Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants 2025-26

1. General principles

1.1 The University will seek to ensure that all complaints are treated seriously, positively and constructively. It will also seek to ensure that complaints are dealt with promptly, with fairness and consistency, and with due regard to the University's commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. If a complaint is found to be justified, the University will take such action or provide such remedy as may be appropriate and will do so promptly. If a complaint is not upheld, the reasons for the decision will be communicated to the Applicant.

1.2 Applicants will not suffer any disadvantage or recrimination as the result of making a complaint in good faith.

1.3 Applicants, and those against whom complaints are made, may expect complaints to be dealt with confidentially and that their privacy will be respected. However, it may be necessary to disclose information to others in order to deal with the complaint; in these circumstances, the parties concerned will be informed of such disclosure. The Applicant is referred to section 5 of these Regulations for further information relating to the processing of data by the University.

1.4 Complaints may be made by individual applicants or by groups of applicants; they may not be lodged by a third party on the applicant's behalf except in exceptional circumstances, with the University's prior consent and upon receipt by the University of the Applicant's signed written authorisation for that third party to act on their behalf. All complaints must specify the applicant's full name, UCAS number where relevant, and/or Southampton ID number, and an address for correspondence.

1.5 Anonymous complaints will not be dealt with under these Regulations. Staff who receive an anonymous complaint will be expected to use their discretion and judgement as to how to handle such a complaint.

1.6 The Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants may be invoked by any individual who has submitted a formal application for full-time or part-time study at the University of Southampton, the University of Southampton Delhi, or the University of Southampton Malaysia (either via UCAS or direct to the University). It applies to applicants for all levels of study. It does not apply to applicants for courses offered at an Accredited Institution, or to applicants for courses which are wholly or partially delivered by a partner Further Education college except where selection for the full course is the responsibility of the University of Southampton.

1.7 The Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants includes a number of stages, both informal and formal, through which to seek resolution of a complaint. While applicants are expected to familiarise themselves with these Regulations before raising any issues, complaints will not be rejected solely on the grounds that the applicant has not followed the Regulations in every detail. At each stage the person to whom the complaint has been submitted will, if it is upheld wholly or in part, apply those remedies which are within their powers. If they consider that the remedy is outside their powers, they will refer the matter to the appropriate University authority.

1.8 Advice about the Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants for UG and PGT programmes may be obtained from the Admissions team by emailing:

• UK Campus: admissions@southampton.ac.uk.
• India Campus: admissions@delhi.southampton.ac.uk
• Malaysia Campus: admissions.malaysia@soton.ac.uk

Advice for PGR programmes may be obtained from the Doctoral College by emailing doctoral-college@southampton.ac.uk.

2. Definitions

2.1 Applicants' complaints are likely to take one of the following forms:

2.1.1 Reconsideration of Admission Decisions, including Fee Status Decisions

This would be a request for the reconsideration of a decision on an application which may be termed an 'appeal'. The applicant's preferred outcome in such instances is likely to be a reconsideration of the application and supporting documents with a view to changing the original decision. Such requests may be entertained only where there are genuine grounds, with evidence, for doing so and not simply because the applicant is unhappy with the outcome of the application, fee status decision or the conditions of the offer. There is no provision for appeal against the academic or professional judgement of admissions staff and selectors.

Should an Applicant's actual performance exceed predicted performance this does not form grounds for appeal against the initial decision.

Grounds for submitting a complaint/appeal in such circumstances would relate to instances where the applicant believes, and has evidence to support a claim, that:

• the University has not followed its stated procedures;
• there is evidence of bias or prejudice in the decision-making process;
• the applicant has new information available which, for good cause, could not have been made available at the time of submission of the initial application or the fee status questionnaire.

2.1.2 Concerns Relating to Procedure or Process

Complaints about the way in which an application has been handled might relate to the process followed by the University or to the conduct of a member of staff. Complaints about process and procedure covers fees classification, scholarships and any other part of the admissions process.   The applicant's desired outcome in such instances is likely to be recognition of error with an apology and a commitment to change procedures.

