The Technical Professions Network (RPT) has filed a complaint with the Guarantor for the protection of personal data (GPDP) and one with the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM) to contest the request by the Deloitte Company for so-called “video certifications”.
According to RPT, this request is “an illegitimate claim that damages, in addition to the dignity of professionals, the privacy of the client and of the workers on the construction site and constitutes an illegitimate and vexatious abuse of a dominant position by both the advisor and the reference banking group.”
As recalled and stigmatized by the RPT in recent weeks, the Deloitte company, as part of the support of credit transfers related to the Superbonus managed by the Intesa San Paolo Banking Group, has imposed on professionals the obligation to produce, in addition to normal certification required by law, a video for the purpose of illustrating the execution of the works
.
As part of an agreement with an association of construction companies - explains RPT -, Deloitte has made available to clients, businesses and professionals a platform for document management necessary to obtain and circulate the mentioned tax credit. This platform intervenes in a phase of the procedure following the certification (by ENEA) of the documentary correctness of the individual file
.
The platform, therefore - continues the Network -, acts only in relation to the banking/financial aspects of the transaction, when the certifying professionals/certifiers have already rendered their professional performance, confirming, under their own responsibility, the correct execution of the building works necessary to benefit from the tax bonus.
Deloitte - the professionals dispute - has unexpectedly and independently introduced, among the documentation considered necessary to allow access to the possibility of circulation of the tax credit, an obligation that presents significant illegitimacy. In particular, for some weeks now, for supposed anti-fraud purposes, the platform in question has explicitly requested the upload of a sort of “video-certification” (by the company executing the works and/or by the technical professionals involved in the contract in various capacities) containing a detailed summary of the work carried out and the areas affected by the
intervention.
The RPT reported, first informally and then with a specific warning to the Consulting Firm, that this video footage - acquired, preserved and above all evaluated with unknown tools, methods, timing and professionalism - is not required by any current law and does not seem, however, to be adequately supported by adequate regulatory bases.
Not having received any feedback, as announced at the time, the RPT proceeded to submit the above-mentioned statements to the Antitrust and the Privacy Guarantor. In the meantime, other initiatives are being studied.
Source