afford to challenge the OIAHE's blatant mishandling of your case, (which has followed the university's blatant mishandling of your case.)
Even people who have supposedly "won" their case with the OIAHE are in agreement with my assessment of their fitness for purpose or lack thereof.
If they were fit for purpose they would not be going around the Internet trying to get websites that criticise them shut down, as they have done with at least two sites that I am aware of.
There are too many issues with them to list here! I will continue later...I wish to reply to another post first...I'll be back ;-D
Julie
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by River85
Hi,
Sorry to hear about your difficulties.
Have you been able to speak to the Equality and Human Rights Commission? They should be able to provide some advice. There are other avenues, not just the OIA.
Sorry to hear about your difficulties.
Have you been able to speak to the Equality and Human Rights Commission? They should be able to provide some advice. There are other avenues, not just the OIA.
Hi River85
One issue for me, when starting this thread is that students should be aware of the alternatives, other avenues, and the true performance details of the OIAHE, before they enter into a relationship with a university and/or with the OIAHE. They should not be accidentally finding this out in a forum such as this one, when it is already too late for them!
With respect, a student is not seeking "advice" at the point when he/she becomes involved with the OIAHE. By this time the student has been through the university's internal complaints system and are clearly dissatisfied with the supposed resolution. By this time, many months will have passed, and the student is therefore already far removed from the ability to get justice, and has been deeply affected detrimentally by the process. They are at their most vulnerable, having now had any direct communication with the University severed.
Julie
Original post by clh_hilary
I do think most universities are like 'little Kingdoms' and they are given a lot of freedom to deal with their internal issues internally. Governments don't want to get involved since they don't want to be seen as infringing academic freedom.
How about your MP actually? I don't know if that'd be useful but just an idea.
How about your MP actually? I don't know if that'd be useful but just an idea.
Hi clh_hilary
Universities are not given "a lot of freedom", they are given complete autonomy! Regarding Governments not wanting to get involved, they DID get involved! They replaced the (equally useless) Visitor system with a quango, (the OIA), and legislated that they could make up their own rules, and that the only rule that bound them was that they would adhere to their own rules! How ludicrous is that!! Don't believe me? Read the legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/8/contents
Regarding academic freedom, that's just a poor excuse for rogue lecturers to target vulnerable students. I haven't seen ANY evidence to show that protecting students infringes on academic freedom.
Julie
Cuz I was just thinking - isn't that what MPs are for?
About the SU?
About the SU?
Original post by Megajules
Hi clh_hilary
Universities are not given "a lot of freedom", they are given complete autonomy! Regarding Governments not wanting to get involved, they DID get involved! They replaced the (equally useless) Visitor system with a quango, (the OIA), and legislated that they could make up their own rules, and that the only rule that bound them was that they would adhere to their own rules! How ludicrous is that!! Don't believe me? Read the legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/8/contents
Regarding academic freedom, that's just a poor excuse for rogue lecturers to target vulnerable students. I haven't seen ANY evidence to show that protecting students infringes on academic freedom.
Julie
Universities are not given "a lot of freedom", they are given complete autonomy! Regarding Governments not wanting to get involved, they DID get involved! They replaced the (equally useless) Visitor system with a quango, (the OIA), and legislated that they could make up their own rules, and that the only rule that bound them was that they would adhere to their own rules! How ludicrous is that!! Don't believe me? Read the legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/8/contents
Regarding academic freedom, that's just a poor excuse for rogue lecturers to target vulnerable students. I haven't seen ANY evidence to show that protecting students infringes on academic freedom.
Julie
Just call me Hilary.
I stand corrected.
Academic freedom is an excuse. People just don't want to take care of things they could avoid taking care of.
IC. Well I was thinking at least they may give you more attention and some advice.
Original post by clh_hilary
I do think most universities are like 'little Kingdoms' and they are given a lot of freedom to deal with their internal issues internally. Governments don't want to get involved since they don't want to be seen as infringing academic freedom.
How about your MP actually? I don't know if that'd be useful but just an idea.
How about your MP actually? I don't know if that'd be useful but just an idea.
Hi clh_hilary
I went to my MP after I had exhausted the university's internal complaints process. I was naive back then, and thought he would have the power to do something. MPs have no more power than the general public and are unable to do anything but write letters on your behalf. Even if you have a good MP, they are powerless, because the legislation deliberately makes them so. While I understand that this and other suggestions are made in good faith, they do actually sometimes instil false hope for students who are not yet familiar with this laboured process of seeking justice.