2.2 The Process below applies in all cases except where this is clearly stated.

3. The process

Stage 1: Informal complaint

3.1 The majority of complaints can be resolved satisfactorily on an informal basis. If possible, the Applicant should first raise their complaint by emailing the admissions team via the relevant email address above, stating the remedy they are seeking. The complaint will be passed to a member of staff who will review the complaint. The complaint must normally be made within 30 working days of the actions (or lack of actions) which prompted the complaint. A Reviewer will be appointed, who will respond, normally within ten working days of the complaint being made, and will retain a note of the substance of the complaint and any action taken. If it proves impossible to respond fully within ten working days, the applicant will be informed of the timescale for the receipt of a full response.

3.2 If it appears that a case may raise cultural or other sensitivities, the reviewer may also seek advice from other colleagues able to advise on these issues as they see fit, including colleagues external to the University.

3.3 If the complaint is in relation to an appeal against non-selection, the Reviewer of the complaint must satisfy themselves that the application was considered fairly, and that the decision did comply with the Admissions Policy and relevant admissions criteria. Provided that they are satisfied that this is the case, a standard response explaining the Admissions policy and criteria which has been applied is acceptable at this stage. The response should also draw the applicant's attention to the next stage of the process in case they wish to pursue the matter further and provide the relevant contact details.

3.4 If the complaint is in relation to an appeal of a fee status decision, the Reviewer of the complaint (or their nominee, if they have themselves been involved in the fee status decision) must be satisfied that the relevant legislation relating to the determination of fee status decisions has been properly and accurately applied. For students applying to study in the UK, guidance on the relevant legislation can be viewed online at www.ukcisa.org.uk. If the appeal is rejected the Reviewer must provide written reasons for this decision, with reference to the relevant legislation.

3.5 For all other complaints, if a complaint is rejected the Reviewer must provide written reasons.

3.6 If a complaint is of a general rather than a specific nature, it may be more appropriately addressed to the role listed below.

• UK Campus (UG and PGT programmes): Head of Admissions Operations
• UK Campus (PGR programmes): Head of Doctoral College Administration
• Delhi Campus: Admissions Operations Manager
• Malaysia Campus: Director, Student Recruitment & Engagement

3.7 Any response should draw the applicant’s attention to Stage 2 of the Complaints process and provide relevant contact details.

Stage 2: Written complaint

3.8 If the applicant is dissatisfied with the response they receive at Stage 1 of this process they should submit, within 30 working days of receiving the response, a written complaint to a Designated Individual as follows:

• UK Campus (UG and PGT programmes): Head of Admissions Operations
• UK Campus (PGR programmes): Associate Director of Doctoral College
• Delhi Campus: Admissions Operations Manager
• Malaysia Campus: Director, Student Recruitment & Engagement

The written complaint should set out briefly: the nature of the complaint; the informal steps already taken; details of the Stage 1 response received; and a statement as to why the Applicant remains dissatisfied and the remedy they are seeking.

3.9 The Designated Individual identified in paragraph 3.8 will acknowledge receipt of a complaint in writing within five working days. The Designated Individual (or nominee) will investigate the complaint and seek to understand why the Stage 1 outcome was considered unsatisfactory and whether that perception is justified. The Designated Individual will review the information provided by the applicant, and the Stage 1 Reviewer alongside information from the teams involved in processing the application.

3.10 If further investigation of the complaint is required, and it is a complaint about non-selection, the Designated Individual will arrange for the application to be considered against the relevant Admissions criteria by a second Academic selector and/or member of Admissions staff.

3.11 If further investigation of the complaint is required, and it is a complaint about a fee status decision, the complainant must be able to demonstrate that they have new information which was, for good reason, not available at Stage 1 or that the University failed to follow its process at Stage 1 and this has negatively impacted the outcome of the appeal.

3.12 If it appears that a case may raise particular cultural or other sensitivities, the Designated Individual may also seek advice from other colleagues able to advise on these issues as they see fit, including colleagues external to the University.

3.13 The Designated Individual will submit a written response to the applicant, normally within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint. If it should prove impossible to respond fully within 15 working days, the applicant will be informed in writing of the timescale for receipt of a full response.  Any response should draw the applicant’s attention to Stage 3 of the Complaints process and provide relevant contact details.

