Our complaints procedure
About this policy
The Fringe Society's role
The Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society is the charitable organisation that underpins the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. We exist to support artists and to champion the principles on which the Fringe was founded.
We are not a regulatory body. We do not have powers of enforcement. We cannot compel participants to take any particular action, we cannot adjudicate legal disputes, and we cannot provide legal advice. Our tools are those of a convener: we can facilitate dialogue, offer mediation, log complaints, make recommendations, and - as a last resort - withdraw our services. That could mean withdrawing ability for participants to accredit as Media or Arts Industry, refusing to allow a venue to register, or refusing to allow an individual/organisation to register a show in accordance with our Terms and Conditions.
Important: What we can and cannot do
- We CAN: receive and log complaints, investigate where evidence allows, offer mediation, make recommendations, and withdraw Fringe Society services (such as registration or accreditation) where warranted.
- We CANNOT: compel participants to pay money owed, enforce employment law, investigate criminal matters, provide legal advice, or guarantee any particular outcome.
For legal matters, participants should contact relevant authorities directly (Police Scotland, ACAS, Citizens Advice Scotland, Equity, BECTU – see External referral routes below). We can signpost but not refer on your behalf.
Our relationship with CIISA
This policy has been developed in consultation with the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA) and reflects the CIISA Standards (February 2025).
No legal advice
Nothing in this policy suite constitutes legal advice. Participants who believe they have experienced unlawful behaviour – including assault, sexual harassment, theft, fraud or discrimination – should contact the relevant authority (Police Scotland, ACAS or Citizens Advice) directly. We will always support and signpost participants to these routes, but we are not able to advocate, represent or advise legally on their behalf. No action that the Fringe Society takes as part of these policies should be viewed as taking responsibility for any individual or organisation’s own legal compliance.
Who this applies to
This policy applies to all Fringe participants, which the Fringe Society defines as:
- all company members connected to a registered show (cast, crew, production staff) and their primary contact
- registered venues and their staff
- accredited media (journalists, reviewers, critics)
- accredited arts industry participants (programmers, producers, agents)
- producers and PRs working with registered shows
- volunteers and casual workers engaged through Fringe-connected organisations
- street performers participating in Fringe Street Events.
None of the above are employees or contractors of the Fringe Society, which defines both the limits of our authority and the nature of our role, which is one of support, guidance, mediation and – where necessary – a graduated withdrawal of services.
Complaints process overview
The Fringe Society's complaint process is designed to be straightforward, supportive and fair – not adversarial. Our starting point is always: how can we help resolve this?
You can contact us at any stage and in any way – by email or in person. We log all complaints, including informal ones, because recording patterns matters even when no immediate action is warranted.
In most cases, no action will be taken without your knowledge. However, where a complaint contributes to a wider pattern of concerns about the same individual or organisation, it may inform action we take – even if we cannot update you individually on the outcome.
Managing expectations
Please read before submitting a complaint.
The Fringe Society is not a court, a regulator or a legal authority. We cannot compel anyone to pay money, take specific action, or change their behaviour.
- We can: record your complaint, investigate where possible, make recommendations, and take proportionate action up to and including withdrawal of Fringe Society services.
- We cannot: guarantee any particular outcome, provide legal advice, represent you in legal proceedings, or resolve disputes that are properly the domain of the courts or employment tribunals.
If you believe a criminal offence has been committed, please contact Police Scotland directly. We can support you in doing so but cannot act on your behalf.
Who can raise a complaint
Any Fringe participant (as defined above – see Who this applies to) can raise a complaint with the Fringe Society. You do not need to be a primary contact for a registered show – company members, venue staff, volunteers and others connected to Fringe participation are all welcome to contact us. You may raise a complaint on your own behalf, or on behalf of others with their knowledge and consent.
Where you feel safe to do so, you may wish to raise a concern with the venue, producer or organisation you are working with in the first instance – they should have their own procedures for handling complaints. If you do not feel safe doing so, if you feel your concern has not been dealt with adequately, or if your complaint relates to the organisation itself, please come to us directly.
