University failings have worsened the mental health of one student who sought help from the UCL support tool, the complaints body for higher education has found.
A report by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator seen by The Cheese Grater noted how a “range of failings” by UCL Report+Support, the University’s harassment and bullying support tool, contributed to a “clearly evidenced” and “significant” deterioration of one student’s mental health.
The student, who we are calling Ashley, alleged that institutional negligence on behalf of the University forced her to relive the trauma of facing persistent bullying by the committee of a UCL sports club.
According to the report, UCL has accepted that its response to Ashley’s case was “flawed”, acknowledging “delays and communication issues” and an overall “lack of clarity around the [Report+Support] process”.
But the ombudsman said it was “not satisfied” UCL had provided a suitable remedy to address the failings it had identified.
It added: “We do not think that the University’s apology, and internal recommendations, were sufficient to address the scale and significance of impact which the University’s failings had on [Ashley].”
The report’s damning verdict of UCL’s handling of Ashley’s case adds yet another to the litany of horror stories reported by this publication where students were failed time and again by Report+Support.
Recounting her experience, Ashley said she was met with indifference by a number of caseworkers.
At first, she said the caseworkers said “all the right things”. One even reassured her: “You don’t need to worry about being a believable victim because we believe you.”
But she soon found those words to be empty as repeated delays and communication faults left her feeling like she was the one being accused.
Failing the bare minimum
The complaints body said it was “particularly critical” of the two-month delay it took UCL to implement basic precautionary measures to protect Ashley from her alleged abusers.
It noted during this time, Ashley was deemed unfit to work while a separate clinician reported she was displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
It said: “It is clearly evidenced that [Ashley’s] mental health deteriorated significantly during this period, and we think that the University’s failings will have contributed to this.”
Speaking to The Cheese Grater, Ashley said: “I never expected anything from UCL other than my safety.
“My expectations were through the floor, and they couldn’t even do that.”
Ashley said she turned to the police for help when the University failed to act but was told there was little they could do as bullying was not a crime.
Even then, she said the officers were “so much nicer” than UCL caseworkers, reassuring her that they would keep her record on the file and promised to step in if her abusers tried to contact her.
She said: “At least [the police] listened. They were kind, and they were really shocked that actually UCL hadn’t done anything about this.”
The complaints body further criticised the University for failing to make a prompt decision on jurisdiction, taking three months to decide Ashley’s case should be investigated by the Students’ Union, not UCL.
She recalled being forced to relive the trauma when she was repeatedly asked to resubmit the evidence documents to UCL caseworkers and on a further occasion to Union caseworkers when it was determined that the case was under the Union’s remit.
She described the ordeal as “traumatising for no apparent reason.”
Delay after delay
Disappointed with how the University handled her case, Ashley raised a complaint with UCL against Report+Support caseworkers.
It took UCL six months to process this complaint – double the time recommended by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the higher education complaints body noted in its report.
It said UCL has recognised and apologised for the “length of time it [had] taken to investigate this complaint” and accepted that Ashley had “not always [been] informed about delays.”
But it noted that UCL “did not provide any further remedy to address this issue.”
“The whole time you’ve constantly had to push them,” Ashley said when discussing the delays in the complaints process.
“It genuinely feels like they just forget that you exist”, she said.
Sorry not good enough, report says
When UCL finally presented its findings to Ashley, it accepted there were “a number of failures” in its handling of her case and apologised for some – though not all – of these issues, pledging “internal recommendations” to improve the process.
However, the ombudsman once again said UCL had failed to provide a “suitable remedy to address the failings which it had identified.”
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Ashley requested a review of UCL’s findings. She said she was suspicious of the impartiality of the process, claiming caseworkers were tasked to investigate their own managers.
In the end, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator upheld Ashley’s complaint that UCL’s repeated delays and communication errors likely worsened her mental health.
While it rejected her complaint that UCL refused to investigate the bullying claims on the basis that the Union is now responsible for the case, the ombudsman was nonetheless “critical” of the University’s failure to promptly articulate the scope of its own bullying policy.
It further told UCL that saying sorry isn’t good enough, given the “scale and significance of the impact” its repeated failings have had on Ashley.
It finally criticised the lack of clarity in the process and timeframe outlined by UCL’s Prevention of Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy and urged the University to provide more clarity for students engaging with Report+Support.
A UCL spokesperson said: “We sincerely apologise for the negative impact caused by our initial handling of the allegations and subsequent procedural delays.
“We have accepted the recommendations from the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education in full and have enacted clearer lines of communication between our casework team and the Students’ Union. This ensures clear accountability for casework, as well as better monitoring and communication with students who raise complaints.
“The Office of the Independent Adjudicator is now satisfied that we have complied with their recommendations in this case and we thank them for their guidance and recommendations.
“Our improved process supports our goal of providing each and every student with the best possible support and we remain committed to the continuous improvement of our student support and wellbeing services.”
The Students’ Union declined to comment on specific cases.
Established pattern of negligence
Ashley’s experience with Report+Support is sadly far from isolated.
The Cheese Grater has repeatedly exposed the failings of Report+Support since the support tool was introduced in 2019.
Just last May, a Report+Support manager admitted staff were undertrained and that miscommunication and “avoidable delays” made things “more difficult” for a student who was a victim of rape.
In February 2024, UCL caseworkers dismissed a sexual assault case without appeal, claiming “the lines of consent had been blurred and/or misinterpreted”.
In May 2022, a rape victim said the University refused to take disciplinary action against her abuser despite having a restraining order against him as there was an ongoing police investigation.
Asked how she would summarise her experience with Report+Support, Ashley said: “It felt like they just wanted you to forget about it and just leave them alone so that they didn’t have to do any work.
“I don’t know what their reason is.”
When we spoke to Ashley, she thanked us for believing her story and said her experience with Report+Support made her feel like “no one ever would”.
Ashley’s comment lays bare Report+ Support’s fatal flaw: it is fundamentally ill-equipped to support the very group of people it was set up to protect.
The fact that a system specifically designed to support people facing trauma consistently fails to adopt trauma-informed approaches is deeply concerning.
A trauma-informed team would not ask someone to send them detailed documentation of their abuse over and over and over again. They would not take two months to implement basic precautionary measures.
They would not drag out a complaints process to be six agonising months long, and most importantly, they would not leave someone feeling as though they would never be believed.
Despite a wave of individuals coming out with harrowing accounts of their experiences with Report+Support – all citing chronic negligence, unprofessional staff, and unacceptable delays – the University appears, quite frankly, uninterested in making meaningful changes to this system.
The report by the independent adjudicator is a watershed moment for UCL, which was forced to admit that its own failures have caused more harm to the people it is meant to be protecting.
But it confirms only what has been said time and time again: that the system is broken and in dire need of reform.
Responding to another Report+ Support story we published, Vice-Provost Kathy Armour said: “We are currently improving our communication about Report+Support and the ways in which our aligned support services work together.”
The University is yet to deliver on this incredibly vague promise.
UCL students deserve a more trauma-informed and survivor-focused support system to prevent further harm to the people it is supposed to help.
Let’s hope they will finally listen.
This article appeared in CG89
