Reporting a staff member

If you feel safe and able to do so, write to or tell the person that you are unhappy with their behaviour. However, if this wouldn't be appropriate given the nature of the complaint, then you can skip this stage.

There isn't a set form for reporting staff members. Instead, you are encouraged to email in your complaint. We'd recommend you follow the same structure as reporting fellow students:

Set out clearly and concisely the details of the conduct which you are reporting. Explain in chronological order what happened, including any specific phrasing that was used.

When and where did the conduct you are reporting occur? Detail whether this happened on campus (if so, where) or online (if so, using what medium) and give details of when it happened if you can.

Is there other relevant background information that the Proctors need to be aware of? If there's any context the Proctors would find helpful to understand, then you should mention this here. This could be things like your relationship to the person(s) you are reporting, any previous challenges you've experienced with this person or anything else.

Who was present at the time of the conduct? If there were any other witnesses, give their details.

What impact has the reported conduct had on you? Here you should explain the impact the behaviour has had on you, which could be personal, related to your studies or time in Oxford or a combination of them all.

>p>You should also include any evidence you have, although it is ok if you do not have any. Evidence could include evidence that you spoke to third parties about what happened, copies of a harassment log you've kept or evidence of the behaviours themselves (e.g. via emails or screenshots of social media posts). We recommend you title the email 'Formal Complaint' so that the Head of Department appropriately actions it.

This ground is used when you believe that there was an error in the way in which your initial complaint was considered by the Head of Department. The Registrar (or their nominee) are seeking to understand:

• What the procedural irregularity or error is? - explain clearly what error you are challenging. For example, did they not consider one of your pieces of evidence?

• Any underlying facts, including key events and dates - list in chronological order any key information you feel is helpful for the Proctors to understand what's happened. The Proctor's considering this will not have had any role in deciding your initial appeal, and can only make the decision on the information you provide, so ensure you include everything.

• The evidence that supports this? - direct the Proctors to specific pieces of evidence which prove this (for example, write: see annex C) and explain how the evidence proves this. This might be evidence you have gotten from the stage two outcome or from a subject access request.

• The impact you have faced as a result of this What has been the impact on you? For example, by the evidence not being considered, your appeal was unsuccessful. You need to demonstrate that if the procedural irregularity/error had not occurred, there would have been a different outcome, thus the impact was more than minimal or trivial.

This ground is used where you believe there was the potential for bias - either intentional or unintentional in the decision making. According to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, bias is: "a tendency to treat one person or group, thing or point of view more or less favourably than another, especially in a way that is considered to be unfair". You should explain:

• List whom you are concerned has been biased against you

• Give any reasoning as to why you think there might be bias, or the reasonable perception of bias. For example, have you previously submitted a complaint against the person who decided your complaint? Have they got a evidenced history of being discriminatory towards a group to which you are a part of?

• The impact you have faced as a result of this what has the impact been on you? For example, had the person who is biased against you not been involved in determining your grade, you would have gotten a more favourable outcome.