One of our competitors has advised the market that our JAS-ANZ accreditation has been withdrawn.
This is a little like the Mark Twain quote about his death being premature: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.
This is the case with the suspension of BEAL’s accreditation. Premature and exaggerated.
Yes, JAS-ANZ has moved to withdraw our accreditation based on their view that we are not complying with CodeMark Scheme Rules, a decision with which we strongly disagree and against which we lodged first an appeal and now a formal complaint.
The JAS-ANZ decision follows our certification of new and innovative products. JAS-ANZ didn’t agree the products should be certified despite the two Scheme Owners stating they could be.
Not only do we have significant concerns about the JAS-ANZ processes (both their audit and appeals process), which we consider deeply flawed, we also have evidence that neither the NZ Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) nor the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) support JAS-ANZ’s ruling on our understanding of what is intended by the scheme.
So JAS-ANZ has one view and we, the Scheme Owners, MBIE and the ABCB have another, conflicting view.
Hence our appeal of the initial JAS-ANZ ruling, and now our formal complaint about the process to both MBIE and the ABCB.
Now we see an email from a competitor telling the market our accreditation is to be revoked from January 2019.
Naturally we are deeply disappointed, and we are very concerned about the unwarranted impact on our – and your – business. This further highlights the flaws in the JAS-ANZ process.
Interestingly, we have learned from this situation that there is no independent review process at JAS-ANZ for any kind of dispute. The Appeal Panel advised that they “were not qualified” to consider the disputed technical matters we initially raised with them.
Clearly the designers of the CodeMark Scheme overlooked this.
We will keep you informed of what happens next.