OPDA Knowledge base
Governance Draft · Updated 2026-05-17 DAMA · Data Governance · Data Quality Management

Conformance & certification scheme

How members prove they meet the standard. OPDA today runs a self-certifying accreditation scheme (operational); a technical conformance tier modelled on Open Banking is planned. Both are owned by OPDA as scheme operator, separate from sector regulators.

Two tiers, one scheme

OPDA's accreditation work splits into a tier that is live today and a tier that is on the roadmap. The naming on existing pages — "OPDA Technical Certification" — pre-dates this split and is being tidied up in this rebuild.

Clarification — what "OPDA Technical Certification" means today

The seven founding firms previously described as holding "OPDA Technical Certification" (Kotini, Groundsure, Inventory Base, PEXA, LMS, Sprift, United Trust Bank) have completed the self-certification accreditation described in Tier A below. That process today asks them to evidence PDTF implementation, ISO 27001 alignment and code-of-conduct adherence, but it is not yet a machine-verifiable technical conformance test against the PDTF schema or trust framework APIs. The "technical" label reflects the evidence members supplied (technical artefacts and certifications) rather than an automated test suite. A true technical conformance tier (Tier B) is on the OPDA roadmap. See the founder webinar: UhLZmPdbAI0.txt — Sean Heming (Inventory Base), "Unlocking your potential with OPDA accreditation", 1 July 2025: "this is literally the first step. We are looking to bring a technical accreditation forward for members as we move forward."

flowchart LR A["`Tier A Self-certification *live since 2024*`"]:::success B["`Tier B Technical conformance *planned*`"]:::warning REG[Trust Registry entry]:::neutral BADGE["`Public badge + directory listing`"]:::neutral A --> BADGE B --> REG A -.evolves into.-> B
Tier A is the current self-certification process; Tier B is the planned machine-verifiable technical conformance tier modelled on Open Banking.

Tier A — Self-certification accreditation (live)

Tier A is operational today. It implements the OPDA Accreditation Scheme and Accreditation Policy in the corpus. Source documents:

Eligibility criteria

Per clause 1 of the Accreditation Scheme, organisations must demonstrate:

  • Active involvement in the property data industry
  • A commitment to promoting the digitisation and sharing of Open Property Data
  • Adherence to ethical business practices and a track record of responsible conduct
  • Demonstrated efforts in adopting data and technology standards
  • A willingness to collaborate and engage in industry initiatives

Self-assessment process

flowchart LR AP[Application + fee]:::process SA["`Self-assessment + evidence pack`"]:::process PANEL["`3-person independent panel`"]:::process SCORE{80% pass mark}:::warning PASS["`Badge + directory + member number`"]:::success REM["`Remediation actions`"]:::process ANN["`Annual self-reassessment`"]:::process AP --> SA --> PANEL --> SCORE SCORE -->|>= 80%| PASS SCORE -->|< 80%| REM REM --> SA PASS --> ANN ANN --> SA
Self-certification flow. The 80% pass mark, 3-person independent panel, and ~2-week review SLA are all from the Sean Heming webinar (2025-07-01).

Members apply via openpropdata.org.uk, pay the membership fee (accreditation is included), then complete the self-assessment form against the Code of Conduct principles and the OPDA's goals. Submissions must include supporting evidence:

  • Data policies — internal data handling, retention, sharing rules
  • Compliance records — audit history, breach logs, regulator interactions
  • Certifications — copies of ISO 27001 certificates or equivalent (or evidence of work toward them); GDPR-sensitive content may be redacted
  • Narrative — how the firm adheres to each Code of Conduct principle

Independent review panel

  • Panel size: at least three reviewers, independent of the applicant
  • Scoring: each reviewer scores independently; aggregate must clear 80%
  • SLA: review aim is within two weeks of submission
  • Outcome: pass, or pass-with-remediation listing the specific actions required

Per clause 3 of the Accreditation Scheme and clause 6 of the Accreditation Policy, the review board may request additional documentation or clarification before scoring. Sub-80% applicants are not rejected outright — they receive a remediation route and can re-submit once gaps are closed.

