proffesional indemnity

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Not much, 5k's worth a year maybe, I like to provide a complete service so if a client asks I will do surveys. I have also done a few planning surveys. I may start pushing it a bit more as I get older, I did the tech cert last year with that in mind.

 

So you dont subscribe to the profesional opinion that this has conflict of interest issues?

[Tom D]

So you dont subscribe to the profesional opinion that this has conflict of interest issues?

 

No.

 

The only conflict of interest that I could see would be if I was asked to write a report on another contractors work / negligence etc. In which case I'd refuse to do it.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

No.

 

The only conflict of interest that I could see would be if I was asked to write a report on another contractors work / negligence etc. In which case I'd refuse to do it.

 

I have always wondered about this conflict of interest debate, after all isnt the advice you give as a contractor on quotation for the work the same as a report given by a consultant that amounts to the same thing?

 

Is it conflict of interest, or just a way for the "academics" to keep those jobs for the "boys"

[Amelanchier]

Having written reports for a number of contractors over the years, I've found the ones who were certain to do any work specified made the most fuss about the contents of the specifications.

 

I generally favour a light touch and a rigourous re-inspection regime, especially on sites that haven't been touched for years - no point blowing the clients budget for the next 5 years in year 1. That way, more funds are available for replanting. This means (depending on the brief), I generally don't spec anything that isn't essential 'cos even if you give it a low priority, I've found that most clients will aim to complete all tree works out of sheer fear of negligence no matter how well you word the report. So an extra 50cm crown lift over this and pruning that back from the building, balancing that up and formative pruning this etc - forgetaboutit, pick it up next year and get some trees in the ground.

 

As a result, I've had contractors add minor faff works to a Tree Hazard Risk Assessment report in a covering letter or appendix because they considered the recommendations to be too light in terms of generating work from a site/client. Yeah, that probably doesn't look like desperation at all...

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Having written reports for a number of contractors over the years, I've found the ones who were certain to do any work specified made the most fuss about the contents of the specifications.

 

I generally favour a light touch and a rigourous re-inspection regime, especially on sites that haven't been touched for years - no point blowing the clients budget for the next 5 years in year 1. That way, more funds are available for replanting. This means (depending on the brief), I generally don't spec anything that isn't essential 'cos even if you give it a low priority, I've found that most clients will aim to complete all tree works out of sheer fear of negligence no matter how well you word the report. So an extra 50cm crown lift over this and pruning that back from the building, balancing that up and formative pruning this etc - forgetaboutit, pick it up next year and get some trees in the ground.

 

As a result, I've had contractors add minor faff works to a Tree Hazard Risk Assessment report in a covering letter or appendix because they considered the recommendations to be too light in terms of generating work from a site/client. Yeah, that probably doesn't look like desperation at all...

 

so am i to asume what your saying is that tree guys cant be trusted to do the right thing?

 

If so I can understand why, but then I have been on jobs that had specs way out of sync with the needs myself so if i was sure, and I am usualy when I make up my own mind, I normaly work to the spec given but ensure my argument against the spec gets to those relevant. Just as a good example we did a line of raywood ash trees a whil;e back in ayelsbury, the trees lined the verge of a busy path and two lane road, as well as overhanging all the car stock of a main vuaxhaul dealership.

 

The spec was to light lift and clean out broken limbs of which there where many as you might expect with the variety. We all knew from the moment we arrived this was not enough, and that there would be more limbs down within a month or two. I did lighten off a few of the worst offenders to reduce the time another failure would happen, but believe me, there are as many if nmot more cowboy consultants as there are arborists.

[Amelanchier]

so am i to asume what your saying is that tree guys cant be trusted to do the right thing?

 

If so I can understand why, but then I have been on jobs that had specs way out of sync with the needs myself so if i was sure, and I am usualy when I make up my own mind, I normaly work to the spec given but ensure my argument against the spec gets to those relevant. Just as a good example we did a line of raywood ash trees a whil;e back in ayelsbury, the trees lined the verge of a busy path and two lane road, as well as overhanging all the car stock of a main vuaxhaul dealership.

 

The spec was to light lift and clean out broken limbs of which there where many as you might expect with the variety. We all knew from the moment we arrived this was not enough, and that there would be more limbs down within a month or two. I did lighten off a few of the worst offenders to reduce the time another failure would happen, but believe me, there are as many if nmot more cowboy consultants as there are arborists.

 

Its not about trust at all. A works spec for a group of trees is a tiny part of the equation - it can be based on many different factors, not just what the contractor sees when he gets on site.

