Tree inspection- insurance wants a "qualified tree surgeon"

[daltontrees]

3 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

So I have spent 28 minutes on the phone with Aviva. I do appreciate that they let you chose the music you listen to whilst you slowly lose the will to live. I chose "pop/hits" for a wonderful collection of music from 2001.

 

I eventually got through to customer services who told me they had no idea so sent me to claims. Another 3 minute wait. I then spoke to a girl who was very nice but also didn't know and said "as long as you're qualified" but also didn't know about the inspection requirements that the customer presented me with so she popped me back on hold and had a chat with her manager. After a total of 28 minutes I was told that it might be an additional requirement on the policy after a previous subsidence claim. They needed the policy documents and I don't have authorisation. I need to get the customer to ask (who won't know the qualification requirements) or get the customer to approve my request. How this is so difficult I don't know?!

Wow, take the rest of the day off.

[daltontrees]

Jon, the insurers aren't to blame for the confusion but they are taking lots of money off people based on vaguely worded policies then refusing to pay out. An insurance policy is a contract. A contract in any other walk of life would be void if it was this badly worded. It really would not be hard to do a better job.

I'll have a go right now.

Here's the definition of an arb from BS3998

3.3 arboriculturist

person who, through relevant education, training and experience, has gained recognized expertise in the care of trees

Here's the definition from BS5837

3.3 arboriculturist

person who has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction

Both standards qualify this in the important bits by saying a -

competent person

person who has training and experience relevant to the matter being addressed and an understanding of the requirements of the particular task being approached

Now that's unfortunate we have arboriculturist defined separately for two different matters, but we do. In each case, though, the emphasis is on competence and experience. The word 'qualified' is not used.

Meanwhile Aviva is saying a qualified tree surgeon has to check the trees every couple of years. Qualified in what? Check them for what? No written report, just a note to say that so-and-so has 'checked' them. So in the event of a claim for subsidence, did the claimant check the tree surgeon's competence? Did she instruct him correctly on what he was meant to be checking for? Did she record what he said correctly and fairly? Did she act on any advice given by him? If the insurer is wheedling out of it all, it can punt the blame back on everyone but itself and claim that the onus was on the claimant or tree surgeon to take steps to understand the requirements and implications and to require or deliver an appropriate report. A verbal one? Is it just me or does this sound in the context of a £20k subsidence claim like a farce? Does this sound, in the context of any contract, a farce? Yes. 

So all the insurers have to do is to oblige the policy holder to follow the advice of a "competent tree professional instructed to advise on all reasonable precautions necessary to avoid tree-related damage".

There, took me 9 minutes. Not too hard. But there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

[Paddy1000111]

1 hour ago, Jon Heuch said:

There are a variety of reasons for this mess; one is that our professional bodies (jointly) need to agree on a terminology & then get out there and tell everybody what the difference is between a tree surgeon and a consultant. They haven't & they don't, although the AA's website by itself helps. There is a discussion to be had & I've been in previous discussions which tend to go not very far. So the AA had "tree contractors" for a long time as their main brand. Luckily someone eventually woke up to the reality that Yellow Pages (as it was) was not interested in changing their listings for "Tree Surgeons" into Arborists or Arboriculturists or something even more obscure e.g. Arboriculturalists & the AA now uses Tree Surgeons. That's one step forward! However, they are still "Approved Contractor" if they get through the AA's accreditation.

 

Just to confuse matters, the ICF is considering a "Technical" membership grade (discussions still continuing) which will confuse matters further.

 

So please don't blame insurance companies for the mess of training levels, courses, job titles, accreditation that arboriculture and forestry have created and continue to propagate. People don't want to know that some people think that a consulting arborist is different from an arboricultural consultant. Or that an arborist differs from a tree surgeon. A member of the public needs to speak to someone about their tree? Yell.com shows "Tree Surgeons" ....stick arboriculture or tree consultants into their search box and you get.....tree surgeons. That's why I don't advertise on Yell.com any more because I get phone calls from people who want.....tree surgeons!

 

Google does help a bit in allowing differentiation but with tree surgeons offering "consultancy" services things can go around in circles!