What you can raise a complaint about
Anything you believe breaches the Code of Conduct or Unacceptable Behaviour Policy – including withheld payments, misleading contracts, bullying or harassment, unsafe environments, or failure to deliver promised services. You can raise a complaint with us even after the Fringe has concluded.
Time limits
There is no formal time limit. Complaints raised within 12 months can generally be investigated more effectively. Those raised later will still be logged and may inform future decisions, even where investigation is limited. We encourage complaints to be raised regardless.
During the Fringe
During the Fringe, we commit to an initial response within 48 hours for all complaints. For those assessed as High or Very High priority (see How we respond, below), we will take urgent steps where the situation requires it.
The complaint stages
| Stage | What happens | Timescale |
| 1. Contact us | You can contact us however feels right – in person at Fringe Central or by email at [email protected]. If emailing, include: your details and connection to the Fringe; who the complaint concerns; what happened and when; any evidence; and what outcome you are seeking if known. You don't need everything before contacting us – we can help you structure your complaint. | Any time. |
| 2. Acknowledgement | We confirm receipt, log your complaint, and write to you to confirm: category assigned (see Complaint logging and classification, below); what happens next; indicative timescale; and anything outside our remit with signposting to other routes. | Within five working days. |
| 3. Investigation | Where warranted, and with your permission, we may contact the respondent for their account, sharing relevant information from your complaint impartially. We may ask you for further information. | We aim to conclude within 30 working days of receiving all relevant information; we will keep you updated. |
| 4. Outcome | We write to you with:
|
On conclusion of Stage 3. |
| 5. Appeal | If unsatisfied with the outcome, you may appeal by email within 20 working days of receiving the outcome letter. Where your complaint has been handled by the Artist Support and Projects Manager, your appeal will be considered by the Head of Artist Services. Where the Head of Artist Services has been involved in handling your complaint, your appeal will be considered by the Chief Executive. | Decision within 30 working days. |
What happens to your complaint
- All complaints are logged and held on record by the Fringe Society.
- Records are held securely and are not accessible via general shared mailboxes. Access is restricted to those directly involved in handling the complaint.
- Where multiple complaints are received about the same participant, these are reviewed together to identify patterns.
- Patterns of concern or particularly serious instances may be brought to the attention of the Fringe Society Board.
- Anonymised, aggregated data on complaints received is reported to the Board annually.
- The Fringe Society does not provide legal advice in connection with any complaint.
A note on confidentiality and anonymity
Your complaint will be handled with care and discretion – we will not share your identity or the details of your complaint without your consent, and access to complaint records is restricted to those directly involved in handling it.
You are welcome to report something to us anonymously. We will always log anonymous reports, and they may contribute to pattern identification and inform action we take over time. However, without a named contact we cannot follow up for further information, which means our ability to investigate or take direct action is significantly limited. If we later identify a pattern of similar concerns from other sources, your anonymous report may contribute to any action we take – though we will not be able to update you on outcomes.
If you would like us to know who you are but not share that with the respondent, this is sometimes possible. It is harder in cases where there are few potential complainants or where the issues are very specific – but talk to us and we will do what we can.
We will always ask your consent before sharing your identity, and we will explain clearly why it is needed.
All complaint information is held in accordance with the Fringe Society's data protection obligations under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. If you have questions about how your data is handled, please contact us at [email protected].
A note on the respondent
Where a complaint is raised about another participant, we refer to that person or organisation as the respondent.
What we share
What we share with the respondent is determined by the complainant. We will always ask the complainant what they are comfortable with us sharing before making contact. In practice, we encourage complainants and respondents to engage directly with each other where possible – our role is to facilitate resolution, not to act as an intermediary passing information back and forth. (See our mediation service.)
