Federation Complaints Policy

1. Purpose of the policy

The Federation is committed to delivering a high-quality service across all areas of its work, including training definition and support, examinations and customer service. We value feedback and use it to improve our standards.

This policy outlines how individuals can raise concerns or complaints and how the Federation will respond, ensuring a transparent, fair, and timely process.

2. Scope

This policy applies to:

• Candidates taking MRCP(UK) and Speciality Certificate Examinations (SCE)
• Examiners and centres that deliver MRCP(UK) and SCE
• Trainees enrolling on Internal Medicine training, Higher Specialty Training, and Portfolio pathway
• Individuals using the CPD platform
• Education and training providers applying for CPD approval
• Volunteers and unremunerated stakeholders working with the Federation team
• Anyone that uses or has used the Federation’s services

This policy covers:

• Concerns about the quality of training, assessments, or resources.
• Complaints about administrative or customer service processes.
• Conduct of staff, trainers, examiners, or assessors.
• Any action (or inaction) that has caused disadvantage or distress.

Out of scope

The following are out of scope of this complaints policy:

• Requests to review decisions made by or on behalf of an examining board about the performance of an examination of a candidate/group of candidates. This is an appeal and will be handled in line with the Examination Appeals Policy.
• Requests for reasonable adjustments from candidates wishing to sit SCE or MRCP(UK) exams.
• Requests to review CPD approval decisions. These are appeals and will be handled in line with the CPD appeals policy as outlined in the CPD approval guidelines for the CPD format concerned.
• Concerns about a person or activity that is not within the remit of the Federation or the Royal Colleges’ examinations departments.
• Allegations of criminal activity (which will be referred to the Police for separate consideration).

• Allegations related to the fitness to practice of a physician which will be referred to the General Medical Council (or equivalent regulatory body)
• Anonymous complaints or complaints submitted on behalf of someone else without their explicit consent
• Matters related to formal disciplinary action against any member of staff. Disciplinary procedures take precedence over this policy.
• Complaints about matters that are outside of the remit and influence of the Federation. We will endeavour to refer these concerns to the appropriate body.

3. Principles

The Federation follows the following principles in the exercise of this complaints policy:

• Accessibility: Information about the complaints process will be public, clear, and easy to access.
• Fairness: Complaints will be dealt with impartially and without bias.
• Confidentiality: All complaints will be handled sensitively, with confidentiality respected as far as possible.
• Timeliness: We aim to acknowledge and resolve complaints within clearly stated timeframes.
• Continuous improvement: We will use complaints to review and improve our services and processes.

4. Complaints process

Frontline resolution (following investigation)

We encourage individuals to raise concerns in the first instance with the relevant staff member, examiner, trainer, or centre coordinator that they are in contact with. Wherever possible, we will seek to quickly investigate the areas of dissatisfaction and resolve them quickly.

If the issue cannot be resolved informally or if the individual prefers, they may submit a formal complaint.

Any expression of dissatisfaction which is about conduct and behaviour (whether proven or unproven) will never be dealt with by informal review.

Complaints procedure

The following steps should be followed for complaints that are managed through the formal complaints process.

4.1: Submitting a formal complaint

Formal complaints must be submitted in writing and should include:

• Name and contact details.
• Full details of the complaint, including dates, names, and any supporting evidence.
• Details of any previous attempts to resolve the issue informally.

Complaints must be submitted using the online form available on the Federation’s website via the contact us page.

Complaints should be raised within two months of the event that is the subject of the complaint. Complaints outside of this timeframe will be considered at the Federation's discretion.

4.2: Acknowledgement

We will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within two working days.

4.3: Investigation

The complaint will be assigned to an appropriate manager or designated complaints officer who will:

• Review all information and evidence provided with a relevant senior manager.
• Contact the complainant for further information if needed.
• Interview staff or third parties involved (where applicable).

We aim to complete investigations and respond within 20 working days. If it takes longer, we will inform the complainant with an updated timeline. We will manage the timescale for investigating complaints proactively and inform the complainant as soon as possible if we think there will be a delay.

4.4: Investigation outcomes

There are three possible outcomes from the investigation:

• No further action
• A formal apology
• Appropriate remedial action.

No change will be made to a candidate’s examination outcomes on the basis of a complaint being upheld. To appeal an examination result, please refer to the examination appeal regulations.

No change will be made to the process of reviewing progress with training or investigating any other matters related to progress in training on the basis of the complaint being upheld. The complaint process will run in parallel.

No change will be made to the outcome of an appeal against a CPD approval decision on the basis of a complaint being upheld. To appeal a CPD approval decision please refer to the CPD approval guidelines for the CPD format concerned CPD approval guidelines

4.5 Response

We will provide a written response that includes:

• A summary of the complaint
• The high-level details of the investigation carried out
• Findings of the investigation.
• The outcome
• Any actions we will take.

If the complaint is upheld, we will offer appropriate remedies, which may include apologies, corrective actions, or service improvements.

4.6 Escalation

If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome, they may request a review by a senior member of staff.

Requests for escalation must be made within 10 working days of receiving the response, stating the grounds for dissatisfaction and what the complainant would like to be done to resolve the matter to their satisfaction.

The senior review will be completed and a final decision issued within 20 working days. This decision will be considered final and the Federation will not enter into further correspondence with the complainant after this.

5. Record Keeping

We will maintain records of all complaints, investigations, and outcomes for at least three years. Complaint outcomes will be reviewed regularly to identify themes and drive service improvements.

6. Malpractice and Maladministration

In the delivery of examinations, we require all centres, staff, and candidates to act with integrity and professionalism. Allegations of malpractice or maladministration will be investigated promptly, fairly, and robustly. We define malpractice and maladministration as follows:

• Malpractice refers to any deliberate act of wrongdoing by candidates, staff, centres, or others, including cheating, collusion, or falsification of records.
• Maladministration covers unintentional failings, such as errors in assessment delivery, record-keeping, or examination administration.

Where evidence supports the allegation, we may take actions including invalidation of results, sanctions on centres or individuals, and reporting to relevant regulatory authorities. Our policy outlines definitions, examples, investigation processes, and the rights of those involved.

7. Vexatious or malicious complaints

A vexatious or malicious complaint is one that is made with the intent to cause distress, annoyance, or disruption, rather than address a genuine concern. Such complaints typically lack substantive merit and may involve deliberate misuse of the complaints process.

Examples may include:

• Repeated complaints with no new evidence or justification, after a matter has been thoroughly investigated and closed.