How to File a Complaint about a Registrar / Certification Body

[SteelMaiden]

I agree that if we find a system that is not up to the standard there is some responsibility to do something about it in terms of reporting your findings to the registrar, but also, again playing the devil's advocate, the OP has never really given us any concrete evidence that there are problems with the system. I can tell you that I am the Queen of England, and writing as SteelMaiden is my stress reliever, my opportunity to set down my many burdens and be just a normal person. But unless I give you some sort of evidence, you shouldn't accept it as gospel.

Regards,
SteelMaiden
AKA Her Royal Highness
AKA Queen of Everything

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I agree that if we find a system that is not up to the standard there is some responsibility to do something about it in terms of reporting your findings to the registrar, but also, again playing the devil's advocate, the OP has never really given us any concrete evidence that there are problems with the system. I can tell you that I am the Queen of England, and writing as SteelMaiden is my stress reliever, my opportunity to set down my many burdens and be just a normal person. But unless I give you some sort of evidence, you shouldn't accept it as gospel.

Regards,
SteelMaiden
AKA Her Royal Highness
AKA Queen of Everything

From you Steel I would accept your word as Gospel

On-Topic: As for filing a complaint call the CB and ask what their process is when filing a complaint, but first, as has been suggested, check to see if they are registered by the CB. But, take heed that if the supplier mentioned meets your needs (as the customer), meets your requirements, and are beneficial for the organization, why worry about the incidentals.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I still think that the OP should, at least, establish if the supplier ISO 9001 certificate is legit, or not. In case it is not, you know you would be dealing with a supplier that is willing to falsify certificates. Today it might be "just" a QMS certificate. Tomorrow, it could be a material CoC or a final inspection report.

Once a supplier has demonstrated it's lack of ethics and you keep the business relationship as nothing had happened, you are doing a very poor job of managing your risks.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I still think that the OP should, at least, establish if the supplier ISO 9001 certificate is legit, or not. In case it is not, you know you would be dealing with a supplier that is willing to falsify certificates. Today it a QMS certificate. Tomorrow, it could be a material CoC or a final inspection report.

Once a supplier has demonstrated it's lack of ethics and you keep the business relationship as nothing had happened, you are doing a very poor job of managing your risks.

Valid points, and I agree with the assessment.

 

[Wes Bucey]

There are lots of companies that are certified that shouldn't be. All of us should take some responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the registration system. It's easy to just walk away and do nothing, but in doing so you're contributing to the problem. The first step should be to let the audited company know that you've seen evidence that they're not compliant, and that you will get their registrar involved if things don't improve. This gets their attention, believe me.

In principle, I agree the integrity of the third party registrar system depends upon the confidence BOTH customers and suppliers have in the system. This does mean there needs to be an "open and transparent system" for those customers and suppliers to see what happens (the intermediate transactions of verification and results, including exoneration or punishment of the suspected miscreant) within either

• the certifying body (the registrar) when the complaint is against an individual registrant

OR

• the accrediting body (which certifies the registrars) after a complaint has been filed about a registrar.

In practical reality, I've never been able to pierce the veil of secrecy within the walls of a certifying body to discover whether a registrant has had registration withdrawn because of egregious lapses in its QMS or because there is a money dispute between registrar and registrant.

Similarly, I've learned of lots of "temporary" suspensions of registrars by accrediting bodies, but NEVER (from the accrediting body) a reason for the suspension or subsequent reinstatement.

Bottom line:
Without such transparency of investigative action and full report of results, I can't see any reason to participate in such "star chamber" activity as currently exists - much easier to ignore the system of reporting my opinion of a transgression and make evaluations of suppliers (including selection of registrar) according to criteria which are meaningful and pertinent to my requirements.

Star chamber =

1. A 15th-century to 17th-century English court consisting of judges who were appointed by the Crown and sat in closed session on cases involving state security.
2. star chamber A court or group that engages in secret, harsh, or arbitrary procedures.

[So called because the ceiling of the original courtroom was decorated with stars.]


Star chamber-type courts still exist in many so-called civilized nations today.

 

[Jim Wynne]

In principle, I agree the integrity of the third party registrar system depends upon the confidence BOTH customers and suppliers have in the system. This does mean there needs to be an "open and transparent system" for those customers and suppliers to see what happens (the intermediate transactions of verification and results, including exoneration or punishment of the suspected miscreant) within either

• the certifying body (the registrar) when the complaint is against an individual registrant

OR

• the accrediting body (which certifies the registrars) after a complaint has been filed about a registrar.

In practical reality, I've never been able to pierce the veil of secrecy within the walls of a certifying body to discover whether a registrant has had registration withdrawn because of egregious lapses in its QMS or because there is a money dispute between registrar and registrant.

Similarly, I've learned of lots of "temporary" suspensions of registrars by accrediting bodies, but NEVER (from the accrediting body) a reason for the suspension or subsequent reinstatement.

Bottom line:
Without such transparency of investigative action and full report of results, I can't see any reason to participate in such "star chamber" activity as currently exists - much easier to ignore the system of reporting my opinion of a transgression and make evaluations of suppliers (including selection of registrar) according to criteria which are meaningful and pertinent to my requirements.

