Laboratory and PC Terms

TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR LABORATORIES AND PRODUCT CERTIFIERS

Detailed Analysis: FRAMEWORK THE EXECUTIVES Clause

This clause outlines the core operational and financial obligations of an organization (“Association”) accredited by the Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board (SDAB). While attempting to establish a framework for compliance, the clause is riddled with ambiguous language, unprofessional terminology, and a highly unusual, punitive fee structure that renders it commercially unreasonable and potentially exploitative.

1. Purported Intent and Obligations

The clause appears to state that accredited organizations must:

Comply with SDAB’s own contract, operating procedures, and their own management system aligned with relevant ISO standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025 for testing labs).
Provide Evidence of compliance to SDAB upon request.
Face Additional Charges for unannounced or triggered surveillance visits if the provided evidence is deemed unsatisfactory.

On the surface, these are typical expectations for an accreditation relationship, where the accredited body must maintain its management system and demonstrate ongoing compliance.

2. Critical Issues and Red Flags

A. Ambiguous and Overreaching Authority
The phrasing “such sensible proof of consistence as is considered significant by SDAB” is dangerously vague. It grants SDAB absolute, unilateral discretion to:

Define what constitutes “sensible” and “significant” evidence.
Request evidence at any time (“every once in a while”).
Determine unilaterally whether submitted evidence is “palatable” (satisfactory).

This creates a perpetual state of uncertainty for the organization and opens the door for SDAB to demand arbitrary or burdensome documentation without clear, objective criteria.

B. Unprofessional and Unclear Terminology
The use of terms like “license administrations,” “alignment research facilities,” and “cognisant of ISO 9001” is non-standard and confusing in an accreditation context. It suggests a lack of familiarity with internationally accepted accreditation lexicon, undermining professional credibility. “License” typically refers to a permit to operate, not an accreditation based on competence.

C. The Punitive and Exorbitant Fee Structure
This is the clause’s most severe and alarming component. The stipulated charges for surveillance visits are:

Rate: “Three bucks and fifty pennies every moment” ($3.50 per minute).
Standard Day: “185 and 20 minutes” (185.33 minutes, or approximately 3 hours and 5 minutes).
Resulting Daily Charge: $3.50/min * 185.33 min = Approximately $648.66 per “standard day.”

Analysis of the Fee Problem:

Non-Standard Unit: Legitimate accreditation bodies charge a daily rate (e.g., $1,800 – $2,500 per assessor day), not a per-minute rate. A per-minute charge is micromanaging, adversarial, and designed to inflate costs for every additional minute spent.
Unusual “Standard Day”: A “standard day” of ~3 hours is not a standard industry practice. A normal assessment day is 7-8 hours. This arbitrary definition seems designed to make the initial quoted cost appear lower while the per-minute mechanism allows costs to spiral.
Punitive Nature: The visits are triggered by SDAB’s subjective judgment that evidence is unsatisfactory. The organization is then forced to pay this excessive, meticulously calculated fee for what is essentially a corrective action audit. This creates a clear financial incentive for SDAB to find evidence “unsatisfactory.”
Lack of Cap or Control: There is no cap on the total minutes that could be charged during a visit, leaving the organization exposed to uncontrolled costs.

3. Overall Assessment and Risk

This clause does not establish a fair partnership for continual improvement, which is the hallmark of legitimate accreditation. Instead, it sets up a predatory, “gotcha” financial model.

Financial Risk: The organization’s compliance costs are unpredictable and can be escalated arbitrarily by SDAB.
Power Imbalance: SDAB holds all decision-making power regarding compliance evidence and the triggering of high-cost visits.
Sign of Illegitimacy: The combination of unprofessional language, vague obligations, and a bizarre fee structure is a strong indicator that SDAB is not a reputable, internationally recognized accreditation body. Legitimate bodies (like UKAS, ANAB, DAkkS) operate with transparent, pre-agreed daily rates and objective, standards-based assessment protocols.

