Complaints, Review, and Appeal explains how the Commons receives, assesses, responds to, investigates, reviews, records, communicates, and closes concerns, complaints, conduct matters, review requests, and appeals.
The Commons should provide clear, accessible, fair, proportionate, and appropriately independent routes for people to question decisions, raise concerns, report harmful conduct, seek clarification, request review, challenge procedural unfairness, and provide feedback.
A complaint, review request, or appeal does not automatically mean that the Commons has acted wrongly.
It creates an opportunity to assess whether a concern requires clarification, support, correction, adjustment, investigation, reconsideration, independent review, remedial action, policy improvement, or another appropriate response.
The Commons should handle concerns respectfully and without retaliation.
It should seek to resolve matters fairly, protect people from avoidable harm, preserve confidentiality appropriately, manage conflicts of interest, maintain proportionate records, and learn from outcomes.
Purpose, Scope, and Principles
The purpose of this framework is to ensure that concerns and disputes can be raised and addressed in a way that is understandable, accessible, fair, timely, proportionate, and accountable.
This framework applies to concerns, complaints, review requests, and appeals connected to:
- Governance and Decision-Making
- Conflicts of Interest
- Safeguarding and Participant Protection
- Privacy, Data, Consent, and Confidentiality
- Accessibility, Inclusion, and Equal Participation
- Research Integrity and Responsible Research
- Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics
- Individual Membership and Institutional Membership
- Community Groups and Working Spaces
- Events and Learning
- Calls and Opportunities
- Commissioned Research
- Journal Publication
- Repository activity
- Partnerships and External Collaboration
- Funding, Sponsorship, and Support
- Commons Administration, governance role holders, moderators, facilitators, researchers, editors, reviewers, providers, partners, Members, contributors, volunteers, or other people acting for or with the Commons
- Any other Commons policy, service, decision, relationship, activity, process, system, record, communication, or arrangement
This framework does not replace emergency, safeguarding, medical, legal, regulatory, law-enforcement, employment, institutional, professional, contractual, or other specialist routes where another route is more appropriate.
Where a person is in immediate danger or requires urgent emergency, medical, police, safeguarding, mental-health, social-care, legal, or other specialist support, they should contact the relevant service in their location.
The Commons may take urgent temporary action within its authority to reduce risk, protect people, preserve relevant information, restrict access, pause activity, or refer a matter appropriately.
Fairness
The Commons should assess concerns fairly and without prejudice.
People raising concerns should be treated respectfully.
People whose conduct, decision, or role is being questioned should also be treated fairly and should normally be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and respond to relevant concerns, subject to safeguarding, privacy, confidentiality, evidence-preservation, legal, security, and other legitimate limitations.
A fair process does not always require the same approach for every matter.
The process should be proportionate to the seriousness, complexity, urgency, evidence, risk, people affected, authority involved, and possible outcomes.
Accessibility
Complaint, review, and appeal routes should be accessible.
The Commons should consider whether a person requires an accessible format, communication support, translation, interpretation, additional time, alternative reporting route, trusted supporter, advocate, private communication method, or another reasonable adjustment.
A person should not be disadvantaged because they need support to understand, access, or participate in the process.
Independence
A complaint, review request, or appeal should be handled by a person or body with appropriate authority and sufficient independence.
A person should not investigate, decide, review, or appeal a matter where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that cannot be managed appropriately.
Where a concern involves a senior role holder, decision maker, editor, researcher, reviewer, funder, provider, partner, institution, or another person with influence over the ordinary route, the Commons should use an alternative or independent route.
Confidentiality and privacy
The Commons should handle information about complaints, reviews, and appeals carefully.
Information should be shared only with people who need it to assess the matter, protect people, make an authorized decision, investigate fairly, provide support, meet an applicable obligation, or implement an outcome.
The Commons cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality.
Information may need to be shared where there is an immediate or serious risk of harm, a safeguarding concern, a legal or regulatory requirement, a significant privacy or security risk, an external referral need, or another legitimate reason.
Where possible and safe, the Commons should explain what information may be shared, with whom, why, and what will happen next.
