As reported earlier, UKAS has ignored a formal complaint filed with it for over a year, violating its obligations under ISO 17011. That standard requires that “upon receipt of a complaint, the accreditation body shall confirm whether the complaint relates to accreditation activities that it is responsible for and, if so, shall deal with it.”
The original complaint was filed in 2023 based on statements made by an unknown UKAS representative who ruled that consultants may resell the services of UIKAS-accredited certification bodies alongside their consulting service despite such actions being a direct violation. UKAS ignored the complaint filed in 2023, and then a follow-up was filed in 2024. That was also ignored.
As a result, I escalated the matter to UKAS overseer, the European Cooperation for Accreditation, or “EA.” That body is the IAF regional accreditation group for the European region and is supposed to hold UKAS accountable to ISO 17011 or eject them from the IAF. The complaint put to EA was not over the original issue but instead about UKAS’ refusal to acknowledge a complaint per ISO 17011 requirements for complaints handling, found in clause 7.12.13.
The complaint was handled by EA staffer Daniela Ionescu, who immediately began covering for UKAS by quoting various obscure EA procedures.
First, Ionescu tried to argue the merits of the original matter, ignoring that the complaint as submitted to EA was over ISO 17011 clause 7.12.13. She insisted that I provide “evidence” to prove the original merits of the complaint. That evidence had already been provided to EA, but Ionescu refused to recognize it as such.
Next, Ionescu demanded that I follow EA procedure (located here) and fill out a complaint form. The problem there is that the EA procedure doesn’t require such a form at all, and EA is required to respond to a complaint no matter how it is written to them.
I finally submitted the complaint — again — on the correct form. I also clarified that the complaint was about UKAS’ refusal to respond to a complaint, and not about the other matters.
Ionescu has not responded by, once again, refusing to address the issue as it pertains to UKAS and the complaint, and once again threw the matter out saying that UKAS had already resolved the issue internally. She wrote:
Taking into account the above mentioned, we consider that the complaint against UKAS does not upheld and we close the case at the level of EA.
In the end, no tangible action was taken to stop the practice of consultants, largely in India and the Middle East, from simultaneously selling UKAS-accredited auditing services, despite ISO 17021 saying the practice is prohibited. And UKAS faced no repercussions for ignoring a formal complaint filed nearly a year ago.
I’ve rejected EA’s response and told them the matter is still very much open. I have also reached out to others at EA in case this is all the result of Ionescu’s poor English comprehension ability. I offered to have my request translated into her language, if necessary. EA has not replied.
Yes, the IAF scheme is a protection racket. If you pay money, they will run to your aid and bury complaints.
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
