“In the Tribunal’s view what is required by the conflict of interest standard is a separation of the consultancy role and the certification role sufficient to satisfy a reasonably-informed member of the general public that there is no likelihood that the accredited certification might be influenced by the performance of the consultancy role and might lack the necessary objectivity.”.”[Justice O’Connor]
Conflict of interest
Justin Cotton, Partner and Head of Practitioner Advocacy at Lovegrove Solicitors has penned an article on the practice of acting as both consultant/advisor and as a public regulatory assessor, referring to a 2004 decision in NSW concerning accredited certifiers, handed down by Justice O’Connor at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
According to the Lovegrove Solicitors article: [Main Article Link]
The Tribunal says: “While it might be appropriate to have a standard connected to the expectations of one’s peers in good standing for matters of technical competence, the issue raised by this allegation goes to issues of integrity and probity in the practice of accredited certification.”[Justice O’Connor]
Although there was some evidence of the desirability on the part of customers that certification firms could operate a form of ‘one stop shop’ with a consultancy wing and then another wing of the same firm offering a regulatory certification service, [Lovegrove Solicitors]
“In the Tribunal’s view what is required by the conflict of interest standard is a separation of the consultancy role and the certification role sufficient to satisfy a reasonably-informed member of the general public that there is no likelihood that the accredited certification might be influenced by the performance of the consultancy role and might lack the necessary objectivity.”.”[Justice O’Connor]
There were two separate and distinct functions, being consultancy on the one hand, and certification on the other. Even if there was a practice elsewhere in the industry for a blurring of this line, that did not mean the standard required by the law had been met. , [Lovegrove Solicitors]
In AQ’s experience, when Building Certification firms undertaking the role of Disability Discrimination Act or DDA consultant and Building Certifier on the same project for the same client there is a potential for an unlawful conflict of interest and industry term is BCA-DDA consultants private certifier, Principal certifying Authority, PCA and DDA or PCA and DDA can lead to confusion and conflict.
AQ also cautions consumers that firms listing BCA and DDA compliance consulting services are demonstrating a level of incompetence as the Disability Discrimination Act applies to the actions of people and it is not possible for a building to comply with the DDA.