The only true way of getting justice for students, and prevent them from being damaged by the current system is via a change in legislation. That change can only come about by activist involvement. One such way is to force a debate of the issue in Parliament. That is the route amongst others that I, for one, have now chosen to pursue.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Megajules
Hi clh_hilary
I went to my MP after I had exhausted the university's internal complaints process. I was naive back then, and thought he would have the power to do something. MPs have no more power than the general public and are unable to do anything but write letters on your behalf. Even if you have a good MP, they are powerless, because the legislation deliberately makes them so. While I understand that this and other suggestions are made in good faith, they do actually sometimes instil false hope for students who are not yet familiar with this laboured process of seeking justice.
The only true way of getting justice for students, and prevent them from being damaged by the current system is via a change in legislation. That change can only come about by activist involvement. One such way is to force a debate of the issue in Parliament. That is the route amongst others that I, for one, have now chosen to pursue.
I have to say that I am astounded that sites such as this one prevent the release of information that can aid students with obtaining justice in this way, by preventing networking amongst large numbers of students, which would inform them and give them the options that they need to deal with the situation in which they may one day find themselves.
I went to my MP after I had exhausted the university's internal complaints process. I was naive back then, and thought he would have the power to do something. MPs have no more power than the general public and are unable to do anything but write letters on your behalf. Even if you have a good MP, they are powerless, because the legislation deliberately makes them so. While I understand that this and other suggestions are made in good faith, they do actually sometimes instil false hope for students who are not yet familiar with this laboured process of seeking justice.
The only true way of getting justice for students, and prevent them from being damaged by the current system is via a change in legislation. That change can only come about by activist involvement. One such way is to force a debate of the issue in Parliament. That is the route amongst others that I, for one, have now chosen to pursue.
I have to say that I am astounded that sites such as this one prevent the release of information that can aid students with obtaining justice in this way, by preventing networking amongst large numbers of students, which would inform them and give them the options that they need to deal with the situation in which they may one day find themselves.
MPs are in the parliament so through them you could force a policy change.
Original post by Megajules
Hi
I am guessing that you have never had a complaint with them, and have therefore never had a need to read the legislation which brought them into existence. [Higher Education Act 2004] I also am guessing that you have never read any documentation relating to decisions made by this organisation, alongside of evidence supplied by the aggrieved student. If you had, I am sure that you would not be so comfortable with believing that it isn't broken.
I don't blame you for believing that it isn't broken, because a lot of people in high places spend a great deal of money ensuring that a majority of interested people continue to believe that very thing. However, can you honestly, hand on heart, claim that the OIAHE are fit for purpose when:
This list goes on and on and on...the OIA are a law unto themselves, and by the time they have finished mishandling your complaint, it is too late to take any other route to resolution.
The courts won't touch student complaints. If you try to go via that route, they just re-refer you to the OIAHE, even though any other person who was not a student would have a remedy in the law courts.
The only way to challenge the OIAHE is via Judicial Review. That means that, if like me, your University made sure that you would not gain work, then you will probably not be able to afford to challenge the OIAHE's blatant mishandling of your case, (which has followed the university's blatant mishandling of your case.)
Even people who have supposedly "won" their case with the OIAHE are in agreement with my assessment of their fitness for purpose or lack thereof.
If they were fit for purpose they would not be going around the Internet trying to get websites that criticise them shut down, as they have done with at least two sites that I am aware of.
There are too many issues with them to list here! I will continue later...I wish to reply to another post first...I'll be back ;-D
Julie
I am guessing that you have never had a complaint with them, and have therefore never had a need to read the legislation which brought them into existence. [Higher Education Act 2004] I also am guessing that you have never read any documentation relating to decisions made by this organisation, alongside of evidence supplied by the aggrieved student. If you had, I am sure that you would not be so comfortable with believing that it isn't broken.
I don't blame you for believing that it isn't broken, because a lot of people in high places spend a great deal of money ensuring that a majority of interested people continue to believe that very thing. However, can you honestly, hand on heart, claim that the OIAHE are fit for purpose when:
•
The legislation that brought them into existence only requires them to have a set of rules, and then to abide by those rules?
•
Their rules can be anything?
•
They do not have to look at any or all evidence presented to them?
•
They do not attempt to put the student back into the position they were in prior to the event which caused the complaint?
•
They do not have to interpret legal words in the same way as the courts?
•
They do not have to explain to a student that their outcomes, even in the event of a success, are ALWAYS arbitrary, inadequate and bear no relation to the actual loss that the student has incurred?
