Why are you not AAAC?

[shaw]

Are we not doing this for the good of the industry, both in terms of quality AND safety?

 

Isn't it better that the insurers are made aware of their ability to lead this change by pro-actively requesting the LAs to use AAACs? Surely this is better than them re-actively doing it after an incident involving a contractor who had not been properly vetted? I'm sure they would rather have their arm forced before a substantial claim!

 

With regard to the cost - I totally agree that savings should be made on assessments (less assessors, etc), but also strongly believe that if a company is fulfilling it's obligations, there should be little other costs involved.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Are we not doing this for the good of the industry, both in terms of quality AND safety?

 

Isn't it better that the insurers are made aware of their ability to lead this change by pro-actively requesting the LAs to use AAACs? Surely this is better than them re-actively doing it after an incident involving a contractor who had not been properly vetted? I'm sure they would rather have their arm forced before a substantial claim!

 

With regard to the cost - I totally agree that saving should be made on assessments (less assessors, etc), but also strongly believe that if a company is fulfilling it's obligations, there should be little other costs involved.

 

'Shaw', your drive and positiveness(?) is refreshing...thank you.

 

IF the HSE were to officially 'endorse' the scheme then that would carry weight and enough to approach the LA insurers perhaps, but currently they don't (although they do 'recognise' the scheme as an industry benchmark for arb contracting...hence we deliver on their SHAD workshops.)

 

Many / most companies are fulfilling their 'obligations' I would suggest and undertaking safe working practices and producing good quality work etc. BUT not necessarily documenting how and having written policies and procedures to underpin this...hence the 'sticking point' to date and particularly for smaller firms (THIS is a 'must' for us, the AA, to address!)

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Mesterh]

The way I see it is this - A vast amount of contractors want LA work (not everso profitable, but constant). Surely if all LAs insisted on AAAC, their local contractors would all be working towards it pretty sharpish.

 

You cant do that with public money.

 

Its not fair to say if you aint in this club you cant play.

 

They can ask that you meet certain requirements ie work done to British standards HSE compliant etc but not that you have a certain badge.

 

Which I fully agree with and I'm not dissing the AA especially since AA techie has enlighten us all a bit about it. But, I wouldnt be very happy at all if I couldnt tender when I could prove that I comply with all good practices but aint in the club.

 

Otherwise what would stop my mate in an LA insisting that all tenders must have MRH approval (MesterH)

[shaw]

Tree Depts are stretched enough anyway without them having to vet & police their contractors - surely it'd be easier for all of them (and us) if this was done for them. Isn't that why more and more LAs are turning to companies like Exor and accreditations like CHAS - to take that task and responsibility off their hands? The only difference with the AA is that it's specific to our industry, and can therefore more accurately deal with us.

 

I know it is a bit of an added cost, but if all professional companies were doing it, they would be the only ones being used, and could therefore absorb it into their pricing. That is the point that it would start to weed out the unprofessional companies - and after all - isn't that what we all want??

 

Paul - what would it take for the HSE to 'endorse' the scheme?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Tree Depts are stretched enough anyway without them having to vet & police their contractors - surely it'd be easier for all of them (and us) if this was done for them. Isn't that why more and more LAs are turning to companies like Exor and accreditations like CHAS - to take that task and responsibility off their hands? The only difference with the AA is that it's specific to our industry, and can therefore more accurately deal with us.

 

I know it is a bit of an added cost, but if all professional companies were doing it, they would be the only ones being used, and could therefore absorb it into their pricing. That is the point that it would start to weed out the unprofessional companies - and after all - isn't that what we all want??

 

Paul - what would it take for the HSE to 'endorse' the scheme?

 

Hi 'Shaw',

 

Unfortunately, whilst unofficially HSE are completely in support of the AC scheme and in the event of an accident or incident I believe it would be a big plus point for the contractor concerned, because it's not a regulatory requirement nor a licence requirement issue, similar to 'Gas Safe' (CORGI as was), they won't 'endorse' it.

 

Whilst HSE recognised, it will always remain a 'voluntary' scheme and those who don't see benefits in joining will continue to operate independently and whilst coming on board will give a 'bigger voice' and greater awareness it will always be their choice.

 

Obviously I'm wholly in support of the scheme and believe for all manner of reasons it's the way forward for the industry but actually I would rather contractors have the right to make their own decision to join the scheme, or not, as they do currently based on its credibility and value rather than by being forced so to do by their LAs (but I know this does sometimes happen currently).

 

However, ideally, I would like LAs nationally to recognise the scheme and support and encourage their appointed contractors to join but I envisage 'monitoring and supervising' contarctors, ACs or none ACs, would always be part of their role as they are the engaging client and are 'local' unlike the AA.

 

Cheers..

 

Paul

[shaw]

Whilst HSE recognised, it will always remain a 'voluntary' scheme and those who don't see benefits in joining will continue to operate independently and whilst coming on board will give a 'bigger voice' and greater awareness it will always be their choice.

