Dear Ilaria and Martine,

Nearly 9 months have now passed since I raised a complaint with Accredia, and presented detailed evidence that AJA falsified a dozen audit documents. I have repeatedly proven that AJA abused my signature and significantly changed my conclusions. I have received little or no substantial information from Accredia concerning my complaint, let alone any evidence disproving my complaint. Notably, I have not yet received any substantiated reply from Accredia regarding my email from February 3rd, well over 5 months ago!

EA Document # EA-1/17 S3 A: 2011 (link), clause 2.1.5 states: If the EA Member has not been able to make satisfactory progress in the resolution of a complaint within a reasonable length of time, the complainant has the right to refer the matter to EA for resolution using this procedure. The EA Member should keep the complainant informed of progress being made in dealing with the complaint. Kindly inform me at your earliest convenience what – within the context of my complaint – you consider:

1. satisfactory progress concerning falsified audit documents;
2. a reasonable length of time to address abuse of signatures and changing conclusions; and
3. how you have – and will – keep me informed of progress made in the past months and the months to come.

Frankly, I find the lack of follow-up by Accredia and European Accreditation concerning my complaint – falsified audit documents by one of your certification bodies – quite dubious. Are you at all concerned about addressing complaints in a timely manner, or is it norm to systematically delay a complaint until it becomes obsolete? Rather than continue the lethargy, shall we pro-actively address the complaint together in the coming month?

Warm regards,

 

Bart

 

PS. A copy of this open letter is also available here.

To: Ilaria Dozzo <i.dozzo@accredia.it>
To: Martine Blum <martine.blum@european-accreditation.org>
Cc: f.santini@accredia.it
Cc: Mariagrazia Lanzanova <m.lanzanova@accredia.it>
Cc: Geir Samuelsen <gsa@akkreditert.no>

 

On 4/15/16 1:27 PM, Bart W van Assen wrote:

Dear Ilaria,

Thank you for your email. However, you still do not clarify your email from February 3rd – now over 3 months ago – as per my return email on the same day. For your convenience, I will reiterate my questions and where I can clarify them:

1. Have you reviewed the relevant documents attached to my email (public_report__ifcc___rapp_meranti_west.pdf and WWF’s concerns over certification of pulp plantations in Indonesia under the IFCC-PEFC Standard – WWF.pdf), and have you verified the links you claimed were not available?
2. If I understand correctly, AJA has acknowledged the issues raised, and has proposed corrections, corrective actions and preventive actions. Can you confirm or correct my conclusion? And can you share what corrections have been taken?
3. How many other documents have you identified that contain my “signature”? As stated in my initial complaint, I believe there are many more documents where my “signature” was added without my approval. My most recent update identifies 12 documents that likely carry my falsified signatures. Have you come to a similar conclusion during your investigation?
4. When will your on-site assessment take place, and can I meet with the assessors to cover all issues raised face to face?
5. You stated that the ‘actions that the CAB’s proposed us seems acceptable’ and ‘their implementation should have been effectively completed within December 2015’. How have you verified implementation, and were all falsified signatures (including those of other auditors) removed from records?
6. Frankly, I fail to understand what added value an on-site assessment on soft-copy records has. You can easily verify the accuracy of my claims by reviewing the soft-copy records, and the absence of any records that show my approval of said documents. I herewith reiterate that I have NOT physically signed any of the dozen documents identified, nor given approval to use a scanned signature on them. Any hard-copy or soft-copy record suggesting the opposite is false!

Kindly respond to the above points without any delay, as next Monday is the 6 month mark for this complaint. Accredia has so far provided no substantial evidence in addressing my complaint! Given the nature of the complaint – falsified findings and signatures in a dozen documents – this is a rather meager result from Accredia.

Warm regards,

Bart

On 4/14/16 9:54 PM, Ilaria Dozzo wrote:

Dear Bart,

hereby I would like to inform you that so far we don’t consider closed out the complaint as we don’t consider exhaustive the evaluation carried out on the sole document proposals sent by the CAB for addressing the complaints. Hence, we consider necessary to carry out a specific on site assessment at the CAB’s offices in order to obtain assurance of the technical consistency of the proposals and the actions taken by the CAB for addressing the complaint.

 

Best regards

 

Ilaria Dozzo
­­_____________________________­­­­­­­­­­­
Funzionario tecnico e Ispettore

Technical Officer and Assessor

 

ACCREDIA – L’Ente Italiano di Accreditamento
Dipartimento Certificazione e Ispezione

ACCREDIA – The Italian National Accreditation Body

Department Certification & Inspection

 

Via Tonale, 26

20125 Milan ITALY

 

Phone  +39 02 21009633

Fax +39 02 21009637

Mobile. +39 339 1512924

e-mail:   i.dozzo@accredia.it

web site: www.accredia.it

_____________________________

Legal notes

 

Da: Bart W van Assen [mailto:bart@auditor.id] Inviato: martedì 5 aprile 2016 04:14
A: Bart W van Assen <bwvanassen@gmail.com>; Ilaria Dozzo <i.dozzo@accredia.it>
Cc: f.santini@accredia.it; Mariagrazia Lanzanova <m.lanzanova@accredia.it>
Oggetto: Re: R: Update

 

Dear Ilaria,

Frankly, I’m getting frustrated with the lack of response from Accredia. Kindly clarify your latest email as per my response dated February 3rd.

FYI, the following documents will likely contain a false signature as well. I’ve never seen – let alone approved – the final versions of these documents and my “signature” on them is falsified!

1. Audit Report Stage 1 for Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper – Meranti West (2015)
2. Audit Report Stage 1 for Sumatera Riang Lestari – Garingging (2015)
3. Audit Report Stage 1 for Sumatera Riang Lestari – Rupat (2015)
4. Audit Report Stage 2 for Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper – Meranti West (2015)
5. Package Submission Checklist for PT Arara Abadi (2015)
6. Package Submission Checklist for Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper (2015)
7. Package Submission Checklist for Satria Perkasa Agung – Serapung (2015)
8. Package Submission Checklist for Sumatera Riang Lestari – Sei Kabaro (2015)
9. Package Submission Checklist for Sumatra Sylva Lestari – Padang Lawas (2015)
10. Package Submission Checklist for Sumatra Sylva Lestari – Pasir Pangaraian (2015)
11. Package Submission Checklist for Wananugraha Bimalestari (2015)
12. Public Audit Report for Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper – Meranti West (2015)

Kindly confirm this issue at your earliest convenience, and communicate what steps are taken to remove these falsified signatures from the above documents.

Warm regards,

Bart