 

Given the title and original query - It's worth noting that whether you agree with the spec or not, deviating from it because you know better puts the focus on your professional opinion. So perhaps you need professional indemnity insurance?

 

My reports state that if works are undertaken that are different from my spec that I haven't agreed in writing - you're on your own. Too little or too much, not my problem anymore. I'm not liable for someone elses judgement.

 

Had a client a while back now instruct a contractor to undertake the high priority works spec from an estate wide hazard assessment. Contractor (who will remain nameless) undertook the works and the climbed inspections. He then decided that two more trees needed to be felled as a result. It was required by the report that the results of the climbed inspections needed to come back to me for consideration before agreeing further works. They didn't. Two Beech were felled. A week or so later, the exposed Pines behind started binning limbs onto the outbuildings below and I recieve a snotty letter.

 

You can guess the rest. :yawn:

 

In the end, I lost the client but I later heard the contractor lost a bit more. His call, not mine.

 

Now I suppose most people on here would have picked up on those Pines but no one was in the position I was in when I was writing a spec after inspecting all the trees / discussing the zoning and usage / replanting options / budget constraints / conservation angles etc.

 

Most times the contractor just hasn't got the same information. And I say this as an ex-contractor who used to laugh at bad specs just as much as the next man!

[Jon Lad]

O.k so your about to start up your own "consulting business" EXACTLY what do you need to have in order to "qualify" as a consultant and provide advice and reports? what would the insurance companies expect from you?

 

A friend of mine who is a consultant said the minimum you should have is the RFS Dip. Arb. He told me he was once in court once as an expert witness and the other party in the case had an expert witness as well. However this person didn't have any paper qualifications but he did have a lot of experience. When the opposing barrister asked him any questions he began them all by saying "In your unqualified opinion..." Talk about being shot down in flames!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

A friend of mine who is a consultant said the minimum you should have is the RFS Dip. Arb. He told me he was once in court once as an expert witness and the other party in the case had an expert witness as well. However this person didn't have any paper qualifications but he did have a lot of experience. When the opposing barrister asked him any questions he began them all by saying "In your unqualified opinion..." Talk about being shot down in flames!

 

Yep thats how it works unfortunatley, and ouch, that had to hurt!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Its not about trust at all. A works spec for a group of trees is a tiny part of the equation - it can be based on many different factors, not just what the contractor sees when he gets on site.

 

Given the title and original query - It's worth noting that whether you agree with the spec or not, deviating from it because you know better puts the focus on your professional opinion. So perhaps you need professional indemnity insurance?

 

My reports state that if works are undertaken that are different from my spec that I haven't agreed in writing - you're on your own. Too little or too much, not my problem anymore. I'm not liable for someone elses judgement.

 

Had a client a while back now instruct a contractor to undertake the high priority works spec from an estate wide hazard assessment. Contractor (who will remain nameless) undertook the works and the climbed inspections. He then decided that two more trees needed to be felled as a result. It was required by the report that the results of the climbed inspections needed to come back to me for consideration before agreeing further works. They didn't. Two Beech were felled. A week or so later, the exposed Pines behind started binning limbs onto the outbuildings below and I recieve a snotty letter.

 

You can guess the rest. :yawn:

 

In the end, I lost the client but I later heard the contractor lost a bit more. His call, not mine.

 

Now I suppose most people on here would have picked up on those Pines but no one was in the position I was in when I was writing a spec after inspecting all the trees / discussing the zoning and usage / replanting options / budget constraints / conservation angles etc.

 

Most times the contractor just hasn't got the same information. And I say this as an ex-contractor who used to laugh at bad specs just as much as the next man!

 

your point is well made and duly noted. However I dont make ussumptions and do the "detective work" before I start hacking anyones spec. I was in this instance well justified in my actions, of that I can assure you, and assure you if you had seen it you would also have done the same.

 

 

It was minimal, and not obvious, but enough to eliviate the very worst and only the very worst, I have as much duty to the client and public as the guy who wrote the spec.

[leo_h]

It was minimal, and not obvious, but enough to eliviate the very worst and only the very worst, I have as much duty to the client and public as the guy who wrote the spec.

 

Agreed! I think most contractors are left with that dilemma when it comes to not agreeing with dodgy specs, especially if the task seems ridiculous in the first place or if you know from professional experience that the work will make the tree weak or left in a poor condition. Who do you keep happy? the client, consultant, public or your own conscience? Everyone sees it from a different angle which makes it difficult, sometimes unfortunately its safer to go exactly by the spec.