Complaint management combines a reliable reply to the customer with the improvement of your processes. A complaint can prove correct, partly correct or different on examination. In every case you need a traceable receipt, a responsible person and a documented decision. This guide describes an organisational process for Swiss SMEs and explains where the Code of Obligations matters for your reply. Contractual claims must still always be examined case by case.
Recording a complaint clearly
Good intake starts with listening. Note what the customer observed, which service is affected and what solution is expected. Add order or delivery references if available and the date the complaint reached you. Keep the complainant’s account separate from your own first assessment.
If details are missing, ask specifically. For a damaged article a photo and the delivery reference can be useful; a complete customer file is usually not needed. Note also whether the goods are still in use and whether further consequences are possible. Safety-relevant information needs immediate professional classification.
Confirm receipt and name the next step. “We are examining the matter and will get back to you at the agreed time” is more dependable than an immediate commitment made without knowing the case. Agree the time internally with the person handling the case. Record promised feedback as tasks so that absences do not break communication.
Clarifying urgency and responsibility
Distinguish importance from volume. A politely worded report can have considerable effects, while an angry message may concern a limited single incident. Assess possible damage, scope, ongoing use and safeguards needed.
Name a coordinating person. They need not carry out every investigation, but hold the information together and align the reply. Decide who takes technical questions, commercial decisions and communication. In a small team one person may hold several roles; the powers should still be clear.
Also check the circle of information. Internal assumptions, personal references or negotiating thoughts do not belong unchecked in an external reply. One shared free-text field is often not enough.
Examining the facts and the solution
Compare the service promised with the documented actual state. This may need the order, specification, proof of delivery and inspection result. Classifying a complaint as justified is a professional processing decision; its legal consequences must be clarified separately.
Avoid hasty blame. Perhaps the order was unclear, a change was not passed on or a delivery was assigned wrongly. Document findings that incriminate as well as those that exonerate. If a statement cannot be verified, name the limit of the evidence and clarify what additional investigation makes sense.
The solution should take up the specific concern. Depending on the case, replacement, rework, an explanation or a commercial agreement may be considered. Before promising anything, check feasibility, responsibility and internal approvals. Then record what was agreed and how implementation will be proven: an announced replacement delivery is not yet one carried out.
Legal framework: notice of defects under the Code of Obligations
Not every complaint is a legal notice of defects, but many are. In a sale, the seller is liable under Art. 197, para. 1 of the Code of Obligations (CO) for warranted characteristics and for the item having no physical or legal defects that eliminate or substantially reduce its value or its fitness for the intended use. This applies even if the seller was unaware of them (para. 2).
As a supplier you need to know how quickly your customer must give notice. Under Art. 201, para. 1 CO the buyer is to inspect the item received as soon as is practicable in the ordinary course of business and to notify the seller of defects immediately. If the buyer fails to do so, the item is deemed approved under para. 2, except for defects that were not recognisable in a customary inspection. Such defects discovered later must be notified immediately after discovery under para. 3. For contracts for work and services, similar rules apply in substance (Art. 367, para. 1 and Art. 370, paras. 1–3 CO).
If there is a defect, the buyer under Art. 205, para. 1 CO can choose between rescission of the sale (the purchase is reversed) and price reduction (compensation for the loss in value). If the purchase concerns a specified quantity of fungible goods, the buyer can instead demand other goods of the same kind free of defects under Art. 206, para. 1 CO. Warranty claims become time-barred under Art. 210, para. 1 CO two years after delivery, unless the seller assumed longer liability; for work, two years from acceptance (Art. 371, para. 1 CO). For immovable structures, and for items or works integrated into an immovable structure as intended that caused its defect, the period is five years (Art. 210, para. 2; Art. 371, paras. 1 and 2 CO). An agreement limiting the warranty is in any case invalid under Art. 199 CO if the seller fraudulently concealed defects.
For defects in buildings, special notification periods have also applied since 1 January 2026: 60 days for immovable structures (Art. 367, para. 1bis CO) and for items integrated into an immovable structure (Art. 201, para. 4 CO); shorter periods cannot be agreed. Agreements, general terms and industry standards may add rules. In practice: record delivery, receipt and notice dates, do not acknowledge a claim hastily and have legally unclear cases examined. The assessment in your QMS is an internal classification and does not replace this examination.
What ISO 9001 says about it
If your company works to ISO 9001, complaint management touches two clauses. Clause 9.1.2 “Customer satisfaction” concerns, in substance, monitoring how customers perceive the fulfilment of their expectations; complaints are one source. Clause 10.2 “Nonconformity and corrective action” concerns reacting to nonconformities, evaluating the cause, implementing actions, checking their effectiveness and retaining the records.
The 6th edition ISO 9001:2026 has applied since 16 September 2026 and replaces the 2015 edition. The numbers 9.1.2 and 10.2 above come from the 2015 edition and have not been checked against the text of the 2026 edition. According to a Swiss certification body, the changes overall are moderate adjustments without a fundamental reorientation. Check numbers and wording in your edition; certified companies transition within the period set by their certification body. This guide does not reproduce text of the standard and does not prove conformity for certification.
Practical example: Muster Einrichtung AG
Muster Einrichtung AG is a fictitious SME. A business customer complains about twelve table tops with a deviating surface. The order comprises eighty table tops in all. The twelve disputed pieces equal fifteen per cent of the delivery: twelve divided by eighty gives 0.15.
