Welcome & thank you for visiting us!

[Andy Collins]

No Tony, why should all not be able to be Appproved, rather than just registered?

[skyhuck]

No Tony, why should all not be able to be Appproved, rather than just registered?

 

I agree, we need this to be inclusive, lets get away from any them and us if we can

[Andy Collins]

Just had a look at the AAAC list, 15 for the whole of East Anglia!! Now in my YP this year I think there is something like 90 companies advertising in a much smaller area. This is either because, a) they dont want to be AAAC b)they cant afford to be AAAC c) they arent good enough to be AAAC d) they dont even know about AAACand e) they feel alienated from the AAAC system Now I've seen some bad work about, and some fine work about, and the law of averages tell me that the non-AAACs must be getting the lions share of the work, and doing it to an equally high standard. So my point here is Are the AA missing out on something? Would more of these contractors come onboard if there was a tiered system as I suggested? Is this something the AA is looking at, if at all, or do they wait for the contractors to find them?

[skyhuck]

I my area there is only 1 AAAC, this is of no use to any clients really as they need more than one quote.

 

If all the decent firms became AAAC, even if at ground floor level, it would create a real gap between the pros and the cowboys, and would give the clients a good starting point for getting quotes.

 

I've put my name down for a one day AA risk assessment work shop and even the guy organising the course said the lack of other AAAC's would make my becoming AAAC a bit of a waste of time.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

ALL....THANK YOU!

 

Your contributions are incredibly helpful and thanks for takin the time. Perhps a little dangerous, but whilst small in number (relatively speaking), I read them as being fairly representative of the contracting industry BUT if anyone else wishes to offer an alternative view if they don't feel this is the case then PLEASE, PLEASE DO SO!

 

To date, to some extent, I've been 2nd guesssing what the industry needs to best move it forward AND doing so with a heavy bias towards the existing AAAC scheme = 'tunnel vision'???...perhaps!

 

What I'm understanding from the postings is some form of tiered/split level approach, in particular recognising the "less than 5 employees" H&S requirements, and making access easier for smaller firms (in particular financially) but with a 'common' standard of quality tree work. Also a keeness to include the wording 'Approved' at all levels of accreditation.

 

PLEASE SHOUT IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING OR OFF THE MARK (as if I need to ask eh?....gud on ya's!!)

 

Thanks again..!

Paul

[Andy Collins]

Paul, I have started a poll in the General Chat, so hopefully you should be able to see how even the less regular posters feel. I think i may have missed an option or two out, but we're simple folk so thought it best to keep options to a minimum. Hope its of use to you:001_smile:

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I my area there is only 1 AAAC, this is of no use to any clients really as they need more than one quote.

 

If all the decent firms became AAAC, even if at ground floor level, it would create a real gap between the pros and the cowboys, and would give the clients a good starting point for getting quotes.

 

I've put my name down for a one day AA risk assessment work shop and even the guy organising the course said the lack of other AAAC's would make my becoming AAAC a bit of a waste of time.

 

Hi 'Skyhuck', thanks for the post.

 

Annoyingly, but sometimes I just can't 'shake off' my NEBOSH H&S head...aghhhh!!!!

 

Firstly the requirement to undertake risk assessments applies to all, not just AAACs, and it's a common area of failure highlighted on most HSE accident investigations...but that's not really your point!

 

It all depends really, you could take a view that as the only (or one of a few) AAACs it may give you a competitive edge over others (dunno??!!) BUT in terms of gaining greater recognition and 'value' at the LA/commercial level certainly more would be better. I do agree tho the benefits of a 'sole' AAAC are probably quite limited.

 

Sorry, waffle time (and probably all repeats...is it Christmas?! The HSE do a series of one day workshops (FOC) to clients, LAs & the like, about 'Engaging Competent Arb. Contractors', which I deliver on principally introducing the AAAC criteria as a benchmark for arboricultural contracting. During the day most delegates tell me whilst they see the benefits (to them) of engaging arb contractors with an external accreditation, particularly now as it includes CHAS (and 'yes' we can award this for "less than 5 employees"), there simply aren't enough around to do so as they need a set number of quotes/tenderers dependent upon the stimate contract value, i.e. upto £1k = 3 quotes, upto £10k = 5 quotes etc. etc. Hence the 'chicken & egg' scenario which prevails nationally = we/the AA need to get more (many more) contractors recognised.

 

My hope, is that if we can engage with a core of contractors in each region of the country the scheme and accreditation will self-perpetuate (I think that's the right word, I mean it'll grow itself automatically)...perhaps an idealism BUT one I think, 'NO' believe, we need as an industry.

 

Reet, "shut up" Paul you've 'rabbited' enuff!

 

Hope this is useful!

Thanks..

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul, I have started a poll in the General Chat, so hopefully you should be able to see how even the less regular posters feel. I think i may have missed an option or two out, but we're simple folk so thought it best to keep options to a minimum. Hope its of use to you:001_smile:

 

 

Andy...THANK YOU, this is excellent (I'm well chuffed!)

 

I have a lot of faith in people, and I know we all want the same thing at the end of the day, so I'll watch with 'great' interest and glean further ideas and thoughts.

 

I probably won't post there myself as I don't want to stifle opinions at all (as if!) but I'll adopt a watching brief...d'ya reckon that's the right approach?

Appen I'll post summat when it slows down kinda to summarise, and check I've unerstood the groundswell of opinion correctly, AND of course to thank people for their contributions.

 

"SPOT ON!"...thanks again Andy, much appreciated!

 

Regards..

Paul

[Andy Collins]

Well, at least my poll is Arb Approved:lol:

[Albedo]

I think a lot will depend on what the applicant wants out of AAAC.

 

As a 1 man band I don’t want, commercial or LA tendering clout or to get tied in knots by compliance with H&S

 

I want The AA logo on my adverts and on my van as a work standard guarantee.

 

Some have already argued that joe public doesn’t know the word ARB so this will have limited value, I think, the AA logo has a tree in the picture and it sounds official so they’ll get the idea.

 

And I want it quite cheaply, How about a “sub” type system of X small amount a week.

 

I’m sure its possible to devise a system which will deliver a standard of work guarantee, and find a way to police it. TO’s do site visits sometimes and may find it to be in their interest to get on board with the AA on this

 

I’m worried that when combined with H&S compliance, the system will crash and burn. For example, if I never have a rescue climber on site this may exclude me from compliance with any system that is devised no matter how simple. The H&S thing could also put the costs thru the roof.

 

Is there any way that Quality of work and H&S compliance can be seperated in any scheme, yet to be devised?

 

I wonder Paul if you could come up with a minimum (cut to the bone) H&S compliance list so that this scary beast can be quantified? sorry more work for you