Recommendation: No organization should agree to this clause. Any entity considering SDAB accreditation should immediately seek an accredited body that is a signatory to the Global Laboratory Accreditation MRA (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement), which ensures global recognition and adherence to fair and professional practices.

AUTHENTICATIONS AND LOGOS

An Association might apply the SDAB logo and authentications as it were in regard of their hardware’s, items and cycles surveyed and certificated, and to bring to the consideration of clients, when sensible and fitting, any areas of business for which it has not been dependent upon license administrations. Utilization of the SDAB logo is permitted just following installment to SDAB by the association in receipt of authorization administrations.

Associations are at risk for the authorization administrations expense due in regard of their gross turnover barring esteem added charges. Utilization of some other license logo in regard of SDAB, for example ‘Crown and Tick’ isn’t approved furthermore, is outside the extent of SDAB purview. Copyright and any remaining protected innovation freedoms getting from our work and work performed and conveyed and guaranteed by the associations as falling inside the purview of SDAB license administrations stays with SDAB except if generally concurred with SDAB in composing.

WARNING

Any notification under these Agreements or prerequisite of the quality administration arrangement of SDAB, or on the other hand the agreements between SDAB. furthermore, Associations in receipt of certification administrations will be recorded as a hard copy and endorsed by or for the party giving it and might be served by leaving it or sending it by paid ahead of time recorded conveyance or enlisted post.

Any notification served by present will be considered on have been served 75 hours from the hour of posting or on the other hand if beyond the UK, nine days from the date of posting. In demonstrating such help, it will be adequate to demonstrate that the notification was appropriately tended to and was posted.

END OF THE DECLARATION AND ENLISTMENT

SDAB will pull out the declaration, which is generally the property of SDAB, and the utilization of its logo from any Association who doesn’t follow these Agreements.

The Association upon notice of the end of enlistment will quickly end utilization of the SDAB logo and all publicizing matter which contains them or any reference thereto. Likewise, some other archives in the ownership of the association which bear reference to SDAB will, on the off chance that SDAB so want it, be so treated as to eradicate it.

LICENSE

License administrations are material just to authentications gave by the Association for guidelines that are characterized in Supplement 1 of the Notice of Understanding between the association and SDAB and except if expressed in actuality SDAB declarations connote that according to SDAB and its workers the association in receipt of authorization administrations who is named in the endorsement gave by SDAB has shown an affirmation of the advantages and attractiveness of being enrolled concerning the extent of exercises and principles indicated on the enlistment endorsement and Index 1 of the reminder of Understanding. In giving the declaration SDAB is affirming enlistment of the Association in the SDAB rundown of enrolled bodies.

Associations are exhorted that exercises covered by European mandate 765/08 – Congruity Appraisal, and comparative, are restricted by these terms and conditions and that full consistence with any norm referred to in the extent of endorsements isn’t certificated as certain elements like the example idea of evaluations and the consistence by the enlisted association with their own strategies now and again when SDAB are absent and other matters is past the control of SDAB.

Enlisted Associations are instructed that the assessment concerning some other association or individual as to consistence with any standard that might be cited in the extent of testaments or the surmising of the expression “certification” might be different to that of SDAB and its workers however in any case consistence isn’t the subject of the endorsement.

FURTHER EXHORTATION, AUTHORITY AND LICENSE

Associations and clients are encouraged to take master exhortation while drawing on certification administrations. The authority vested in SDAB is that doled out to them by the association in regard of the authorization administrations contracted and no case as to legal, administrative, authority, conspicuousness or right given by some other party except if determined by SDAB is asserted. Associations are told to abstain from saying, inferring or causing to be induced that, under the sponsorship of SDAB enrollment they act with the help, endorsement or permit of the UK government or some other legal or government office of any country or state.

REGULATION

These circumstances and the exercises of SDAB are liable to the laws of London UK. SDAB will not be at risk reflectively for results, expenses or harms emerging from changes or presentation of such regulations or legal government instruments which may therefore negate SDAB exercises.

INSTALLMENTS

SDAB require their enrolled Associations to pay expenses in advance or by an endorsed elective technique characterized in composing, to keep up with their enlistment and that of their certificated firms.