Whilst I mostly agree with what you're saying about inconstancies I think it is at the fault of the insurance company. It is them writing the documents and it is also them making the rules, not us. It would be like them saying that structural damage to a house must be inspected by a qualified builder, but who is that? A bricklayer? A bathroom fitter? The Wickes kitchen guy? They already know that it has to be inspected by a surveyor. They are going to the lengths to add additional things to policies to ensure their ass is covered so they don't have to pay out if someone lets a tree damage their home and knows about it so why wouldn't they go to the lengths of knowing who they need to do the inspection? It's them asking for the inspection to be carried out, I guess anyone with CS30 and above can do it for aviva! 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Jon, I hope you're well and thank you for raising a relevant point. 

 

However, a tad disingenuous I feel in relation to the Arb Assn (still it amused Mr Johnson...Kevin, not Boris!)

 

The AA website does attempt to differentiate between a Tree Surgeon and a Consultant, both with words and pictorially (albeit i do acknowledge improvements could still be made.)

 

My personal view is that akin to requesting a building surveyor, or structural engineer, be engaged by insurers, with a little effort they could refer to a 'tree expert' at least rather than a tree surgeon (or maybe a tree surgeon competent to undertake subsidence risk assessments etc....which would hopefully get to the right people.)

 

The AA 'Approved Contractor' is a business accreditation opportunity, which involves competent tree surgeons of course, and hence that is why it is referred to as such...behind the "Find the Right Tree Surgeon" pitch on the homepage. 

 

The bigger picture - maybe we could collectively write to the' ABI'(?) pointing out the error of their members ways.

 

Thanks,

Paul

(Arboricultural Association)

 

[Jon Heuch]

30 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

Whilst I mostly agree with what you're saying about inconstancies I think it is at the fault of the insurance company. It is them writing the documents and it is also them making the rules, not us.

So, they have said what they want, but you disagree with them? You are a "qualified tree surgeon" yet you admit that you do not have the qualifications or experience to undertake what they want. You seem surprised and want to blame the insurer for being a bit vague.

 

I am approached as an arboricultural consultant & expert witness for my advice on a variety of subjects. After a brief conversation, sometimes I say I am not qualified to address the described problem, even though they are looking for an arboricultural consultant and I am one! It's not a problem, unless I do not identify and admit the problem & wander into territories unknown. I recommend others, where appropriate.

 

I will give you two examples: a local authority said they wanted a report from a structural engineer, where a tree was reported to be damaging a nearby wall. The local authority did not say what they wanted the structural engineer to say or report on, so the tree owner asked them to comment on the tree. That, after all, was what the tree owner had contacted the council  about. They wanted the tree removed. The structural engineer duly reported, with 95% of his report about the tree; the crack in the wall was only mentioned in passing. A waste of several hundred pounds. The council's arboricultural consultant's report was mostly about the wall, although it was a little more holistic! Lesson learnt: good idea to describe the issue you want someone to consider, rather than just focus on the job title or even profession. A professional will know what they are competent in and what they are not competent in. It's not a problem other than for someone who is looking and cannot find the right person.

 

Second example: an insurer wants a report on someone's medical condition. Does the insurer decide what type of medic they want the report from? They may, if the medical problem is clearly identified. They may not and, annoyingly, having got the report of one medical expert, the insurer says, all well and good, but we want a report from another expert from a different discipline. Expensive.  Insurer's fault? Maybe they could have been more precise but the shortcomings of the first expert's report only became known after its receipt. It is unfortunate but maybe no-one is to blame in a complex situation.

 

As for a definition in BS3998.....well BS charging policies mean that such a definition won't be known to many. Back to my original point, if the professional bodies don't continually promote appropriate nomenclature, please don't blame the public (which includes the staff of insurers). We as a profession have chosen to use an unpronounceable word ("I would like to speak to the arb...or....[halt, whilst telephone user focuses on the word arboriculturist to see if they can spit it out. 99/100 fail]. Do we really wonder why someone might use the term "tree surgeon"?

[Paddy1000111]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not directly blaming the employees as they can't know every single qualification under the sun BUT they should be able to pass me to someone who knows what they are talking about or they should have access to something which says. For example, "Qualified tree surgeon" could in fact mean "Qualified Arboricultural surveyor with training in land subsidence caused by trees" but apparently in this case it means anyone who is a "qualified tree surgeon" by their own definition, i.e. anyone with CS30. 