•
They allow universities to claim actions to be about academic judgement when those actions can be clearly shown, with unambiguous evidence, to be a misuse of the University's assessment procedures?
•
They do not have to have an opinion on points of law such as whether a student has been discriminated against?
This list goes on and on and on...the OIA are a law unto themselves, and by the time they have finished mishandling your complaint, it is too late to take any other route to resolution.
The courts won't touch student complaints. If you try to go via that route, they just re-refer you to the OIAHE, even though any other person who was not a student would have a remedy in the law courts.
The only way to challenge the OIAHE is via Judicial Review. That means that, if like me, your University made sure that you would not gain work, then you will probably not be able to afford to challenge the OIAHE's blatant mishandling of your case, (which has followed the university's blatant mishandling of your case.)
Even people who have supposedly "won" their case with the OIAHE are in agreement with my assessment of their fitness for purpose or lack thereof.
If they were fit for purpose they would not be going around the Internet trying to get websites that criticise them shut down, as they have done with at least two sites that I am aware of.
There are too many issues with them to list here! I will continue later...I wish to reply to another post first...I'll be back ;-D
Julie
With regards to your points of which I bolded:
Point 1: I don't see how that can be because surely everything written (your evidence, argument and all documentation) that you make available to them as part of your complaint has to be looked at by them? Likewise they would have to look over any written correspondence from the Universities, else why write to them asking for a copy of all pertinent paperwork and procedures? Why would you invite 10 tons of paperwork to your office for the sheer fun of it?
Point 2: The Universities may claim that but if you have written evidence that proves otherwise and you can back up your claim by referring to the University's procedures, and relevant civil rights policies and Acts to your claim; then surely they cannot refute those things? Because they are supposed to act independently so if they don't decide in your favour in such an instance pertaining to the OIA, then the OIA itself can be drawn into disrepute by taking sides/being biased.
Point 3: This really concerns me. Even though the OIA clearly emphasizes that it is NOT a court of law- "the OIA acts as an alternative to a judicial review/legal case" so it won't be carried out in legal pomp/formalities; this should no way mean that the organisation and its acts are exempt from or above the laws of the land. Therefore if in your claim you do present evidence showing your rights and English Laws have been contravened, and procedures compromised, then it does not matter whether they have an opinion or not on what is legal and what is ethical or not: They shall still have to abide.
Did they give a reason to why they could not get involved?
Original post by clh_hilary
Just call me Hilary.
I stand corrected.
Academic freedom is an excuse. People just don't want to take care of things they could avoid taking care of.
I stand corrected.
Academic freedom is an excuse. People just don't want to take care of things they could avoid taking care of.
Hilary
In my case, a lecturer claimed my work to be "flawless...quite technical...and of very high quality..." and then went on to say that, because of those qualities, he believed that I had purchased the work. Now, to stop this becoming a long drawn out discussion (and because it's true), I have to ask you to believe me when I say that the work was 100% my own. However, this libellous assessment of my supposed lack of ability went round the university like a house fire.
I was then forced to undergo a "kangeroo court" type situation which was presented to me as an opportunity for further assessment, not as a process in which I would be accused. I was therefore denied any representation at the proceedings, and astoundingly, was also denied any knowledge of the real reason I had been summoned to undertake this process. (I only discovered the truth in documentation that was obtained in SAR requests over a year later!) Also astoundingly, this process did not exist as a legitimate process for my course, for either assessment, or for dealing with cheating. With no rules to follow, they could entirely make up their own rules. And they did! And as a result, my work was marked down, from the "flawless" work it had been claimed to be when they believed it was written by someone else, to being only worth 64%, a level well below flawless, when they eventually admitted that it was MY work.
However, this man was never called upon to provide evidence of his allegation, and the university just made documents 'disappear' so that no sense could be made of anything. So, by the time the OIAHE got hold of this vindictive attack on me, it had already been turned into something totally different by the university. The OIAHE simply agreed with the university, and disregarded all the evidence I had supplied to them, and found my case "Not Justified".
Now I can already hear you saying, well then they dealt with it fairly. So, I have one question for you: If my case was not justified, why then did the OIAHE then "suggest" that the university pay me £1,000?
Original post by arson_fire
Sorry, but claiming they corrupted your doctor into falsifying your medical records, corrupted google searches, mutilated your horses etc doesn`t do anything for your credibility.
Can you just point me to the place where I said all this please?
The OIA is not a regulator but will review unresolved student complaints.