The case owner records the order reference, photos and the expected surface. The customer confirms that the table tops concerned are still stored separately. The company agrees to decide jointly on the solution before any further use. This example does not assess any legal claim.
The internal check finds two surface designations in the documents. The order has the approved variant, a later work sheet an older designation. The team also checks whether other orders were created with the same work sheet. This investigation is run as a task of its own, while the case owner agrees the specific solution with the customer.
The customer wants no new delivery but keeps the table tops for a 25 per cent price reduction on the twelve pieces. At a unit price of CHF 420.00 including value added tax, the twelve table tops cost CHF 5’040.00 (12 × 420.00). The reduction is 25 per cent of that, so CHF 1’260.00 including value added tax. This amount goes to the customer as a credit note. Had the customer demanded replacement, twelve correct table tops would have been needed and the return of the disputed pieces documented separately.
In root cause treatment, the use of old work sheets is investigated. The agreed improvement counts as verified only when later comparable orders reliably adopt the current designation. The size of the credit note is no proof of effectiveness; it merely shows the extent of the specific case solution.
Linking credit note and root cause treatment
A credit note can be part of the commercial solution. Record the decision and its link to the complaint traceably. Drafting, checking the document and actually issuing it are different work steps. Align processing between quality and finance so that no duplicate or unsuitable credit note arises.
A completed credit note does not answer the question of cause. If the same error recurs, an in-depth analysis with cause, implementation and effectiveness check is needed, as the guide to corrective actions (CAPA) describes, in complex cases also as an 8D report. Link the improvement to the complaint case instead of creating a detached second record without reference. Conversely, not every piece of feedback needs a large analysis project; justify the scope by importance and risk of recurrence.
Feedback and evaluation
After closure, ask whether the agreed solution has arrived and the concern is settled. This feedback measures the experience of case handling, not satisfaction with your company as a whole.
Evaluate recurring themes: service, cause, processing status and open commitments. Compare metrics only on the same basis: more complaints can mean more errors, but equally more business or easier reporting. Document period and case delimitation accordingly.
For personal data, Art. 6 of the Federal Act on Data Protection (DSG) requires proportionality (para. 2), purpose limitation (para. 3) and destruction or anonymisation as soon as the data are no longer needed for the purpose (para. 4). In feedback, ask only for what you need. Art. 8, para. 1 DSG requires data security appropriate to the risk; restrict access to confidential case details accordingly. If you need statistics beyond case handling, check whether summarised or anonymised details suffice.
Checklist
- Service affected, expectation and date of receipt are recorded.
- Observations and internal assessments are separate.
- Urgency and possible safeguards are checked.
- One person coordinates the case and feedback.
- Delivery, receipt and notice dates are recorded; legally unclear cases are examined.
- Solution and commercial authority are clarified.
- Implementation is tracked with proof.
- Root cause treatment is decided according to importance.
- Feedback and evaluation have a clear basis.
How KMU | base helps
In QMS | base you record complaints under “Day to day” at Complaints (the item appears if you are allowed to process reports). With customer complaints you record customer, company, email and reference and filter in a list of their own. In addition you search for the customer directly in Finance | base; company, contact person and email are taken over.
Assessment, reply and credit note amount records your classification as justified, partially justified or unjustified, plus the reply and the amount in CHF. The software replaces no professional or legal decision on the individual case.
With trigger credit note in Finance, from a justified complaint with an amount, you request a credit note in one click (“Request credit note”). Finance | base creates a draft for the customer, at most once per complaint, with the amount including value added tax. This requires Finance | base to be booked and the customer to be chosen through the Finance customer search. The document is checked and issued in Finance | base; the request alone does not mean a completed credit note. Check amount and tax rate in the draft.
Customer feedback after closure: after completion, you send the customer a link valid for 60 days with “Request feedback”, for satisfaction from 1 to 5 and a comment. This requires the customer’s email address. Note the process: as with errors, a complaint can be closed only when a cause has been recorded, at least one action exists, all actions are done and effectiveness has been confirmed. A rejected complaint does not count as done; feedback is not offered for it. Use the answers to recognise open concerns, and keep them separate from a general survey.
The guide to QMS | base explains how to use it. Take a look at the demo, open a trial account or write to us via the contact page.
Sources
- Code of Obligations (CO, OR, SR 220), Art. 197, paras. 1–2, Art. 199, Art. 201, paras. 1–4, Art. 205, para. 1, Art. 206, para. 1, Art. 210, paras. 1 and 2, Art. 367, paras. 1 and 1bis, Art. 370, paras. 1–3, Art. 371, paras. 1 and 2, as at 1 October 2026 (German original), accessed 27.10.2026.
- SNV: SN EN ISO 9001:2026, valid since 16 September 2026, replaces the 2015 edition (in German); accessed 27.10.2026. The clause references (9.1.2, 10.2) are paraphrased and have not been checked against the text of the standard, which is subject to a charge.
- ISO: ISO 9001:2026 (Edition 6), published on 16 September 2026; accessed 27.10.2026.
- SQS: Revision of ISO 9001:2026 – all the information, accessed 27.10.2026.
- Federal Act on Data Protection (DSG, SR 235.1), Art. 6, paras. 2–4 and Art. 8, para. 1, as at 7 July 2025 (German original), accessed 27.10.2026.
The organisational processes and examples are editorial practice aids. They do not reproduce ISO standard text and do not prove conformity for certification.
This guide does not replace legal or tax advice. Information as at 27 October 2026.