[Jon Heuch]

1 minute ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

However, a tad disingenuous I feel in relation to the Arb Assn (still it amused Mr Johnson...Kevin, not Boris!)

 

The AA website does attempt to differentiate between a Tree Surgeon and a Consultant, both with words and pictorially (albeit i do acknowledge improvements could still be made.)

 

My personal view is that akin to requesting a building surveyor, or structural engineer, be engaged by insurers, with a little effort they could refer to a 'tree expert' at least rather than a tree surgeon (or maybe a tree surgeon competent to undertake subsidence risk assessments etc....which would hopefully get to the right people.)

 

The AA 'Approved Contractor' is a business accreditation opportunity, which involves competent tree surgeons of course, and hence that is why it is referred to as such...behind the "Find the Right Tree Surgeon" pitch on the homepage. 

 

The bigger picture - maybe we could collectively write to the' ABI'(?) pointing out the error of their members ways.

 

Paul

 

Good to hear from you; I was trying to be complementary about the AA website! I think the separation of contractors/surgeons from consultants is a fairly easy choice for many people to take.

 

I would have thought that most tree surgeons think they are tree experts (and rightfully so) so I don't think that's a great way forward? They may not be keen to put pen to paper, but that is a different matter. 

 

No, Paul, this issue is not about writing a single letter; it is about the industry as a whole getting off and engaging with other professions, the public and the world. The task is huge and the personnel of all organisations change so it is never ending. Convince one person & by the time you revisit they will be gone onto a new job, a new position & you will be faced with another person without the knowledge you imparted to the last....

 

PS It's easier to be a forester (by the way!). People know what a forester does (well, as much as they need to know).......it's not too much more complicated than the word "tree" for the public so they can say the word too 😉 . 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

still it amused Mr Johnson...Kevin, not Boris!)

“Boris may be a subscriber too Paul? If he is, I’d want some of his business - if it’s not all staffed away on painters & decorators 😂

[Khriss]

36 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

“Boris may be a subscriber too Paul? If he is, I’d want some of his business - if it’s not all staffed away on painters & decorators 😂

More trees planted outside  No10, i would recommend 😉 K

[daltontrees]

Jon/Paul/Paddy/Kevin/Boris, I'm going to let rip, becuase this is all farcical.

 

Firstly the insurers are to blame in this scenario, because they don't even know themselves what they want, they are unable to articulate it to an enquirer, but they're big boys and I have no sympathy whatsoever. Whatever happened to that sensible suggestion of raising it with the ABI?

 

Secondly, it's not at all clear what a forester is. The hip term for arb trees is urban forest, isn't it? I am a member of the AA and the ICF. The latter covers arboricultural consultancy, but not very enthusiastically. I rather wish they'd just change the name to the ICFA and bring arb consultancy into a professional institute properly. Meanwhile the AA is  mainly on the contracting side but dabbles (not very convincingly) in the consulting side. A lot of tree surgeons also fancy their chances doing tree reports, like it's some sort of lucrative soft option (which it is if you do it shittily). So the public are set up to be disappointed or fooled a lot of the time. They want free tree advice from someone who only makes his living out of charging people for tree work, so they get a tree surgeon out. Who might have bought his first chainsaw form B&Q half an hour earlier. Tree surgeon! Sounds so fancy! Must know what he's talking about.

 

There has been a trend recently to grab at the title of arborist, but into this murky arena wanders the consulting arborist, and like most notions imported from america it's thoroughly unhelpful in a UK context.

 

You either pay someone for advice and they are compelled to avoid conflicts of interest by not also being allowed to quote for tree work coming from their recommendations, or you accept that you are getting free verbal advice from a contractor that's not truly impartial and don't expect it to stand up to close scrutiny in a courtroom battle a year later. Or there is option 3 where we just shamble along as we currently do. Much as most things american makes me boke, I'd even settle for 'contracting arborists' and 'consulting arborists', at least that way the smoke and mirrors are done away with.

 

Face it, we could sort this out easily but not enough people care, a few people would rather we don't and the public sure as hell doesn't know how badly it is being served sometimes.

 

As for using 'tree surgeon' instead of 'arboriculturist' that's like saying a pharmacist is a drug dealer, a physicist is a mechanic, a geologist quarries rocks, etc. etc. You're wither adising on what needs to be done, with your hands in your own pockets, or you're doing routine stuff or under orders.