Where a complainant does not want their identity or the details of their complaint shared, we will respect that. This may limit what we can do – we cannot investigate or facilitate resolution without some level of information sharing – but we will always be transparent with the complainant about what that means in practice.
The respondent's reply
If a respondent provides us with information or a response, that is theirs to share further or not. We will not pass it to the complainant without the respondent's consent. Where a respondent declines to engage with the process, we will note this, feed back to the complainant in general terms, and may close or reclassify the complaint accordingly.
The right to reply before action
We will not take action against a respondent – including any withdrawal of services – without first giving them a reasonable opportunity to respond to the complaint(s). The level of detail shared will be proportionate to the nature and severity of the complaint and subject to the complainant's consent.
Appeals
A respondent may appeal any action taken against them. Appeals follow the same process as for complainants – heard by a senior manager who was not involved in the original decision.
Complaint logging and classification
Every complaint we receive is logged – whether it arrives by email, in person, or informally. Consistent logging serves several purposes:
- it ensures every person who raises a concern receives a proper response;
- it enables us to identify patterns of behaviour across the Fringe
- it allows us to demonstrate accountability.
When a complaint is received, it is assigned a category, an information quality rating, a severity rating, and a priority level. These assessments determine how we respond. The full detail of what we record, how we rate information quality, and how we assess severity is set out in Appendix B of our Conduct and Behaviour Policies – but in plain terms:
- Category: what kind of complaint it is (financial, harassment, employment, etc).
- Information quality: how reliable the source is and how strong the information is.
- Severity: how serious the impact is, how many people are affected, and how easily it can be remedied.
- Priority: derived from the above, ranging from Very High to Document Only.
All complaints are assigned to one of the following categories:
| Category | Description | Examples |
| Financial / contractual | Issues relating to payments, contracts, fees, financial transparency. | Withheld settlement; misleading fee structure; missing contract. |
| Employment / engagement practices | Issues relating to working conditions, employment rights, volunteer misuse. | Unpaid workers; unsafe conditions; missing Health and Safety provision |
| Harassment / bullying / discrimination | Issues relating to personal behaviour, protected characteristics, power abuse. | Sexual harassment; bullying; discriminatory language. |
| Service / commitment failures | Issues where agreed services or commitments have not been delivered. | PR commitments not met; venue services not delivered; no-shows. |
| Communication / transparency | Issues relating to information sharing, clarity of communication, deceptive practice. | Misleading description of services; withheld information; failure to respond. |
| Behaviour towards Fringe Society / staff | Issues relating to behaviour directed at the Society or our staff. | Abusive contact; threats; unreasonable demands. |
| Unlawful / criminal | Allegations of criminal conduct. | Assault; theft; fraud. |
A complaint may be tagged with a primary category and one or more secondary categories where the issues span more than one area.
Note: some behaviour in any category may also constitute unlawful conduct. Where this is the case, we will always signpost complainants to Police Scotland.
For every complaint received, we record the following where it is available:
| Date received | Date the complaint or concern was first received. |
| Complainant details | Name, contact details, role / connection to Fringe (kept confidential unless consent given to share). |
| Respondent details | Name and role of the participant the complaint concerns. |
| Complaint category | Primary category and any secondary tags – see Section 5. |
| Source reliability rating | 1, 2 or 3 – see information quality assessment below. |
| Information quality rating | A, B, C, D or E – see information quality assessment below. |
| Severity rating: Scale | Minor / Moderate / Major – see severity assessment below. |
| Severity rating: Scope | Minor / Moderate / Major – see severity assessment below. |
| Severity rating: ease of remedy | Minor / Moderate / Major – see severity assessment below. |
| Overall severity | Highest of the three severity ratings above. |
| Priority level | Very high / High / Medium / Low / Document only – derived from matrix. |
| Summary | Brief description of the issue raised. |
| Evidence submitted | Note of any supporting documents or communications received. |
| Actions taken | Log of all steps taken by the Fringe Society. |
| Outcome | Summary of conclusion and any recommendations or action. |
| Date closed | Date the complaint was formally concluded. |
| Appeal | Note of any appeal submitted and outcome. |
| Pattern flag | Where multiple complaints received about same respondent – triggers scope review. |
Before assessing severity, we evaluate the quality of the information we have received. This uses a two-axis framework – rating both the reliability of the source and the quality of the information itself. This helps us decide how much weight to give the report and what action (if any) is appropriate at this stage.
