Complaints & Appeals
Ensuring Fairness, Transparency & Procedural Integrity
OCRM® is committed to fair, consistent and proportionate handling of complaints and appeals.
This procedure provides a structured framework for:
Complaints relating to service quality, administration, governance or professional conduct
Appeals relating to assessment outcomes
Appeals relating to designation eligibility, CPD or renewal determinations
Appeals relating to credential, registry, verification or certification-status determinations within OCRM®’s defined scope, where applicable
All matters are handled in accordance with principles of reasonableness, proportionality, evidence-based review and procedural fairness.
1. Definitions
Complaint
A complaint is a concern regarding service delivery, administrative processes, governance matters, communication, professional conduct or other matters within OCRM®’s operational control.
Appeal
An appeal is a formal request for review of a specific OCRM® decision, including:
Assessment outcome
Assessment misconduct determination
Designation eligibility decision
Membership, CPD or renewal compliance determination
Credential or registry status determination
Risk Maturity Assessment, verification or certification-status determination, where applicable
An appeal must relate to a specific decision and must fall within the defined grounds for appeal.
2. General Principles
All complaints and appeals are:
Reviewed objectively
Assessed against applicable published policy criteria
Determined based on available documented evidence
Handled proportionately according to the nature and complexity of the matter
Individuals subject to review will normally:
Be notified of the matter
Be given a reasonable opportunity to respond
Receive written confirmation of the outcome
Determinations are made in accordance with published policies, applicable criteria and evidence available at the time of review.
OCRM® reserves the right to decline, dismiss or close submissions that are:
Outside the defined scope of this procedure
Repetitive and submitted without new evidence
Frivolous, malicious, abusive or vexatious
Based solely on disagreement with a decision and not supported by valid grounds or evidence
Submitted in a manner that prevents reasonable review
Repeated abusive or vexatious submissions may result in restricted further correspondence or review, where appropriate.
3. Complaints Procedure
3.1 Informal Resolution
Where appropriate, concerns should first be raised informally with OCRM® administration.
Many matters can be resolved promptly through clarification, correction or administrative support without formal escalation.
3.2 Formal Complaint Submission
If informal resolution is not appropriate or has not resolved the matter, a formal complaint may be submitted in writing.
A formal complaint should include:
Full name and contact details
Clear description of the concern
Relevant dates, correspondence or supporting evidence
The outcome being requested, where appropriate
Reference to the relevant policy, procedure or service area, where applicable
OCRM® may request further information where the complaint cannot reasonably be reviewed based on the information provided.
3.3 Complaint Review & Outcome
Formal complaints are reviewed by an authorised OCRM® representative who was not directly responsible for the matter under review, where practicable.
Possible outcomes may include:
Clarification of policy or procedure
Corrective administrative action
Advisory guidance
Referral to another OCRM® process where appropriate
No further action
Written confirmation of the outcome will be provided.
Where a complaint raises a matter that should properly be handled as an appeal, misconduct review, CPD review or certification-status review, OCRM® may redirect the matter to the appropriate procedure.
4. Appeals Procedure
Appeals must relate to a specific decision and fall within defined grounds.
4.1 Grounds for Appeal
Appeals may be considered where there is reasonable evidence of:
Procedural irregularity
Incorrect application of published criteria
Administrative error
New relevant evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original decision
Material factual error affecting the decision
Appeals based solely on disagreement with assessment judgement, professional judgement or maturity judgement are not normally accepted unless supported by evidence of procedural irregularity, incorrect application of criteria or material factual error.
4.2 Appeal Submission
Appeals must:
Be submitted in writing
Be lodged within 14 calendar days of decision notification
Clearly state the grounds for appeal
Include relevant supporting evidence
Identify the decision being appealed
Late submissions may be considered only where reasonable justification is provided.
OCRM® may decline to consider an appeal where the submission does not identify valid grounds or does not provide sufficient supporting information.
4.3 Appeal Review Authority
Appeals are reviewed independently from the original decision-maker.
Reviews are conducted by an authorised governance representative, designated appeals reviewer or appropriate reviewer or panel member who was not involved in the original determination.
