The OIA changes recognise that extra process doesn’t equal extra fairness

There is a phrase I find myself returning to often when thinking about complaints: people rarely arrive at an ombuds scheme’s doors at their best moment.

This is something I have come back to throughout my career across various ombuds services, and it is no less true for the students we serve at the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. 

By the time a student reaches the OIA, they have usually been through months, and sometimes years, of frustration, uncertainty, stress or disappointment. Some will have endured difficult personal circumstances alongside their studies. Others may simply feel exhausted by processes they have struggled to understand. Almost all are trying to navigate systems at a moment when they feel at their least powerful.

That matters when we think about the rules and frameworks governing how complaints systems operate. And it is why we have launched a consultation on proposed changes to our scheme, the framework which sets out what complaints we can look at and how we do so.

On one level, this is a technical consultation about jurisdiction, discretion, governance and process. But underneath that sits a broader question which I think many sectors, not just higher education, are increasingly grappling with: when does process stop helping people and start becoming a barrier to them?

Across higher education there can sometimes be an assumption that adding more process necessarily creates greater fairness. That is not always true. Detailed rules can absolutely provide important safeguards, consistency and transparency, but they can also create systems which feel impenetrable to the very people they are intended to serve; I need only look at the type and range of complaints crossing the desks of the teams at the OIA to see this.

Accessibility is not simply about whether procedures exist or are technically available online. It is about whether people can realistically understand and navigate them when they are distressed, overwhelmed or vulnerable. Research into administrative justice consistently shows that people are less likely to engage effectively with systems they perceive as overly legalistic, complex or inaccessible. In practice, complexity often advantages those already most confident at navigating institutional structures.

Higher education has changed considerably since the OIA was established in 2004. Student expectations have evolved. Consumer protection law has become increasingly prominent. The student population is larger, more diverse and more internationally connected, and its language and assumptions of students are not always the same as those of sector institutions.

At the same time, complaint handling across many sectors has shifted towards greater transparency, accessibility and user-centred design. Increasingly, there is recognition that people judge systems not only on whether decisions are technically sound, but on whether those systems feel understandable and fair.

That is why we are proposing to change our name to include the phrase student complaints: so that students understand what we do. It is also one of the reasons we are consulting on moving towards a shorter, more principles-led scheme, supported by clearer explanatory material.

I know the phrase “principles-led” can sometimes create anxiety. In some contexts, it can sound vague, suggesting that rigour is somehow being reduced. But ombuds work already relies heavily on the careful exercise of judgement. No two student complaints are entirely identical; the challenge is to interpret the rules fairly and proportionately in those varied circumstances.

In reality, many complaints systems already operate through discretion while presenting themselves as purely rules-based. I think there is value in being more honest and transparent about that.

A principles-led approach is not about removing accountability. If anything, it places greater emphasis on explaining why decisions are made, rather than simply pointing people towards increasingly complex procedural wording. For students, providers and advisers alike, understanding the rationale behind a decision is often just as important as understanding the rule itself.

One of the privileges of ombuds work is that it offers a unique window into how systems are actually experienced by the people moving through them. Complaints are often uncomfortable reading for institutions. But they are also one of the richest forms of organisational feedback available.

Over time, patterns emerge about where communication fails, where expectations diverge, where processes unintentionally exclude, and where people feel unheard. In some cases, complaints reveal substantive failures. In others, they reveal systems which may be technically correct but are experienced as confusing, distant or performative.

The best complaints systems are not those that never receive complaints. In fact, institutions with very low complaint volumes are not necessarily institutions without problems. Sometimes they may simply be places where people lack confidence that raising concerns will lead anywhere meaningful. That is why trust matters so much.

Independent redress systems only work if people find them understandable, accessible and responsive to criticism. And consultation with the sector is important because independent schemes do not operate in isolation from the environments around them. Students, providers, representative bodies and advisers all experience the scheme differently and bring perspectives we may not see ourselves.

At the same time, the OIA’s independence matters deeply. Our role is not to become an extension of institutional interests, political agendas or sector fashions. We are consulting because engagement strengthens understanding and trust, not because independence itself is negotiable.

Ultimately, the consultation is not simply about shortening documents, changing the name above the door or redrafting clauses. It is about asking whether the framework underpinning independent student redress remains sufficiently clear, fair and accessible for the environment higher education now operates in, and the one it is moving towards.

I think that is a conversation worth having openly and honestly. 

Helen Megarry is the independent adjudicator of higher education in England and Wales.