No retaliation
The Commons should not tolerate retaliation against a person for raising a concern, making a complaint, requesting review, lodging an appeal, participating as a witness, providing information, seeking advice, supporting another person, or cooperating with an investigation in good faith.
Retaliation may include threats, intimidation, exclusion, harassment, adverse treatment, unfair loss of access, reputational attack, pressure to withdraw a concern, misuse of authority, disadvantage in Membership, research, publication, funding, Partnership, provider selection, event participation, or another Commons activity.
A person should not be treated as acting in bad faith merely because their concern is not upheld, cannot be substantiated, is withdrawn, relates to a difficult issue, challenges a decision, or produces an outcome different from what they hoped.
Deliberately false, malicious, abusive, discriminatory, vexatious, or knowingly misleading complaints may be addressed through a fair and proportionate process.
Learning and improvement
The Commons should learn from complaints, reviews, appeals, feedback, incidents, recurring concerns, and identified barriers.
A matter may reveal the need to improve a policy, procedure, form, system, agreement, training arrangement, access route, event design, Working Space arrangement, research process, publication process, data practice, Partnership arrangement, governance structure, or another aspect of Commons activity.
Types of request and route
The Commons should distinguish between different types of contact so that people can reach the appropriate route without unnecessary delay.
| Route | Purpose | Typical outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Enquiry | A request for information, guidance, clarification, or support | Information, explanation, referral, or support |
| Feedback | A suggestion, observation, compliment, concern about usability, or improvement idea | Acknowledgement, response, review, or improvement action |
| Informal concern | A lower-level concern that may be resolved through clarification, support, adjustment, apology, boundary-setting, or local action | Informal resolution, record, monitoring, or escalation |
| Formal complaint | A concern that the Commons, a role holder, process, decision, service, activity, or participant may have acted unfairly, improperly, harmfully, or inconsistently with Commons standards | Assessment, investigation, outcome, remedy, review information |
| Safeguarding concern | A concern about welfare, safety, dignity, rights, abuse, exploitation, harassment, neglect, inappropriate boundaries, or immediate risk | Protective action, safeguarding assessment, referral, review |
| Privacy or data concern | A concern about personal data, confidential information, consent, access, disclosure, security, retention, or information rights | Privacy assessment, correction, restriction, response, referral |
| Research-integrity concern | A concern about research conduct, methods, consent, data, authorship, evidence, conflicts, reporting, or research-related harm | Research-integrity assessment, review, correction, suspension, referral |
| Editorial-integrity concern | A concern about peer review, editorial independence, authorship, publication ethics, correction, retraction, access, or publication conduct | Editorial assessment, correction, review, withdrawal, appeal information |
| Review request | A request for reconsideration of a decision because of a procedural issue, new evidence, material error, conflict, or other defined ground | Confirmation, variation, independent reconsideration, or upheld decision |
| Appeal | A challenge to the outcome of a formal complaint or review on limited grounds | Independent appeal decision, remittal, variation, or closure |
A person does not need to use the exact terminology above for the Commons to consider their contact appropriately.
If a person sends a concern through the wrong route, the Commons should direct it to the appropriate route where possible and safe.
Matters Normally Suitable for a Complaint
A complaint may relate to:
- Unfair, discriminatory, inaccessible, disrespectful, hostile, harmful, delayed, misleading, or inappropriate conduct
- A failure to follow a relevant Commons policy, procedure, agreement, access condition, role description, standard, decision, or published commitment
- A decision that may have been made without appropriate authority, fairness, independence, evidence, consultation, conflict-of-interest management, safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, or due process
- A failure to provide an agreed service, support, access arrangement, adjustment, payment, communication, event arrangement, research arrangement, publication process, Repository service, Partnership obligation, or other commitment
- Harassment, bullying, discrimination, retaliation, exclusion, intimidation, coercion, abuse of authority, or another conduct concern
- A concern about a Community Group, Working Space, event, event host, moderator, facilitator, Member, contributor, provider, partner, researcher, reviewer, editor, author, or other role holder
- A concern about the use of personal data, confidential information, recordings, images, participant information, Repository material, consent records, or another information-related matter
- A concern about research integrity, authorship, funding, conflicts, participant treatment, evidence, data, reporting, publication, or research conduct
- A concern about editorial independence, peer review, publication ethics, correction, retraction, authorship, attribution, access, or publication process
- A concern about funding, sponsorship, provider selection, procurement, Partnership activity, donation, support, financial management, or improper influence
- A concern about a failure to make a reasonable accessibility or inclusion arrangement
- A concern that a Commons decision, policy, service, process, activity, system, or communication has caused avoidable disadvantage or harm
Matters that may need another route
Some matters may be more appropriately handled through another route.
