This one got past my radar, but the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) has followed the practice set forth by the IAF regional body APAC and created a convenient rule that allows it to ignore complaints submitted by anyone UKAS arbitrarily decides is “vexatious.”
Back in 2022, I uncovered that Graeme Drake of APAC had made up a rule allowing his organization to ignore complaints made by “vexatious complainants,” and allowing him to assign that designation to anyone he felt like, for whatever reason he might make up. It now appears around the same time UKAS adopted it, too. The UKAS webpage says the decision was based on the policy of the UK’s “Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman” group, suggesting that it took UKAS quite a few Google searches to find someone with a “vexatious complainant” policy they could crib from.
Says UKAS;
Where a complainant has been deemed to be vexatious, we reserve the right to restrict contact with the complainant. In such cases we will inform them in writing of the reasons why a decision has been made to restrict contact, including details of the arrangements, and the length of time any restrictions will remain in place.
To date, UKAS hasn’t branded Oxebridge or me a “vexatious complainant,” but that is probably because we only file a single complaint once and then typically move on until we have an entirely new one. But nothing is stopping them from doing that.
It’s not clear why they need the policy anyway. UKAS ignores valid complaints outright, so it hardly needs a “vexatious complainant” policy to justify itself. It’s not like the IAF or UK government will start doing their job and ensure UKAS abides by ISO 17011’s rules on complaints processing — rules, by the way, which do NOT allow for ignoring a complaint just because you are “vexed.”
UKAS has invoked the rule for its fight with Conor Chapple, which I covered here. In UKAS’ defense, Chapple was likely overdoing it with the sheer volume of stuff he was sending to UKAS and other bodies, which undermined his position somewhat but didn’t undercut the validity of his complaints. UKAS was engaged in clear conflicts of interest, and now they are using the “vexatious complainant” thing to avoid having to answer for it.
But to clarify: there is no rule in ISO 17011 that allows any of these bodies to ignore complaints simply because receiving them gives them a case of the vapors. This is made-up stuff, invented out of thin air and after-the-fact, as a means of dodging a major accreditation principle.
And also, to enable corruption. That, too.
Christopher Paris is the founder and VP Operations of Oxebridge. He has over 35 years’ experience implementing ISO 9001 and AS9100 systems, and helps establish certification and accreditation bodies with the ISO 17000 series. He is a vocal advocate for the development and use of standards from the point of view of actual users. He is the writer and artist of THE AUDITOR comic strip, and is currently writing the DR. CUBA pulp novel series. Visit www.drcuba.world