Source reliability
| Rating | What it means |
| 1 – Reliable | The source is known to us or verifiably connected to the Fringe. |
| 2 – Untested | The source is not known to us, or their connection to the reported events is not fully established. |
| 3 – Not reliable | The source is anonymous with no verifiable detail, or has provided unreliable reports previously. |
Information quality
| Rating | What it means |
| A – Known directly | The information comes from someone with direct, first-hand knowledge of the events described. |
| B – Corroborated indirectly | The information is not first-hand but is supported by corroborating evidence or accounts from others. |
| C – Known indirectly | The information is not first-hand and is not corroborated, but there is no reason to doubt it. |
| D – Not known | The information cannot be verified and there is no corroboration. It remains an allegation. |
| E – Suspected false | There are specific reasons to believe the information may be inaccurate or misleading. |
How these ratings combine
A complaint rated 1A (reliable source, direct knowledge) carries significantly more weight than one rated 3D (anonymous, unverifiable). However, even a 3D complaint is logged – because if similar reports arrive from different sources over time, the combined picture can shift the rating. Multiple independent reports pointing to the same issue will increase the Scope rating in the severity assessment below.
Severity is assessed across three dimensions, each rated Minor, Moderate or Major. The overall severity is the highest rating across the three – a complaint that is Minor on two dimensions but Major on one is treated as Major overall.
Scale – gravity of impact for the person or people directly affected
| Rating | What it means |
| Minor | Minimal impact – for example, hurt feelings, a one-off misunderstanding, or a minor inconvenience. |
| Moderate | Meaningful impact – for example, financial loss, a damaged professional relationship, or a stressful working experience. |
| Major | Significant physical or psychological harm – for example, serious harassment, assault, substantial financial loss, or lasting damage to mental health or career. |
Scope – number of people affected or at risk
| Rating | What it means |
| Minor | A single person is affected, with no reason to believe others are at risk. |
| Moderate | Several people are affected, OR a pattern of repeated behaviour suggests others could be harmed in future – even if only one person has reported so far. |
| Major | A significant number of people are or could be affected – for example, all artists at a venue, all shows produced by a particular producer, or a systemic practice affecting a broad group. |
Ease of remedy – how easily the harm can be remedied
| Rating | What it means |
| Minor | A straightforward remedy is likely to exist, would likely be accepted by all parties, and the respondent has the capacity to deliver it – for example, an apology, a correction, or a payment that is overdue. |
| Moderate | The respondent is likely unwilling to offer a reasonable remedy, or those affected would not accept a remedy if offered. Some gap in willingness or capacity to resolve, or where the nature of the harm suggests resolution is unlikely to be straightforward. |
| Major | Either the remedy would require significant legal intervention (courts, formal proceedings) to deliver; or the harm is inherently and seriously irreversible – meaning lasting psychological trauma, permanent damage to health, or similar. These are our assessments at the point of logging, based on the information available to us. |
How we respond
Complaints are handled by the Artist Support and Projects Manager in the first instance. Where a complaint is serious or complex, or where action involves service withdrawal or Board awareness, it is escalated to the Head of Artist Services and, where necessary, the Chief Executive and wider Senior Management Team. Appeals are heard by a senior manager who was not involved in the original decision – see Complaints process overview, above.
The full decision matrix – showing how information quality and severity ratings combine to determine priority level – is set out below. In summary:
- Document only: logged for pattern identification with no further action at this stage.
- Low priority: logged and monitored, with signposting offered but no direct contact with the respondent unless requested.