These may include:
- A safeguarding concern requiring immediate protective action
- A request to access, correct, restrict, delete, or otherwise manage personal data
- A research-integrity concern requiring specialist assessment
- An editorial concern requiring an editor or Editorial Authority
- A request for an accessibility adjustment
- A dispute governed primarily by a contract, funding agreement, provider agreement, Partnership agreement, employment arrangement, institutional procedure, or legal process
- An emergency requiring immediate external support
- A matter outside the Commons’ authority
- A complaint about an external organization over which the Commons has no control
The Commons should explain the alternative route where reasonably possible.
Referring a matter does not remove the Commons’ responsibility to consider whether it should take its own proportionate action within its authority.
Complaint and Review Process
The Commons should use a clear and proportionate process.
The process may be shorter for a straightforward concern and more detailed for a serious, complex, disputed, sensitive, high-risk, cross-organizational, safeguarding-related, privacy-related, research-related, editorial, financial, or governance matter.
Making a complaint or review request
A complaint or review request should normally be made through Contact and Support.
A person should provide enough information to allow the Commons to understand and assess the matter.
This may include:
- The person’s name and contact details, if they wish to provide them
- The nature of the concern, complaint, decision, or outcome being challenged
- The relevant dates, locations, activity, Group, Working Space, event, project, publication, Repository record, Membership, Partnership, funding arrangement, provider arrangement, communication, policy, or other context
- The people, roles, organizations, or Commons routes involved, if known
- What happened, what decision was made, or what action was not taken
- Any relevant documents, messages, screenshots, records, links, evidence, or witness information
- Whether there is an immediate safeguarding, privacy, data, security, financial, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, or other significant risk
- Any accessibility, communication, confidentiality, cultural, safety, or support needs
- What outcome, explanation, correction, support, review, remedy, or action the person is seeking, if they know
- Whether the person has already raised the matter and what response they received
A person may ask a supporter, advocate, representative, interpreter, carer, colleague, or other trusted person to assist them where appropriate.
The Commons may ask for confirmation that the person is authorized to act for another person, particularly where confidential information, personal data, safeguarding, legal rights, financial matters, Membership, or another sensitive issue is involved.
Anonymous complaints may be accepted.
Anonymous information may limit the Commons’ ability to investigate, seek clarification, provide a personal response, offer support, or make a formal finding. The Commons should nevertheless consider available information and act proportionately where possible.
Initial assessment
The Commons should acknowledge receipt of a complaint, review request, or appeal as soon as reasonably practical.
The initial assessment should consider:
- Whether the matter falls within the Commons’ authority
- Whether there is an immediate risk requiring urgent action
- Whether the matter should be directed to safeguarding, privacy, research integrity, editorial integrity, accessibility, Membership, Partnership, funding, financial, provider, technical, legal, institutional, or another specialist route
- Whether the person requires accessible communication, support, confidentiality, or another adjustment
- Whether the complaint contains enough information to proceed
- Whether a conflict of interest affects the appropriate decision maker
- Whether informal resolution may be suitable and acceptable
- Whether the matter requires formal investigation, independent review, specialist advice, external referral, temporary protective action, or another response
- Whether the complaint is substantially the same as a matter already considered and concluded, unless significant new evidence or a material procedural concern has emerged
- Whether the matter is outside scope, abusive, threatening, discriminatory, knowingly misleading, or otherwise unsuitable for the ordinary process
The Commons should not dismiss a complaint merely because it is uncomfortable, critical, inconvenient, raises reputational risk, challenges a senior person, concerns a funder or partner, or may require difficult action.