The appeal review will consider:
Whether procedures were properly followed
Whether published criteria were applied consistently
Whether relevant evidence was appropriately considered
Whether any material administrative or factual error affected the outcome
The appeal review does not constitute a full reassessment, re-marking or re-evaluation unless procedural irregularity, material error or incorrect application of criteria is established.
4.4 Appeal Outcomes
Possible appeal outcomes include:
Original decision upheld
Decision revised
Matter returned for reassessment, re-marking or reconsideration
Procedural correction without change to outcome
Referral to another OCRM® process where appropriate
The appeal determination constitutes the final internal stage of review within the OCRM® governance framework.
5. Misconduct & Ethical Matters
Where complaints or appeals relate to alleged misconduct, ethical breach, misuse of designation, misleading representation or professional conduct concerns:
The individual will normally be notified in writing
A reasonable opportunity to respond will be provided
Evidence will be reviewed proportionately
Determinations will be made under applicable OCRM® policies and the Code of Ethics
Sanctions or outcomes, where applicable, are determined by authorised OCRM® governance representatives.
Possible outcomes may include:
Advisory guidance
Requirement for remedial action
Warning or formal notice
Temporary suspension of active designation status
Change to public verification, certification or registry status
Withdrawal of designation, verification or certification status in serious cases, where applicable
Where the matter concerns organisational verification or certification status, OCRM® may amend, suspend or withdraw verified or certified status where evidence indicates material misrepresentation, breach of applicable terms or significant change affecting the basis of the original determination.
6. CPD, Renewal & Registry Status Appeals
Where designation status is recorded as Not Currently Active due to CPD, renewal or membership non-compliance:
Members may submit evidence of compliance within the defined remediation period
Appeals must demonstrate factual error, procedural error or incorrect application of published criteria
Evidence must be sufficient to support review of the disputed status
Where compliance is verified, designation status, membership status or registry record may be updated or reinstated in accordance with OCRM® governance procedures.
OCRM® is not required to reinstate active status where evidence is incomplete, submitted outside applicable requirements or does not demonstrate compliance.
7. Organisational Verification & Certification Appeals
Where an organisation seeks to appeal a Risk Maturity Assessment, verification or certification-status determination, the appeal must relate to a specific decision and valid grounds.
Appeals may be considered where there is evidence of:
Procedural irregularity
Incorrect application of the OCRM® Risk Maturity Framework criteria
Administrative or factual error
Relevant evidence that was properly submitted but not considered during the original review
Appeals based solely on disagreement with maturity judgement, classification level or scoring outcome are not normally accepted unless supported by evidence of procedural irregularity, incorrect application of criteria or material factual error.
Any amended verification or certification outcome remains subject to the stated assessment scope, evidence reviewed, scoring safeguards and applicable OCRM® criteria.
8. Timeframes
OCRM® aims to:
Acknowledge formal complaints or appeals within 5 working days
Conclude review within 20 working days where reasonably practicable
Where additional time is required due to complexity, availability of evidence or the need for further review, the individual or organisation will be notified.
Timeframes may vary where a matter requires external information, moderation, panel review, safeguarding consideration or additional governance input.
9. Confidentiality & Record Retention
Complaints and appeals are handled with appropriate confidentiality and professional discretion.
Information will be shared only where reasonably required for review, response, governance oversight, legal compliance or implementation of an outcome.
Complaints and appeals are documented and retained in accordance with OCRM® data governance, privacy and record-retention requirements.
Records are maintained to support governance oversight, consistency, audit and policy review.
10. External Rights
OCRM® decisions are final within the internal governance framework once the relevant complaint or appeal process has concluded.
Nothing in this procedure limits statutory rights where applicable.
OCRM® does not prevent individuals or organisations from seeking external advice where they consider it appropriate.
Alignment with Governance Framework
This Complaints & Appeals Procedure operates in alignment with:
OCRM® Code of Ethics
OCRM® CPD Policy
OCRM® Assessment & Quality Assurance Policy
OCRM® Professional Designation Framework
OCRM® Governance & Professional Standards Framework
OCRM® Risk Maturity Framework, where applicable
Applicable credential, verification, certification and registry-status requirements
It forms part of the OCRM® Governance & Professional Standards architecture.
View Governance Framework