The German accreditation body DAkkS has closed a second complaint filed with it against TUV Nord Middle East, which continues to operate a consulting firm in violation of ISO 17021.
TUV Nord Middle East simultaneously operates FAHHS, an ISO consultancy, and then certifies the work done by that office. The conflict of interest means TUV certifies its own work. ISO 17021 prohibits such conflicts of interest outright.
Oxebridge filed a complaint in April of 2020 on the matter, providing evidence that the two companies shared offices, senior management, and marketing materials. The public nature of the joint ownership is beyond dispute, since TUV manages the FAHHS website, and markets FAHHS as a TUV company.
Despite this, and in keeping with long-standing corrupt practices by accreditation bodies, DAkkS has consistently refused to force TUV to comply with ISO 17021. In response to the April complaint, DAkkS wrote that they closed the complaint based on promises by TUV that “corrective actions” were underway. DAkkS did not wait for the corrective actions to be fully implemented, nor verify closure, but instead wrote:
[TUV Nord] informed us that first urgent measures were taken immediately after receipt of the complaint. In addition, investigations are still ongoing due to the complexity of the complaint.
Therefore, we formally close the complaint case with this answer.
DAkkS is supposed to ensure conflicts of interest within its CBs do not exist or — if they do — are shut down in order for the CB to maintain accreditation. By closing the complaint before corrective actions were implemented, DAkkS gave TUV Nord a green light to continue the corrupt practices.
In 2022, Oxebridge learned that the corruption continues as predicted. In publicly-accessible social media posts, TUV Nord Middle East continues to market FAHHS as a TUV company, and continues to share the same website. Other social media posts show TUV Nord issuing certificates to FAHHS clients.
In response to the new information, Oxebridge filed a new complaint with DAkkS in January, to alert them that the problem remained. Oxebridge confirmed that any “corrective actions” claimed by TUV Nord were never implemented, and that DAkkS was premature in closing the complaint. Oxebridge provided DAkkS examples of the new evidence.
Once again, however, DAkkS elected to side with TUV — which pays it a portion of the fees collected for every ISO certificate issued — and close the complaint without action. In what was largely a copy-and-paste response identical to the 2021 letter, DAkkS again claims that corrective actions are underway, but not yet closed:
TÜV Nord Cert GmbH stated that corrective actions were already started in April 2021. Additionally, TÜV Nord Cert GmbH stated that these investigations and corrective actions are still ongoing or are still being implemented, due to the complexity of your complaint.
As a result, TUV Nord has continued to certify its own consulting clients under the DAkkS accreditation logo, in violation of EU regulations under which both DAkkS and TUV are required to operate.
The response by DAkkS is typical of IAF member bodies, which rely solely on the word of their client CBs when confronted with complaints. Consistently, ABs refuse to examine actual evidence, no matter how strong, and no matter if the evidence is found in the public domain.
Oxebridge has argued that IAF network acts as a collective “protection racket” to cover up violations of accreditation rules and ISO standards, rather than work to enforce them. Whereas such corrupt practices were typically limited to unaccredited “certificate mills,” the corruption is now rampant in supposedly legitimate, accredited bodies.
DAkkS’ original reply can be read here, with the latest response here. Comparing the two documents reveals the level of copy-and-paste text employed by DAkkS to defend TUV.