If the Commons decides that it cannot consider a matter, it should explain the reason appropriately and provide information about another route where possible.
Informal resolution
Some concerns can be resolved informally.
Informal resolution may include:
- Providing information, clarification, guidance, or an explanation
- Correcting a simple error
- Updating a page, form, record, communication, metadata entry, or other material
- Offering an apology or acknowledgement
- Providing an adjustment, support arrangement, alternative communication route, or accessibility improvement
- Clarifying boundaries, expectations, role responsibilities, access conditions, or participation standards
- Facilitating a proportionate conversation, where safe and appropriate
- Restoring access, changing access conditions, correcting an administrative issue, or resolving a service problem
- Seeking a voluntary agreement between relevant people, where this is appropriate and does not create safeguarding, power, privacy, or fairness concerns
- Referring the matter to another person or process with authority to respond
Informal resolution should not be used where it would be unsafe, inappropriate, coercive, unfair, or likely to prevent proper consideration of a serious concern.
A person should not be pressured to accept informal resolution where they seek a formal route and the concern reasonably requires one.
Formal assessment and investigation
Where a formal process is needed, the Commons should appoint an appropriate person or body to assess or investigate the matter.
The appointed person or body should have:
- Appropriate authority
- Sufficient independence
- Relevant competence or access to specialist advice
- No unmanaged conflict of interest
- A clear scope, terms of reference, timetable, and reporting route
- Appropriate access to relevant records, evidence, policies, agreements, systems, and people
- Appropriate confidentiality, safeguarding, privacy, data, research, editorial, financial, and legal awareness
A formal process may involve:
- Reviewing relevant records, communications, decisions, policies, agreements, evidence, and timelines
- Seeking information from the person raising the complaint
- Seeking a response from the person, team, provider, partner, institution, editor, reviewer, researcher, Member, or other party involved
- Speaking with relevant witnesses or contributors
- Seeking specialist advice
- Reviewing conflicts of interest and decision authority
- Assessing relevant safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, financial, contractual, governance, or other standards
- Considering whether temporary restrictions, support, access adjustments, confidentiality measures, or other protective action are needed
- Producing a proportionate record, findings, decision, and recommended actions
The Commons should avoid unnecessary delay.
Some matters will take longer because they are complex, involve several people or organizations, require specialist advice, depend on external information, raise safeguarding or privacy issues, or require an independent process.
Where there is a delay, the Commons should provide an appropriate update where possible.
Outcomes and remedies
The Commons should communicate the outcome appropriately.
The level of detail shared may be limited by privacy, confidentiality, safeguarding, employment, legal, contractual, data-protection, disciplinary, security, or other legitimate considerations.
An outcome may include:
- No further action
- Clarification, information, guidance, or explanation
- An apology or acknowledgement
- A correction, update, or removal of information
- A change to a decision, process, form, policy, communication, access arrangement, event arrangement, Working Space arrangement, Membership process, publication record, Repository record, research process, or other activity
- A reasonable adjustment, support arrangement, alternative route, fee support, access change, or participation arrangement
- Training, supervision, mentoring, moderation, guidance, warning, boundary-setting, or performance improvement action
- A conflict-of-interest management action, recusal, reassignment, or independent review
- A safeguarding action, risk assessment, protective measure, restriction, suspension, or referral
- A privacy, data, consent, confidentiality, information-security, access, correction, restriction, retention, deletion, or notification action
- A research-integrity review, correction, clarification, withdrawal, suspension, provider review, or publication action
- An editorial correction, editor’s note, expression of concern, restriction, withdrawal, retraction, review, or appeal route
- A financial, provider, funding, Partnership, Membership, access, role, or contractual review
- A referral to an external organization, institution, funder, provider, safeguarding body, regulator, professional body, authority, or another appropriate route
- A decision that the complaint is upheld, partly upheld, not upheld, unable to be determined, resolved informally, referred, withdrawn, or closed
- A review date, monitoring arrangement, implementation plan, or follow-up action
The Commons should not promise an outcome before completing an appropriate assessment.