Star chamber =

1. A 15th-century to 17th-century English court consisting of judges who were appointed by the Crown and sat in closed session on cases involving state security.
2. star chamber A court or group that engages in secret, harsh, or arbitrary procedures.

[So called because the ceiling of the original courtroom was decorated with stars.]


Star chamber-type courts still exist in many so-called civilized nations today.

So "egregious lapses" aren't "meaningful and pertinent"? The business about reasons for a firm's registration being revoked or suspended is less important to one's own business than the supplier fixing the the egregious lapses, I would think.

 

[AndyN]

I agree that if we find a system that is not up to the standard there is some responsibility to do something about it in terms of reporting your findings to the registrar, but also, again playing the devil's advocate, the OP has never really given us any concrete evidence that there are problems with the system. I can tell you that I am the Queen of England, and writing as SteelMaiden is my stress reliever, my opportunity to set down my many burdens and be just a normal person. But unless I give you some sort of evidence, you shouldn't accept it as gospel.

Regards,
SteelMaiden
AKA Her Royal Highness
AKA Queen of Everything

Yeah, I saw through it straight away - I know the Queen, and she doesn't live in North Carolina.........

 

[Paul Simpson]

The point of this post is not to rant, but to ask a question.
I just audited a supplier in Shenzhen, certified to ISO9001 by TUV-china and it was the worst audit ever. The place is about a 200 person factory, but is run like a mechanic shop, not a company with a quality system. They had nothing! Thier system consisted of a few scribbled documents for "procedures" that no one knows about. The certification is totally unbased, and I'd like to follow with a a complaint about the certifying body. How do I do this?

Thanks for posting puck1263 (snappy title! ). You are absolutely right to complain to the CB. The more we investigate potential abuses of registration the better.

Firstly I hope you have gathered your data! You need to provide the CB with all the information about where you saw problems with their QMS. Areas where you saw it non compliant with ISO 9001 etc., etc. But as has already been mentioned you need to contact the CB in the first instance so they can investigate.

A couple of things you need to bear in mind:

• The certificate may not be genuine
• The accredited CB may be using an agent

Now not long ago I suggested this type of information be published here as a "name and shame" - .

I still think that the OP should, at least, establish if the supplier ISO 9001 certificate is legit, or not. In case it is not, you know you would be dealing with a supplier that is willing to falsify certificates. Today it might be "just" a QMS certificate. Tomorrow, it could be a material CoC or a final inspection report.

Once a supplier has demonstrated it's lack of ethics and you keep the business relationship as nothing had happened, you are doing a very poor job of managing your risks.

I agree with Sidney - my CB has been involved in investigating a number of issues of falsified certificates. There are many reasons for it from companies totally unconnected with the CB through registered clients who "alter" their certificate to agents who falsify certs.

Either way you need to contact the CB to let them investigate.

 

[Wes Bucey]

So "egregious lapses" aren't "meaningful and pertinent"? The business about reasons for a firm's registration being revoked or suspended is less important to one's own business than the supplier fixing the the egregious lapses, I would think.

I guess the opinion and decision of whether the lapse is "egregious" (in my case, anyway) is very subjective.

Here in the Cove over the years, we've had folks come with tales of mis-and malfeasance screaming for public execution of the evil doers, only to learn, in the final analysis, we had a simple misunderstanding between parties and no real evil at all.

As many of the professional third party auditors who visit here often say and write, "we don't accept anecdotal evidence; show us the documentation!"

Suggested course of action:
As a customer, it seems reasonable to ask and expect the supplier to provide a copy of its certificate of registration signed by a registrar. Seems to me, the first activity might be to confirm whether the certificate is bona fide by calling the registrar. If it is not bona fide, forward the copy to the registrar and let them deal with it. If it is bona fide it also seems reasonable to ask the registrar for a summary of how to proceed to file a complaint against a bona fide registrant as "seeming to have a number of N/C" which belie its registration status.

(Frankly, once you learn the registration is bona fide, it is unclear whether

1. registrar has policy of certifying substandard organizations
2. an individual auditor did a bad audit because of incompetence or bribery
3. the organization managed to hide deficits from the auditor
4. the organization has collapsed since the last audit
5. your own opinion of N/C is faulty

Even with all that, I'd sure like to hear of documented evidence that a complaint to a registrar resulted in an open, formal declaration of withdrawal for cause (other than nonpayment of fees) or exoneration of any charges of failure to maintain a QMS to the ISO (or AS or TS) Standard.

Some of you following this thread are in relative positions of authority and responsibility with a certifying body. I'd like to know if your own CB has ever received such a complaint about a registrant. If so, could you walk us through, step by step, what transpired? How was it resolved? was the complainant kept in the loop?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

.... But, take heed that if the supplier mentioned meets your needs (as the customer), meets your requirements, and are beneficial for the organization, why worry about the incidentals.

Perhaps, but a supplier that is capable of such blatant fraud and misrepresentation is probably capable of a lot of other very bad things, if and when they feel like it.