- Medium priority: investigated, with mediation offered where appropriate and formal recommendations issued.
- High priority: actively investigated, with expert advice sought where relevant.
- Very high priority: urgent response, with consideration of urgent action including service withdrawal and liaison with Police Scotland where appropriate.
Each complaint is assigned a combined code: source reliability (1, 2 or 3) + information quality (A, B, C, D or E) + overall severity (Minor, Moderate or Major). These combinations map to a priority level as follows:
| Combined rating | Priority level | What this means in practice |
| 1A Major 1B Major 2A Major |
Very high priority | Seek further corroboration if possible. Consider immediate removal of accreditation or services. Liaise with Police Scotland if appropriate. Communicate with respondent's employer where relevant. Warn wider stakeholders (eg venues, other participants) if appropriate. Signpost to support. |
| 1C Major 1D Major 2B Major |
High priority | Take steps to substantiate the allegation – document any corroborating accounts. Seek expert advice if relevant (eg relevant charities or trade unions). Re-categorise once additional information gathered. |
| 1A Moderate 1B Moderate 1C Moderate 2A Moderate 2B Moderate |
Medium priority | Signpost to support. Contact respondent for their account. Seek to mediate and de-escalate where appropriate. Issue formal warning or written recommendations. |
| 1D Moderate 2C Moderate 2D Moderate All Minor ratings |
Low priority | Signpost and de-escalate. Log. No direct contact with respondent unless complainant requests it. Monitor for pattern. |
| All rating-3 complaints All rating-E complaints |
Document only | Log the complaint and its categorisation. Take no further action at this stage. If corroborating information arrives later, re-assess – the prior log will inform the updated picture. |
Actions available: individuals
In increasing order of seriousness:
- Written acknowledgement and signposting only.
- Written recommendations to the respondent, with no further action.
- Offer of mediation facilitated by the Fringe Society.
- Official warning with requirement to engage with Fringe Society process.
- Physical removal from a Fringe environment (eg Fringe Central or street performance area).
- Removal of accreditation for media or arts industry; non-accreditation the following year.
- Referral to the respondent's employer where relevant and appropriate.
- Suspension of ability to register shows (temporary).
- Permanent withdrawal of Fringe Society services (registration, accreditation, advertising).
- Referral to Police Scotland or other authorities (very high priority / unlawful behaviour only).
Actions available: organisations and venues
In increasing order of seriousness:
- Written acknowledgement and signposting only.
- Written recommendations to the organisation with no further action.
- Offer of mediation facilitated by the Fringe Society.
- Management letter setting out concerns.
- Request to the venue or organisation to take additional steps or increase monitoring.
- Requirement for shows to register directly with the Fringe Society rather than through a venue or producer.
- Suspension of ability to register shows (temporary).
- Permanent withdrawal of Fringe Society services (registration, accreditation, advertising).
When multiple complaints concern the same person or organisation
Every time a new complaint is received, we check our log for existing complaints about the same person or organisation. Where a pattern exists, we review all complaints together – reassessing severity in light of the full picture. Separate complaints from different people about similar issues, even if each appears minor in isolation, will generally increase the overall severity rating and priority level.
We are also aware that withdrawing services from a venue or producer can have consequences for artists and workers who are not responsible for the behaviour in question. In all cases where service withdrawal is considered, we will assess the impact on those affected and seek to support them.
External referral routes
The Fringe Society is not able to formally refer matters to external bodies on your behalf, but we can signpost you to the following:
| Issue | Where to go |
| Criminal matters (assault, theft, fraud) |
|
| Employment rights (unpaid wages, unfair dismissal) | |
| Discrimination or equality issues | |
| Union representation (performers and creative practitioners) | |
| Union representation (creative industries workers) | |
| Volunteering concerns | |
| Mental health support |
|
| Venue licensing issues | |
| Copyright or intellectual property | |
| Data breaches |