A person who raises a complaint may not receive every outcome they request. The Commons should nevertheless explain its decision as far as possible and indicate any next steps, review route, or appeal route that may apply.
Appeal, records, and accountability
An appeal is not a complete re-hearing of a complaint or decision.
It is a limited review of whether there are grounds to reconsider the outcome.
Grounds for appeal
A person may request an appeal where an applicable Commons process provides for one and where one or more of the following grounds may apply:
- A material procedural error occurred
- The decision was made by a person or body without appropriate authority
- A relevant actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest was not disclosed or managed appropriately
- Significant new evidence has emerged that could reasonably have affected the outcome and was not available earlier
- The outcome was materially inconsistent with the evidence, policy, procedure, agreement, or standards considered
- A relevant policy, process, safeguard, or condition was not applied appropriately
- The outcome was unreasonable or disproportionate in light of the available information
- A material safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, financial, legal, or other risk was not considered appropriately
An appeal should normally identify the original decision, the grounds for appeal, relevant evidence, and the outcome sought.
Disagreement with an outcome alone may not be enough to justify an appeal.
Appeal process
An appeal should be considered by a person or body with sufficient authority and independence from the original process.
The appeal reviewer may:
- Confirm the original outcome
- Clarify the original outcome
- Correct a procedural or factual error
- Refer the matter back for reconsideration
- Require an independent review or further investigation
- Vary, suspend, replace, or reverse the decision
- Require a new decision maker, editor, reviewer, assessor, panel, or route
- Recommend additional safeguards, support, communication, correction, training, policy change, or other remedial action
- Decide that the appeal is not within scope or does not meet the stated grounds
- Close the appeal with reasons
The appeal outcome should normally be final within the Commons’ internal process, subject to any relevant external, legal, contractual, institutional, regulatory, or other rights.
Records
The Commons should maintain proportionate, accurate, secure, and appropriately confidential records of complaints, reviews, appeals, outcomes, actions, and lessons learned.
A Complaints, Review, and Appeal Record may include:
- The date the matter was received
- The person raising the matter, where known
- The route used and the nature of the concern
- Relevant activity, policy, Group, Working Space, event, project, decision, publication, Repository record, Membership, Partnership, funding arrangement, provider arrangement, or other context
- Immediate risk assessment and protective action
- Accessibility, communication, confidentiality, support, safeguarding, privacy, data, cultural, or other relevant arrangements
- Conflicts of interest declared and how they were managed
- The person or body with authority to assess, investigate, review, or decide
- Information considered, evidence received, people consulted, and specialist advice obtained
- Findings, reasons, decision, actions, implementation responsibilities, and review dates
- Communication provided to affected people
- Appeal information, appeal outcome, closure, and learning points
Records should distinguish between allegations, evidence, observations, findings, decisions, and opinions.
The Commons should retain records only for as long as necessary and in accordance with applicable privacy, data, confidentiality, safeguarding, research, editorial, financial, contractual, governance, and other requirements.
Reporting and Learning
The Commons Governance Authority should receive proportionate information about significant concerns, complaints, reviews, appeals, trends, risks, outcomes, delays, accessibility barriers, safeguarding matters, privacy issues, research-integrity matters, editorial matters, conflicts of interest, and lessons learned.
Reporting should protect confidentiality and should not disclose personal or sensitive information unnecessarily.
The Commons should use this information to identify:
- Recurring concerns or barriers
- Weaknesses in policies, procedures, systems, forms, access routes, documentation, communication, training, role descriptions, decision-making, moderation, provider arrangements, Partnerships, funding arrangements, or other activity
- Whether particular groups or communities face repeated disadvantage or exclusion
- Whether additional safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, research, editorial, financial, legal, governance, or specialist support is needed
- Whether changes should be made to prevent recurrence and improve public trust
Operational Documents and Support
The Commons should maintain clear, accessible, and proportionate documents and tools to support complaints, reviews, and appeals.
Complaints, Review, and Appeal Policy
This should define the scope, principles, roles, routes, process, accessibility arrangements, confidentiality, records, outcomes, review, appeal, escalation, and closure arrangements for Commons concerns and complaints.