As a result of this, the Government can not become involved in individual disputes between English universities and their students nor does it review OIA decisions. This is to safeguard the OIA’s independence.
Well this is a prime example of circular thinking. Yes universities are supposed to act responsibly and abide to their own policies and legislation but because this doesn't always happen and concerns get overlooked is why there is this hierarchical complaints system, starting at the localized departmental level through all the internal university complaints process, and then onto external means when these have been exhausted.
HEI's are independent and autonomous bodies with regard to admissions, setting academic standards and what subjects and topics they can lecture about (not so much for the funding of academic research as sometimes the government do fund academic research directly like a commission or else provide budgets for the research councils that academics' can apply to for funding, I would imagine).
However, this does not mean that they are exempt from or above the letter of the law. To be explicit, they are not given free-rein to exploit students, act illegally and bbreak laws and rights willy-nilly without any regard! With rights come responsibilities, and so Universities can and should be held accountable for their actions and behaviour/treatment meted out to students, and to accept responsibility for what they have done wrong and not just for their achievements.
And so if the external body allocated to carrying out an independent review of the Universities actions and procedural irregularities is found to be biased, compromised or not fit for purpose; and furthermore the assigned governmental body where Universities fall under its remit will not lift a finger to help or advise, then this governmental body/persons representative of that body are complicit in not upholding laws and ethical rights, regulations and policies that state governance and politicians are specified by their job to deal with.
As a result of this, the Government can not become involved in individual disputes between English universities and their students nor does it review OIA decisions. This is to safeguard the OIA’s independence.
Well this is a prime example of circular thinking. Yes universities are supposed to act responsibly and abide to their own policies and legislation but because this doesn't always happen and concerns get overlooked is why there is this hierarchical complaints system, starting at the localized departmental level through all the internal university complaints process, and then onto external means when these have been exhausted.
HEI's are independent and autonomous bodies with regard to admissions, setting academic standards and what subjects and topics they can lecture about (not so much for the funding of academic research as sometimes the government do fund academic research directly like a commission or else provide budgets for the research councils that academics' can apply to for funding, I would imagine).
However, this does not mean that they are exempt from or above the letter of the law. To be explicit, they are not given free-rein to exploit students, act illegally and bbreak laws and rights willy-nilly without any regard! With rights come responsibilities, and so Universities can and should be held accountable for their actions and behaviour/treatment meted out to students, and to accept responsibility for what they have done wrong and not just for their achievements.
And so if the external body allocated to carrying out an independent review of the Universities actions and procedural irregularities is found to be biased, compromised or not fit for purpose; and furthermore the assigned governmental body where Universities fall under its remit will not lift a finger to help or advise, then this governmental body/persons representative of that body are complicit in not upholding laws and ethical rights, regulations and policies that state governance and politicians are specified by their job to deal with.
Yes, that is absolutely correct, with regard to my medical record being falsified. In 2005, when I began my course, I approached my doctor for evidence that the university had required me to supply them regarding a phobia, which would almost certainly cause me some detriment in assessment situations if it were not considered by the university. At that time this information was supplied by my doctor to the university, and the university correctly applied the provision that I had applied for.
When my brother died in January 2008, I was again instructed by the university to supply a doctor's note explaining why I was needing extenuating circumstances, and extensions on my work. I discovered (in 2010) that, in that note to the university, that my brother's death was never mentioned, (it just said something about "events in my family"), and went out of it's way to not mention any bereavement. The record from that time now had an entry that said my brother died in the year before he actually did, and was followed by several entries which claimed that I had been under psychiatric disorder monitoring from when my brother (actually) died. I have my medical record as evidence of this!
Regarding my horse, I have not claimed that this was done by the university at all! I have since worked in teaching, for a FE college (which does have links to the university), and someone who works at that college has also kept pigs on my land, again back in 2010, before I worked for the college. By the time I started working for the college, this person had developed a problem with me and my husband, and was instrumental in building new false allegations that were raised by the college, (which may or may not be linked to what happened at the university). He was also aware of my background at the university, and used the knowledge of that dispute to strengthen his attack on me. My horse was attacked during a visit to a union rep. Two or three weeks later, we were also robbed of equipment from the same location. We have also suffered some lesser attacks, i.e. nuisance phone calls and the like, which have clearly indicated that the attacks are not random, but have been targeted.
The maximum insurance payout for my horse's treatment was £5,000, and we have now exceeded this, and are having to fund the continuing treatment ourselves.