Standards and conduct expectations

  • ISO 27001 (or industry-recognised equivalent) — clause 10 of the Accreditation Policy, clause 7 of the Scheme. Privacy and security practices must be built into operations from the start.
  • Non-commercial use of accreditation — clause 13 of the Policy, clause 10 of the Scheme. Members may not leverage OPDA accreditation for commercial or political gain; the badge signals trust, not product endorsement.
  • Code of Conduct adherence — see OPDA governance for the principles; collaborative initiatives tie into steering forums; dispute resolution is handled by the non-compliance flow below.

Public recognition

  • Badge with membership number — displayed on websites and member materials (clause 14 of Policy, clause 11 of Scheme)
  • Directory listing — on openpropdata.org.uk as an accredited member
  • Media promotion — newsletter, channel announcements, government-facing communications
  • Access — to OPDA projects, government-backed pilots, and Sandbox workstreams

Annual cadence

Accreditation is not a one-and-done. Per clause 16 of the Accreditation Policy:

  • Annual self-reassessment — accredited members re-run the self-assessment each year to evidence continued compliance
  • Ongoing compliance monitoring — random audits and checks throughout the year (clause 7 of Policy)
  • Transparent change reporting — members must report changes to activities relevant to OPDA's goals (clause 9)
  • Scheme-level review — the scheme itself is reviewed annually for improvements (clause 13 of Scheme, clause 19 of Policy), feeding back through continuous improvement (clause 17 of Policy)

Tier B — Technical conformance (planned, Open Banking pattern)

Tier B is the machine-verifiable layer. It does not exist as a live test suite today; it is the structure OPDA has signalled is on the roadmap, supported by the Trust Framework Sandbox and the Trust Registry work already underway.

Status

Tier B is aspirational structure. The shape below is what the corpus implies will be built. Each section names the existing artefact that feeds it.

Proposed scope

  1. Scope — which PDTF version, which overlays, which API spec is being conformed against
  2. Levels — minimum / extended / role-specific (Issuer / Verifier / Holder / Orchestrator)
  3. Test suites — schema validation, API conformance, VC issuance, DID resolution
  4. Self-assessment — declarations + evidence pack (re-uses Tier A artefacts)
  5. Independent audit — when required, plus the accredited audit firms that can perform it
  6. Annual re-certification — cadence, fees, evidence refresh
  7. Trust Registry entry — outcome: public, machine-readable accreditation record
  8. Suspension & revocation — links to the non-compliance flow below

Role-specific tracks

The PDTF Governance document already defines the role taxonomy that Tier B will certify against. From source/03-standards/trust-framework/docs/governance.md (Governance Layers · Business Layer):

  • Governance Authority (GA) — OPDA itself; maintains the trust framework and approves schemas
  • Accredited Issuer — verified organisations (land registries, surveyors, lenders) allowed to issue property VCs; must pass onboarding and sign legal agreements
  • Holder — property owners, brokers, or platforms storing VCs in wallets
  • Verifier — portals, banks, insurers, government agencies verifying VCs before transactions; optional accreditation for higher-assurance verification
  • Trust Registry Operator — publishes list of approved Issuers and their DIDs; maintains active/revoked status

Trust Registry outcome

A successful Tier B certification results in a Trust Registry entry. Per the PDTF governance doc, the Trust Registry is a

Public JSON-LD document containing: Issuer DID, Organization legal name, Status (active/revoked), Credential types authorized — signed by Governance Authority for authenticity.

Source: governance.md §4 Trust Registry.

Onboarding into the registry will involve KYC/KYB verification of the entity, a signed legal agreement, and DID registration. Verifier onboarding is optional, intended for parties seeking a higher-assurance verification badge.

Assurance levels

Tier B credentials carry an assurance level that signals issuer trust. From governance.md §5:

  • AL1 — Self-asserted data (low trust, no issuer accreditation)
  • AL2 — Issued by accredited property professionals (medium trust)
  • AL3 — Issued by trusted proxy on behalf of an official primary authority (medium trust)
  • AL4 — Issued by official primary authority (high trust, legal validity)

(The governance.md source lists two clauses both numbered AL2; the second is treated as AL3 here for clarity.)

DID authentication

The authentication path for participants is defined by the Draft_ PDTF Participant DID Auth OAuth 2 Specification.md. Tier B technical conformance tests will exercise this spec — DID resolution, OAuth 2 flows for participants, and VC presentation against the PDTF 2 Specification.