Complaint Form
This should provide a structured, accessible route for raising a concern or formal complaint.
It should allow a person to describe the matter, identify urgency, request support or adjustments, provide evidence, state confidentiality needs, and explain the outcome sought.
Review Request Form
This should provide a route for requesting reconsideration of a decision because of a material error, procedural concern, conflict of interest, significant new information, or another relevant ground.
Appeal Form
This should explain the limited grounds for appeal and enable a person to identify the original outcome, grounds, evidence, accessibility needs, confidentiality requirements, and requested remedy.
Complaints, Review, and Appeal Register
This should record complaints, concerns, reviews, appeals, decisions, actions, implementation dates, review dates, trends, and learning in a proportionate and appropriately confidential form.
Investigation and Review Terms of Reference
This should define the scope, authority, independence, evidence, confidentiality, timetable, reporting route, safeguards, decision authority, and expected output for a material or complex review.
Outcome and Action Plan Template
This should record findings, decisions, reasons, remedies, actions, responsibilities, timescales, review arrangements, communication, and closure.
Independent Reviewer and Conflict Assessment Form
This should support appointment of appropriate reviewers, assess relevant expertise and independence, and record actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Retaliation and Protective Measures Procedure
This should explain how the Commons identifies, records, responds to, reviews, and prevents retaliation, intimidation, exclusion, adverse treatment, or other risk arising from a complaint, review, appeal, disclosure, or participation in a process.
Contact and support
Use Contact and Support if you wish to make an enquiry, provide feedback, raise a concern, make a complaint, request review, ask about an appeal, seek an adjustment, report retaliation, or ask for guidance about an appropriate Commons route.
You may use this route to:
- Ask how to raise a concern or complaint
- Request a Complaint Form, Review Request Form, or Appeal Form
- Request an accessible format, communication support, translation, interpretation, additional time, a private reporting route, or another adjustment
- Raise a concern about conduct, decision-making, access, Membership, a Community Group, a Working Space, an event, research, publication, Repository activity, a Partnership, funding, a provider, a role holder, or another Commons matter
- Raise a safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, conflict-of-interest, financial, governance, or other significant concern
- Ask whether a decision can be reviewed or appealed
- Report retaliation, intimidation, pressure, exclusion, or adverse treatment connected to a concern or complaint
- Ask for information about a policy, procedure, agreement, decision, record, review route, or outcome where you are entitled to receive it
- Provide feedback on the Commons’ systems, services, policies, communications, access routes, or activity
Complaints, Review, and Appeal is working well when:
- People understand how to make an enquiry, provide feedback, raise a concern, make a complaint, request review, or seek appeal information
- Reporting routes are accessible, clear, proportionate, and available across Commons activity
- People can request adjustments, communication support, alternative formats, confidentiality, additional time, or another appropriate participation arrangement
- The Commons responds to concerns respectfully and without retaliation
- Safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, financial, provider, Partnership, Membership, conduct, and governance matters are directed to appropriate routes
- Urgent risks can be identified and acted on promptly
- Informal resolution is used where appropriate but never to suppress, minimize, or avoid proper consideration of a serious concern
- Formal complaints are assessed fairly, independently, proportionately, and with appropriate expertise
- People with conflicts of interest do not investigate, determine, review, or appeal matters improperly
- People whose conduct or decisions are questioned are treated fairly and given an appropriate opportunity to respond
- Confidentiality, privacy, safeguarding, data protection, evidence preservation, accessibility, and the rights of others are considered throughout the process
- Decisions, findings, remedies, restrictions, corrections, referrals, suspensions, and closures are recorded and communicated appropriately
- Appeals are available on clear and limited grounds and are considered independently
- Retaliation, intimidation, exclusion, pressure, or adverse treatment connected to complaints or disclosures is taken seriously
- The Commons learns from recurring concerns, barriers, complaints, reviews, appeals, incidents, and feedback
- Policies, procedures, systems, events, Working Spaces, research, publication, Repository activity, Partnerships, funding arrangements, and other Commons activity improve over time
- The Commons remains fair, safe, independent, accountable, accessible, responsive, and worthy of public trust