The new agreement UKAS requires its victims to sign reminds us of accreditation’s inability to secure quality for customers:
7.1 UKAS shall have no liability to the Customer, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, for any losses, however caused, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement save to the extent that such losses arise out of the negligence of UKAS, its officers, employees or agents.
7.2 The Customer acknowledges that no employee or agent of UKAS owes any personal duty of care to it and that it shall not be entitled to bring any claim against any person other than UKAS arising out of or in connection with this Agreement.
7.3 Notwithstanding clause 7.1, UKAS shall have no liability for any indirect or consequential loss or damage, costs or expenses, or to the extent that loss arises out of the provision of false, misleading, or incomplete documentation or information by the Customer.
7.4 The maximum aggregate liability of UKAS to the Customer in respect of any loss (including costs and expenses) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall not exceed the higher of:
7.4.1 three times the average of the UKAS Annual Charges in respect of the previous four completed UKAS Business Years (or if less than four UKAS Business Years have been completed since Accreditation was granted, such lesser number of years as have been completed) subject to a maximum of £500,000; and
7.4.2 £50,000 unless such liability arises from fraud by UKAS or its agents.
The Customer undertakes to indemnify UKAS against any losses suffered by or claims made against UKAS as a result of misuse by the Customer of any Certificate or licence to use any accreditation symbol granted by UKAS and/or as a result of any breach by the Customer of the terms of this Agreement.
You can read about the background of the new agreement here.
If this is the level of UKAS’s confidence in what it does, is accreditation something you really should be spending a third of your budget on?