University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

Complaint

May 25th, 2008 · No Comments

Tuesday, 10 October 2006 

To: Chief Executive HEFCW 

Cc: Elin Jones AM
Mark Williams MP 

FORMAL COMPLAINT ACCORDING TO HEFCW PROCEDURES 

Dear Professor Gummet, 

My first point is that as the HEFCW external complaints procedures are not readily available or visible from your website I was of the opinion that no such procedure existed. The same is for you procedure for allegations against HEI’s. The pdf on staff conduct is corrupt and causes IE to crash and there is no HTML alternative.

Despite the obstruction from Mr Hall who could not have been more unhelpful in refusing to answer any question concerning complaints procedures. I now that I have this information and able to complain accordingly, however I must make the point that no procedures can over ride the laws of England and Wales and if they do then such are null and void. Please see the correspondence which is the basis of my complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter. 

As I have not received any reply from Mr Hall within the timescale I have raised this complaint against Mr Hall and UWL with you. The service under the FOI still stands. 

At the heart of this matter is the reality that the University of Wales is a corrupt institution and regrettably that also includes its Visitor the Bishop of St. David’s. Its professional advisers namely solicitors Eversheds and Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers have chosen to ignore the issues raised an in my opinion are in breach of their lawful duty to report any wrong doing to the relevant authority. 

There are two main issues, firstly the retribution I received for complaining about a lecturer Zed Zorichak in that I was falsely and deliberate accused of plagiarism and intimidated during an examination by him sitting less than six feet aware staring me out for one and a hour hours. Following from this was the deliberate obstruction and pervertion of a public course of justice for students. 

The second issue is that the University has I believe failed to comply with guideline as laid down by the DTI which includes HEI’s on the Company Act 1985 as amended 2004. 

With regard to the first issue the University and Mr Hall have decreed that such gross misconduct is an academic matter which under the circumstances my opinion is that it is an abuse of academic independence and there loses such immunity from normal investigation. The students Complaints Scheme is wholly inappropriate for this type of complaint as it is a matter for the staff disciplinary code of conduct. 

With regard to the second issue I am a taxpayer and did not sign away my rights when I enrolled at UWL. I have every reason and right to make these allegations and with the assistance of the Information Commissioner will provide further evidence accordingly, however I must make the point that your procedures are an obstacle preventing any form of legitimate complaint to be made.

Further details can be obtained from lamp-post.info I would point out that the University has already been slammed by the Information Commissioner on two occasions for failing to comply with procedures as well as the Student complaints Scheme. There is an outstanding further complaint under the DPA 1998 which may result in court action. I will meet my MP again and AM in due course. Further court action against the Bishop of St. David’s is inevitable given his disgraceful conduct in this matter.

—————————————————

Thursday, 12 October 2006

To: Chief Executive HEFCW 

CLARIFICATION OF FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MR DALE HALL 
(Clerk to the Council)

Dear Prof Gummet, 

I wish to clarify the complaint against Mr Hall because as with the corruption at the University of Wales Lampeter (UWL) it takes a while for the full implications of such gross misconduct to sink in.

I reiterate the general point that your complaints procedures are not available from a link on your website and require a search to find them, the same applies to complaints concerning financial mismanagement at HEI’s

Like me an ordinary member of the public would assume that such procedures do not exist despite the fact that you are required to make you such procedures public and in a position so they can be noticed and not hidden away. In keeping with Stalinist Russia all human rights are being kept from public knowledge to make sure people do not complain and those that do are fobbed off and labelled trouble makers. 

The points specifically concerning Mr Hall are as follows.

Mr Hall failed to correct my perception that as they we not in public view that no HEFCW complaints procedures existed in order to leave me with the impression that I could not take matters any further.

Mr Hall ignored repeatedly ignored specific requests for information concerning my right to complain about his own conduct and that of HEFCW, again to prevent any remedy to concerns about UWL according to my democratic rights.

In effect Mr Hall took it upon himself to deliberately deprive me of my rights under Administrative Law as laid down by the Second Nolan Committee and Common Law to conceal my complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter.

If Mr Hall has filed my information request without any action then I wish to complain about that too. I have complied with the requirements of the FOI Act 2000; if you now wish me to comply with your internal procedures I will gladly do so. You cannot dismiss my request if they do not comply with your procedures in the first instance as that would constitute you placing your own procedures over that of the laws of England and Wales. I am willing to raise this matter with the Information Commissioner by means of a formal complaint if you wish.

In making the definitive comment that “we remain of the view that there are no grounds for HEFCW to take this matter further with the UW Lampeter.” He is clearly stating that a corporate decision has been made, however, if corporate procedures have not been followed allowing him to make such a statement then he has exceeded his authority and impersonated HEFCW as a public company or corporation, which is a criminal offence under the Company Act 1985.

Mr Halls has shown a total disregard for my rights and HEFCW procedures and therefore I can only accept his actions and decisions in this matter as being totally biased against myself to totally obstruct any resolution to my complaint against UWL and himself. The reason for this is that he knows that my complaints do have merit and that he is simply trying to conceal them in his own interest to conceal his own actions in this matter and the failure of HEFCW as a regulator.

It is a well established principle that Mr Hall cannot act with regard to a complaint against himself, he should have referred the matter to his line manager instead of filing it away, which is a deliberate act of concealment and avoidance of responsibility, liability and accountability. As far as leadership is concerned it does set the tone by which UWL has followed and totally undermines HEFCW.

Mr Halls actions may be in direct collusion to conceal any wrong doing at UWL who have ignored their own internal complaints procedures, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which they have been heavily criticised by the Information Commissioner. It gives weight and substance to my complaint as this establishment just ignores whatever procedures are necessary to conceal corruption.

Therefore the judgement of Mr Hall and that of HEFCW that my complaints against UWL is in fact so flawed as to be meaningless, as any support of Mr Hall would in my opinion be a further concealment of not only corruption at UWL but also of the involvement of HEFCW. Whose impartiality has been compromised and can only resolve this matter with an independent element to any inquiry. Further examination of the law may well mean I also add further complaints on this issue.

Should this complaint be referred to solicitors then I wish to add to my information request the corporate decision by which any legal assistance is being offered to Mr Hall under the Company Act 1985 as amended 2004. UWL has obviously ignored the law on this issue and I was just wondering if you intend to do the same or that Mr Hall will fund his own legal advice for what is his personal liability.

I am awaiting the outcome of a request under the FOI from UWL and yourselves as it seems the only way to get any information from you people is to drag it out of you by the use of law as the use of stated procedures is a waste of time. You seem to have forgotten that you are public servants not our maters by the deliberate concealment of our right to complain.

Once I have received this information I may well be adding further complaints against UWL, Mr Hall and HEFCW. I trust that now I know what the procedures are and that you are accountable to the Ombudsman you will no do something remarkable for Welsh Higher Education and ‘play it by the rules’! If you wish to meet with me on this issue so I can put my complaints against UWL and Mr Hall to you in person then I will gladly do so. I am concerned at the political implications in concealing this whole saga concerning UWL.

Tags: Complaint