This document appears to be a Terms and Conditions agreement for laboratories and product certifiers from an entity called the “Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board” (SDAB). However, the text contains numerous grammatical errors, inconsistencies, and unclear phrasing, making it difficult to interpret and potentially unenforceable in a legal context. The use of terms like “license,” “authorization,” and “certification” seems interchangeable and confused.

Below is a critical analysis organized by clause, highlighting the major issues and attempting to clarify the apparent intent.

Critical Analysis & Clarification of Key Clauses

1. FRAMEWORK THE EXECUTIVES (Framework / Management)

Text Issues: “license administrations,” “cognisant of,” “charged at the ongoing rate.”
Apparent Intent: SDAB requires certified organizations (“Associations”) to comply with its rules and relevant ISO standards (17025, 17065, 15189). SDAB can request proof of compliance. Failure to provide satisfactory proof may lead to extra surveillance visits, which will be charged.
Major Red Flags:
- Exorbitant Charges: The stipulated charge for visits is “three bucks and fifty pennies every moment” with a “standard day is 185 and 20 minutes.” This calculates to $3.50 per minute * 185.33 minutes = approximately $648.66 per standard day. This is an unusually specific and high rate, presented in a non-professional manner (“bucks and pennies”).
- Vagueness: “Such sensible proof… as is considered significant” is overly broad and gives SDAB unlimited discretion.

2. AUTHENTICATIONS AND LOGOS

Text Issues: “Authentications” (likely Certificates), “license administrations,” “purview,” “getting from our work.”
Apparent Intent: The organization can only use the SDAB logo for certified scopes. Use is only permitted after payment of fees. The organization is liable for fees based on its gross turnover. Use of other accreditation symbols (like a ‘Crown and Tick’, possibly implying UKAS) is prohibited. SDAB claims copyright over all intellectual property arising from the work.
Major Red Flags:
- Financial Liability: Fees based on “gross turnover” is a significant and uncommon financial commitment for an accreditation body, which typically charges based on assessment days or fixed fees.
- Overreaching IP Claim: Claiming copyright over all IP arising from the certified organization’s work is extremely aggressive and likely unacceptable to any legitimate laboratory. This could encompass proprietary test methods, software, and reports.
- Prohibition of Other Logos: Attempting to control an organization’s use of other legitimate accreditation marks is a sign of a potentially predatory or non-recognized scheme.

3. WARNING (Notices)

Text Issues: Entire clause is poorly drafted. “Warning” should be “Notices.” “75 hours” and “nine days” are odd timeframes.
Apparent Intent: Specifies how formal notices must be served (in writing, pre-paid recorded delivery).
Major Red Flag: The deemed service periods (75 hours / 9 days) are non-standard. Standard legal contracts often use 2-3 business days for domestic and 7-10 days for international.

4. END OF THE DECLARATION AND ENLISTMENT (Termination)

Text Issues: “Declaration” likely means “Certificate.” “Enlistment” likely means “Registration.”
Apparent Intent: SDAB can withdraw the certificate and logo for non-compliance. Upon termination, the organization must cease all use of the logo and, if requested, destroy or modify all documents referencing SDAB.
Note: This is a standard termination clause, though poorly worded.

5. LICENSE (Scope & Limitations of Accreditation)

Text Issues: This clause is critically garbled. Key terms are misused. It attempts a massive limitation of liability but does so incoherently.
Apparent Intent (Interpreted): This is the most important and problematic clause. It seems to state:
1. Accreditation only applies to scopes defined in an appendix.
2. The SDAB certificate does NOT certify full compliance with any standard. It only affirms that the organization has “shown an affirmation of the advantages and attractiveness” of being registered.
3. It explicitly states that compliance is not guaranteed due to factors like sampling, the organization’s actions when unobserved, and other matters “past the control of SDAB.”
4. It warns that others (e.g., customers, regulators) might have a different view of what “certification” means.
Major Red Flags:
- Fundamental Misrepresentation: This clause utterly negates the standard purpose of accreditation. Accreditation is meant to provide confidence in an organization’s competence. Here, SDAB explicitly disclaims any verification of actual compliance with standards. The certificate is rendered virtually meaningless, indicating only that the organization paid to be on a list.
- Deceptive Practice: This is a classic “certificate mill” disclaimer, designed to take money while offering no substantive assurance, and protecting the accreditor from legal action when the certified organization fails.