I am not a liar, and I am not without credit. I have documentary evidence for what I am saying. You should know better than to take the constrained text from a Twitter conversation as proof of someone's lack of credibility!
Julie
When my brother died in January 2008, I was again instructed by the university to supply a doctor's note explaining why I was needing extenuating circumstances, and extensions on my work. I discovered (in 2010) that, in that note to the university, that my brother's death was never mentioned, (it just said something about "events in my family"), and went out of it's way to not mention any bereavement. The record from that time now had an entry that said my brother died in the year before he actually did, and was followed by several entries which claimed that I had been under psychiatric disorder monitoring from when my brother (actually) died. I have my medical record as evidence of this!
Regarding my horse, I have not claimed that this was done by the university at all! I have since worked in teaching, for a FE college (which does have links to the university), and someone who works at that college has also kept pigs on my land, again back in 2010, before I worked for the college. By the time I started working for the college, this person had developed a problem with me and my husband, and was instrumental in building new false allegations that were raised by the college, (which may or may not be linked to what happened at the university). He was also aware of my background at the university, and used the knowledge of that dispute to strengthen his attack on me. My horse was attacked during a visit to a union rep. Two or three weeks later, we were also robbed of equipment from the same location. We have also suffered some lesser attacks, i.e. nuisance phone calls and the like, which have clearly indicated that the attacks are not random, but have been targeted.
The maximum insurance payout for my horse's treatment was £5,000, and we have now exceeded this, and are having to fund the continuing treatment ourselves.
I am not a liar, and I am not without credit. I have documentary evidence for what I am saying. You should know better than to take the constrained text from a Twitter conversation as proof of someone's lack of credibility!
Julie
Original post by clh_hilary
Cuz I was just thinking - isn't that what MPs are for?
About the SU?
About the SU?
Student Union are collecting funds for jollies and purple hair dye. They do NOT involve themselves with student complaints. I have first hand experience of this!
Original post by Megajules
Yes, that is absolutely correct, with regard to my medical record being falsified. In 2005, when I began my course, I approached my doctor for evidence that the university had required me to supply them regarding a phobia, which would almost certainly cause me some detriment in assessment situations if it were not considered by the university. At that time this information was supplied by my doctor to the university, and the university correctly applied the provision that I had applied for.
When my brother died in January 2008, I was again instructed by the university to supply a doctor's note explaining why I was needing extenuating circumstances, and extensions on my work. I discovered (in 2010) that, in that note to the university, that my brother's death was never mentioned, (it just said something about "events in my family"), and went out of it's way to not mention any bereavement. The record from that time now had an entry that said my brother died in the year before he actually did, and was followed by several entries which claimed that I had been under psychiatric disorder monitoring from when my brother (actually) died. I have my medical record as evidence of this!
When my brother died in January 2008, I was again instructed by the university to supply a doctor's note explaining why I was needing extenuating circumstances, and extensions on my work. I discovered (in 2010) that, in that note to the university, that my brother's death was never mentioned, (it just said something about "events in my family"), and went out of it's way to not mention any bereavement. The record from that time now had an entry that said my brother died in the year before he actually did, and was followed by several entries which claimed that I had been under psychiatric disorder monitoring from when my brother (actually) died. I have my medical record as evidence of this!
That is absolutely disgusting Julie! 
Actually, the whole of your situation was but I've specifically singled out this piece for a reason:With your medical records as evidence, your documentary evidence and your brother's death certificate
to hand, I hope that you reported this doctor and made a great complaint to the GMC (General Medical Council). Every registered and qualified GP has to comply to the GMC's Code of Conduct and Standards, which include doctor-patient confidentiality and the foundation of medical ethics: the Hippocratic Oath. I should think that that doctor in question would at least be warned and severely dealt with! Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Remark
- Law essay competition feedback?
- Graduating from MSC Computer Science online University of York
- Unfairly deregsitered from university
- Discrimination against English A level students 2023
- How many people get 2:1s and better?
- Urgent!!!：recommended reading list for law at Oxford Uni
- How is Brunel for physiotherapy?
- Business
- Why is the GSCE system so unfair and how it is disruptive towards teenagers
- Is this fair?
- Am I being bullied by lecturer?
- College refuse to give me student card
- Complaint about uni as a prospective student
- How late is too late for York accommodation?
- Is it reasonable if I formally report my Course Director?
- Postgraduate course
- Student's perspective on DMU's CEM Faculty
- worst university..
- why is life so unfair? why do privileged people think of themselves higher?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