Stage 3: Final written complaint

3.14 If an applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of Stage 2 they may proceed to Stage 3 by writing to the Stage 3 Decision Maker as follows:

• UK Campus (UG and PGT programmes): Associate Director of Admissions and VISAS
• UK Campus (PGR programmes): Faculty Director of Graduate School
• Delhi Campus: Director of Admissions and VISAS, Marketing and Recruitment
• Malaysia Campus: Director, Student Recruitment & Engagement

A request to proceed to Stage 3 must be made within 10 working days of the date of the Stage 2 response and should enclose copies of the correspondence exchanged during the earlier stages of the procedure. Complaints re only eligible for investigation at Stage 3 if the applicant can demonstrate that:

• 3.14.1 they have new information which was for good reason not available at Stage 2 and this information is material to the complaint; or
• 3.14.2 the University failed to follow its procedures at Stage 2 and this has significantly disadvantaged the applicant.

3.15 For complaints relating to fee status decisions which satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 3.14, the Stage 3 Decision Maker will review the decision made against the relevant legislation relating to the determination of fee classifications) and decide whether it has been properly and accurately applied. The decision reached at the end of Stage 3 will be final.

3.16 For complaints relating to non-selection which satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 3.14, the Stage 3 Decision Maker will acknowledge in writing receipt of a formal complaint within five working days. Subject to their being satisfied that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter using the Stage 1 and Stage 2 procedures they will appoint a person or persons within the University, having no material interest in the complaint, to carry out an investigation. This Investigator may seek to resolve the issue on the basis of documentation after having sought further information from the Reviewer or Designated Individual involved in the earlier investigation of the complaint and from the applicant or may, at the Investigator’s discretion, call a meeting at which the applicant and any other persons requested by the Investigator to do so may submit their respective cases.

3.17 The Applicant and the person who is the subject of the complaint may each be accompanied at any such meeting by a friend or colleague who may speak on their behalf if appropriate. In conducting such meetings, arrangements will be made where necessary to accommodate the requirements of applicants with special communication or other needs. If unavoidable circumstances prevent any party from attending such a meeting, then the parties may agree that the meeting will be postponed. The voluntary absence of one of the parties will not prevent the meeting from proceeding.

3.18 After investigation of the complaint, the Investigator will give an opinion as to whether the complaint is justified or not and will submit a report in writing to the Stage 3 Decision Maker, who will determine what action, if any, will be taken and will communicate this in writing to the applicant and all other relevant parties, normally within 30 working days of the date of acknowledging receipt of the formal complaint. Applicants are requested not to contact the University until this period has expired.

3.19 The decision of the Stage 3 Decision Maker, following completion of this process, will be considered as final.

3.20 In all cases, the outcome of the Stage 3 investigation, once concluded, will be considered as final.

4. Monitoring of complaints

4.1 Academic Quality and Standards Sub-Committee will monitor, on an annual basis, the number and nature of all complaints received under the processes outlined above and will consider any necessary changes to policies, systems or procedures suggested by the nature and pattern of the complaints received.

5. Processing of information

5.1 By submitting a signed letter of complaint (or authorising a third party to do so on their behalf) an applicant is agreeing that the University may process all the information that it contains, together with any supporting documentation, for all purposes relating to that complaint. The information may be disclosed to those members of the University who have a need to see it for the purpose of considering and seeking a resolution of the complaint. The data will be processed in accordance with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and it will be stored as part of the University's record of that Applicant's application. More information can be located in the University’s Privacy Notice.

6. Providing information to applicants about these procedures

6.1 The University will ensure that, upon receipt of an application, this Regulation and complaints process is brought to the attention of applicants and that applicants have the right to raise a complaint.

7. Further information

7.1 Further information about, or clarification of, these procedures is available from:

• UK Campus: admissions@southampton.ac.uk.
• India Campus: admissions@delhi.southampton.ac.uk
• Malaysia Campus: admissions.malaysia@soton.ac.uk

Complaints related to PGR programmes, informal concerns should be raised by emailing doctoral-college@soton.ac.uk. If this course of action proves unsatisfactory, then the procedure set out in this document should be observed).