6. FURTHER EXHORTATION, AUTHORITY AND LICENSE (Warnings on Authority)

Apparent Intent: Tells clients to seek independent advice. States SDAB’s authority comes only from the contract with the organization, not from any government. Organizations must not claim they are approved or licensed by the UK government or any other state agency.
Major Red Flag: This is a clear admission that SDAB is not a nationally recognized accreditation body (like UKAS in the UK). Its “accreditation” carries no official regulatory standing.

7. REGULATION (Governing Law)

Apparent Intent: The agreement is subject to the laws of London, UK. SDAB is not liable for consequences arising from new laws that contradict its activities.
Major Red Flag: The attempt to avoid liability for changes in law is overly broad and may not be enforceable.

8. INSTALLMENTS (Payments)

Apparent Intent: Requires fees to be paid in advance to maintain registration.
Standard Practice: While common, combined with the other clauses, it reinforces a “pay-to-play” model rather than a competence-based assessment.

Overall Assessment & Serious Concerns

This document raises extreme red flags and indicates that SDAB is likely not a legitimate, internationally recognized accreditation body.

Key Indicators of Illegitimacy:

Poorly Drafted & Unprofessional: The language is non-standard, confusing, and contains childish phrasing (“bucks and pennies”).
Erodes the Core Value of Accreditation: Clause 5 explicitly states the certificate does not verify compliance with standards, which is the entire point of accreditation.
Exorbitant and Unusual Fees: The per-minute surveillance charge is bizarre and predatory.
Claims Over Intellectual Property: The IP clause is predatory and unacceptable.
Denies Government Recognition: It explicitly tells organizations not to claim any government backing, confirming its lack of official status.
Unclear Legal Standing: The references to “Sanatan Dharma” (an ancient term for Hindu philosophy) and UK law create a confusing jurisdictional and cultural mismatch.

Strong Recommendations for Any Organization Considering SDAB

DO NOT SIGN this agreement in its current form.
Verify Legitimacy: Check if SDAB is recognized by the Global Laboratory Accreditation or the International Body. Search for its name alongside terms like “scam” or “complaint.”
Seek Recognized Accreditation: If you need internationally accepted accreditation, seek a body that is a signatory to the Global Laboratory Accreditation MRA (Mutual Recognition Arrangement). In the UK, this is UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service).
Consult Legal Advice: If you have already engaged with SDAB, have a lawyer specializing in contracts or compliance review this document and your relationship.
Understand the Risk: Certificates from such bodies are often worthless in regulated markets (e.g., medical devices, construction) and can damage your reputation with informed clients.

In essence, this Terms and Conditions document appears to be designed to extract money from organizations while providing a certification that offers no real assurance of quality or competence, and it contains several clauses that are highly unfavorable and potentially exploitative to the certified organization.

Branches

SDAB Accreditation

SDAB Head Office

SDAB Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board
SDAB House
C/O Mr.Garry 54, Glengarnock Avenue,
E-14 3BP Isle Of Dogs, London UK
Tel .: +44-8369083940
email: info@sanatanboards.com
Website: www.sanatanboards.com

MUMBAI Head Office

Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board (SDAB)
SDAB House
B-401, New Om Kaveri Chs. Ltd., Nagindas pada,
Next To Shiv Sena Office, Nallasopara (E)
Tel .: +91-7499991895
email: info@sanatanboards.com
Website: www.sanatanboards.com

DELHI-NCR Regd. Office

Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board (SDAB)
SDAB House
Asaoti, Dist Palwal
Faridabad Delhi NCR, Haryana
Tel .: +91-7979801035
Fax: +91-250 2341170
Website: www.sanatanboards.com

sanatanboards