Open Banking parallel

Raidiam — the Sandbox delivery partner — operated UK Open Banking's conformance infrastructure. The proven Open Banking pattern is worth lifting wholesale into Tier B:

  • FAPI conformance tests — automated test suites against published specifications
  • OBL certification process — a scheme operator separate from regulators, owning the conformance regime
  • Directory-based participant registry — a single signed registry of approved participants, machine-readable for verifiers

See ToIP governance — Open Banking parallel for the full mapping. The Sandbox programme (delivered by CLC + OPDA + Raidiam) is the natural rails on which Tier B will be built — see Trust Framework Sandbox.

Non-compliance handling

Source: Non-Compliant Member Policy - OPDA.docx. The policy defines a 12-step framework that applies to both tiers.

flowchart TB W["`1. Initial warning + timeline`"]:::warning R[2. Remediation period]:::process M[3. Ongoing monitoring]:::process CA["`4. Compliance assessment by review board`"]:::process DC["`5. Decision committee internal + external experts`"]:::process MR["`6. Membership review meeting member presents case`"]:::process D{7. Decision}:::error F["`Full compliance good standing`"]:::success P["`Partial compliance additional monitoring`"]:::warning T[8. Termination process]:::error AP[9. Appeals process]:::process PUB[10. Public notification]:::warning RE["`11. Periodic re-evaluation possible reapplication`"]:::process W --> R --> M --> CA --> DC --> MR --> D D --> F D --> P D --> T T --> AP T --> PUB T --> RE
12-step non-compliance framework. Step 12 (continuous improvement) feeds findings back into scheme design.

Key design choices in the 12-step flow

  • Remediation before termination (steps 1–4) — non-compliance triggers a written warning with a defined remediation window, ongoing monitoring, and an objective assessment by the review board before any termination decision.
  • Mixed decision committee (step 5) — decisions are made by a committee of OPDA representatives plus external experts in the field. The external-expert involvement prevents OPDA being judge, jury and executioner.
  • Member voice (step 6) — the non-compliant member presents their case and remediation evidence at a review meeting before a decision is reached.
  • Three decision outcomes (step 7) — full compliance (good standing), partial compliance (extra monitoring + deadlines), or termination.
  • Appeals + public notification (steps 8–10) — terminations follow a clear written process, an appeals route, and a public announcement of the outcome.
  • Reapplication and feedback loops (steps 11–12) — terminated members can be periodically re-evaluated for reapplication; learnings from each case feed back into the accreditation framework itself.

Directory integration — Assurance Level × Capability (planned)

The Conformance Scheme on this page describes how a firm becomes a member. ADR 0001 Wave 2 adds an orthogonal axis describing how a firm performs across its claimed capabilities, published quarterly in the Accreditation Directory. The two axes are designed to be read together:

  • Assurance Level (this page) — per-claim. AL1 self-asserted · AL2 accredited issuer · AL3 accredited issuer with extra controls or proxy authority · AL4 official primary authority. Set by the issuer of the claim.
  • Capability score (the Directory) — per-firm. Three dimensions per claimed capability: Engagement (governance authority engaged), Process (process established and repeatable), Evidence (auditable artifacts exist). Set by the firm and corroborated by an OPDA-listed audit partner at higher evidence tiers.

Worked example: Firm X is AL3 + Process 4/6, Evidence 3/6 — high-assurance claims with mid-maturity operations. Firm Y is AL2 + Process 5/6, Evidence 5/6 — medium-assurance claims with mature operations. Both views are useful to a consumer or regulator; collapsing them into one number would lose signal.

Promotion to its own ADR when work begins

Wiring the Conformance Scheme to the Accreditation Directory's per-capability scoring touches eligibility, accreditation, and the Trust Registry's public-facing surface. Per ADR 0005 item F2, this section is a forward- reference only; the integration gets its own ADR when the Compliance & Risk WG begins Wave 2 work.

Scheme ownership

OPDA is the scheme operator. It is deliberately separate from sector regulators (SRA, CLC, CILEx Regulation, RICS) — those regulators set professional standards for their respective workforces; OPDA's scheme certifies organisational adherence to the property data trust framework. The split mirrors Open Banking, where OBL ran conformance independently of the FCA. See OPDA governance for the scheme operator's own governance structure, and ToIP governance mapping for how this sits relative to a Layer 4 ecosystem-governance framework.

Related pages

Comments

Loading comments…
← Strategic alignmentAccreditation Directory →