Jump to content
AA Teccie (Paul)

ARB Approved...views please.

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

"

 

Please help me to better understand why you're not becoming ARB Approved? (I guess a 'poll / survey monkey' thing might have been a good option here :/ ...sorry!)

 

Thanks in anticipation and for reading this rambling email.

 

ATB,

Paul

 

For us its not that we dont want to be ARB approved its that we have never needed to be. I cant think of an occasion where ARB approval has been specified on any contracts we have  tendered for. Smas covers us for all the site clearance we do and the only reason we went with them was because its become a prerequisite .Although we are HS compliant accreditation does not seem that important  outside of  MOD contracts and the construction industry.

 

Bob

Edited by aspenarb
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,
We came to a arbAC workshop a couple of years ago and really enjoyed it.
We worked through our tickets and got more or less everything in place. We’ve just been so flat out busy that we never got round to it. Thinking about it, the arbAC stickers would come in handy to hold our rusty, knackered trucks together.
Maybe next year.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, aspenarb said:

 

For us its not that we dont want to be ARB approved its that we have never needed to be. I cant think of an occasion where ARB approval has been specified on any contracts we have  tendered for. Smas covers us for all the site clearance we do and the only reason we went with them was because its become a prerequisite .Although we are HS compliant accreditation does not seem that important  outside of  MOD contracts and the construction industry.

 

Bob

Hi Bob, thanks for your post here and apologies for the delay in replying. 

Firstly congrats on achieving SMAS - work safe contractor accreditation, also an SSiP registered safety scheme as ARB Approval is. Based on experience, and with other non-industry specific safety schemes, there's a probability a bit more work might be required in certain areas, e.g. Work at Height procedures n LOLER maybe, but it's a good start.

Part of the reason .any ask for CHAS / SMAS / SAFEcontractir is down to a lack of awareness of ARB Approval so we still have work to do. 

In time I firmly believe ARB Approval will become the norm for tree surgery contracts given it is the only industry specific scheme around. 

Thanks again 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TIMON said:

Hi Paul,
We came to a arbAC workshop a couple of years ago and really enjoyed it.
We worked through our tickets and got more or less everything in place. We’ve just been so flat out busy that we never got round to it. Thinking about it, the arbAC stickers would come in handy to hold our rusty, knackered trucks together.
Maybe next year.......
emoji106.png

Timon, thanks for the post I hope you are well. 

Timing is everything...but please don't leave it too long :/ :D...n we've got loadsa stickers with your name on them.

Cheers 

Paul 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of interesting posts and replies.

 

I like the idea of a scheme that puts the squeeze on poor practitioners... If it really would?

 

I also like the idea of having the 'bar' set and achieved in case it all goes pear shaped (whilst recognising that you're only as good as your last game and if your next game is a bad one, it's still a bad one regardless of what went before it.)

 

I think it's a natural aspiration (maybe an ego / pride thing) to want to achieve a recognised benchmark - but the reality has to be, what benefit does the outlay bring to the business.  Is the expenditure going to result in multiples of financial return or is the current business model in need of a boost.

 

Recognising the potential advantages when large scale operations are bidding for large scale contracts, and the preceding comments about big outfits gaining accreditation (perhaps through having sufficient admin / office staff to smash out the paperwork whilst simultaneously not presenting admirable arb output maybe because contract margins are too tight or staff turnover) I've often thought, the scheme, whilst well known within the industry and the associated large contract tenderers, is not sufficiently well known at the lower level - Joe Pub, smaller local government and contract levels etc.

 

If there was a big push to reach out to Joe Pub etc, and they started to demonstrate an awareness and desire to preferentially engage accredited practitioners if might create more of a pull factor?

 

That's probably quite a long way of saying, if more domestic customers "wanted it", more SMEs might do it.

 

Good shout asking the question Paul :thumbup1:     

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

Enforcement of the standards is an issue.
Many people complain that AAAC carry out poor work and don’t comply with basic H+S standards.
A recent post on Facebook complained that a large AAAC had such poor prices on council contracts that management of H+S had to be disregarded to get enough work done.
The guy said a 2 man team had to do 7 of the pollards shown in photo below per day.

d5f7482f1267c0b067036be818423adb.jpg

The general feeling is other than the inspection the AA does nothing. As an industry we, and I’m sure you, know who the culprits are. I suggest you do something about and publicise when you do. After a couple of companies are thrown off the scheme I’m sure everyone else will quickly step into line.
Have you thrown anyone off the scheme?

Having been a AAAC for many years I have never had a visit other than scheduled assessments.
The industry wants you to be tough on those who take the piss.

The other issue is the scheme adding value to a business i.e companies getting more work by being a AAAC. In my experience this is not the case, although I will admit we do not bid on large contracts and don’t massively market our AAAC status.

My simple suggestion would be that you convince Tree Officers to only have AAACs on there approved lists. This would be a great incentive for many companies to join the scheme. I know many already do but fill in the gaps, surely it is in there interest to help the AA increase participation and increase standards.

Hope this helps

Regards Neil

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the issue with the pollarding? The amount done or the work itself?

 

sorry, just got up, understand now. 

 

Seven a day for a two man gang with cars/pedestrians underneath is a bit of a pinch.

 

 

Edited by Mick Dempsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beechwood - I would not even say those pollards were safe to do with just a two man team ! One up , one rigging n chipping ?? 7 in a day ?? Speaks for its self really , these days -although hats off to the twoo guys fr that effort ! K

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, beechwood said:

Paul

Enforcement of the standards is an issue.
Many people complain that AAAC carry out poor work and don’t comply with basic H+S standards.
A recent post on Facebook complained that a large AAAC had such poor prices on council contracts that management of H+S had to be disregarded to get enough work done.
The guy said a 2 man team had to do 7 of the pollards shown in photo below per day.

d5f7482f1267c0b067036be818423adb.jpg

The general feeling is other than the inspection the AA does nothing. As an industry we, and I’m sure you, know who the culprits are. I suggest you do something about and publicise when you do. After a couple of companies are thrown off the scheme I’m sure everyone else will quickly step into line.
Have you thrown anyone off the scheme?

Having been a AAAC for many years I have never had a visit other than scheduled assessments.
The industry wants you to be tough on those who take the piss.

The other issue is the scheme adding value to a business i.e companies getting more work by being a AAAC. In my experience this is not the case, although I will admit we do not bid on large contracts and don’t massively market our AAAC status.

My simple suggestion would be that you convince Tree Officers to only have AAACs on there approved lists. This would be a great incentive for many companies to join the scheme. I know many already do but fill in the gaps, surely it is in there interest to help the AA increase participation and increase standards.

Hope this helps

Regards Neil

Is that Stoke area in Plymouth?  Looks familiar.  I saw a Plymouth city council gang street tree pollarding around Mutley a while back.  3 blokes, 2 vans, chipper.  1 bloke up a ladder on his own, 1 sat in the van with his snap box, the 3rd around the corner feeding the chipper.  No effective pedestrian / traffic control.  Word at the time was that the contractor that had previously been doing it had costed it at £7/tree!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.