Student complaints and appeals

Staff and students are expected to try to resolve problems at the local level (if reasonable and appropriate to do so) before making a formal complaint.  This usually involves discussing your concerns with the person or area concerned. 

This is the first formal stage of the University’s internal complaints and appeals processes.  This requires the lodgement of a formal written statement (via the complaints lodgement process).  The statement sets out why you are not satisfied with:

• any aspect of your University experience;
• a University service or process;
• your dealings with an education agent;
• the behaviour of another member of the University community (staff or student)

You are usually expected to have attempted to resolve your concerns at the local level prior to lodging a complaint (where it is reasonable and appropriate do to so).

A review of decision is the second formal stage in the University’s internal complaints and appeals processes.  A request for a review of decision can only be made where a formal University decision has already been made. 

The decision can be either the outcome of a complaint or another formal decision by a University Committee or decision-maker.  Reviews are performed by an appropriate senior officer. Examples of reviewable decisions.

An appeal is the final stage in the University’s internal complaints and appeals processes.  You may lodge an appeal where you are not satisfied with the outcome of a review of decision.  An appeal will not be accepted unless a review of decision had already occurred.  An appeal can only be made on one or more of the following grounds:

• that new and relevant material exists that was not reasonably available to the student before the review decision was made and that would have a significant impact on the decision
• that there was a misapplication of policy or procedure resulting in some real disadvantage to the student
• that the sanction applied was manifestly excessive, or
• that there was a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of the reviewer