Original publish date – Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:44:23 +0000, Keith
In the past three weeks we have had to take up issues on behalf of our clients with their verification agencies. In all three cases, the verification agencies agreed with our interpretations and calculations. In the first case the client went up from level 6 to level 5. In the second the client went from level 4 to level 3, and the last case from level 8 to level 6.
On average the score went up by 8 points. In one of those instances we pointed out an error to the verification agency where they had allocated two more points than they should have, but undercalculated 15 points on another element.
If we had not been involved with our clients and examined their preliminary scorecard in great details, and known exactly what score they should have achieved, the client would simply have accepted the scorecard handed to them. In some cases the client did complaint, but were almost ignored until we raised the issue via the correct channels and methodology.
In one instance, during the verification, the analyst gave a calculation and an interpretation. We disagreed, and the analyst said that is how it is done. We asked, as per clause 16.2 of the verification manual for the issue to be documented and we asked the agency to explain in terms for the relevant clause in the codes fo good practice. This was done and the agency came back within 2 hours to confirm their agreement with us. In another instnace we wer forced to loge a formal appeal. we asked the agency to supply us with their appeal procedure, and we spend at least 2 days drafting the appeal, giving suitable proof, evidence and precedents. The agency followed the procedure and came back to use agreeing with our interpretation, adding 7 points to our clients scorecard.
The conclusion: If we had not been involved our clients would be 1 to 2 levels lower than they deserved.