 

Obviously I'm wholly in support of the scheme and believe for all manner of reasons it's the way forward for the industry but actually I would rather contractors have the right to make their own decision to join the scheme, or not, as they do currently based on its credibility and value rather than by being forced so to do by their LAs (but I know this does sometimes happen currently).

 

However, ideally, I would like LAs nationally to recognise the scheme and support and encourage their appointed contractors to join but I envisage 'monitoring and supervising' contarctors, ACs or none ACs, would always be part of their role as they are the engaging client and are 'local' unlike the AA.

 

Cheers..

 

Paul

 

Hi Paul

 

Ok - so we can't have it endorsed, and it will have to remain voluntary - thanks for that info.

 

If the scheme is to survive and grow, it needs many more ACs. Is it not because there are so few that it's seen as an elitist club? Once it becomes more the 'norm', it will be seen as more of a credible standard.

 

I totally agree that LAs need to police their contractors, especially with regard to the standard of work, but in reality, how many TOs are totally up to speed with current H&S standards/requirements.

 

I believe that in order to get more companies wanting to be ACs it needs to be more financially appealing, and unless the AA can get LAs on board, my fear is this aint gonna happen.

 

The AAAC scheme has the potential to improve the industry immensely, but only once it has the numbers.

 

Sorry - just re-read this, and it sounds like a bit of a rant - it's not - I'm wholly behind the AAAC scheme, and feel very passionately that it should not fail or be left behind by other (non-arb-industry) schemes. And it's late!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Paul

 

Ok - so we can't have it endorsed, and it will have to remain voluntary - thanks for that info.

 

If the scheme is to survive and grow, it needs many more ACs. Is it not because there are so few that it's seen as an elitist club? Once it becomes more the 'norm', it will be seen as more of a credible standard.

 

I totally agree that LAs need to police their contractors, especially with regard to the standard of work, but in reality, how many TOs are totally up to speed with current H&S standards/requirements.

 

I believe that in order to get more companies wanting to be ACs it needs to be more financially appealing, and unless the AA can get LAs on board, my fear is this aint gonna happen.

 

The AAAC scheme has the potential to improve the industry immensely, but only once it has the numbers.

 

Sorry - just re-read this, and it sounds like a bit of a rant - it's not - I'm wholly behind the AAAC scheme, and feel very passionately that it should not fail or be left behind by other (non-arb-industry) schemes. And it's late!

 

 

'Shaw', no worries at all, 'rant away' if that's what's needed...I've had much worse on here to date but take it all on the chin as most is done so 'constructively' n that's absolutely fine! Coincidentally we are plannnig to review and revise the scheme this year, in fact we're kinda doing so now, but feedback from 'Arbtalk' has lareday chnaged my views on ceratin things and emphasised further needs on others...it's been 'spot on'!

 

You're absolutely right about the scheme needing to be more financially appealling (particularly for the smaller firms), both in terms of assessment fees AND annual subs and this is something I'm looking very hard at and am positive we can do something good. It also needs to have greater financial appeal in that it allows access to more LA work and this, often referred to as a 'chicken n egg' scenario, will self perpetuate I beleive, i.e. the more ACs = the more recognition = more work = AC is 'the norm'. Those are my aspirations at this stage.

 

Keep the thoughts coming...

 

Cheers..

Paul

[shaw]

It may be self perpetuating - but not fast enough. The scheme has been in existence for many years, and yet is still seen as elitist - surely that's not a good thing?

 

If the insurers were made aware of their ability to lead this change this self-perpetuation would be speeded up immensely. I fully understand that TOs don't want to lose the relationships they have with non ACs, but by encouraging them, and giving them a goal/deadline to work towards, these relationships need not be jeopardised.

 

Regarding the assessment fee / annual subs, could these be means tested - ie different bands depending on turnover / number of employees, etc?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It may be self perpetuating - but not fast enough. The scheme has been in existence for many years, and yet is still seen as elitist - surely that's not a good thing?

 

If the insurers were made aware of their ability to lead this change this self-perpetuation would be speeded up immensely. I fully understand that TOs don't want to lose the relationships they have with non ACs, but by encouraging them, and giving them a goal/deadline to work towards, these relationships need not be jeopardised.

 

Regarding the assessment fee / annual subs, could these be means tested - ie different bands depending on turnover / number of employees, etc?

 

Hi 'Shaw',

 

Not sure about 'means testing' the contractors, doubtless they'd all clear out their accounts fo rthe day...ha! BUT, yes absolutely, we are reviewing the scheme cost to ensure they are proportionate and appropriate dependent upon the size o fthe company and, for the larger companies, turn over.

 

Watch this space...but not just yet!

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hi 'Shaw',

 

Not sure about 'means testing' the contractors, doubtless they'd all clear out their accounts fo rthe day...ha! BUT, yes absolutely, we are reviewing the scheme cost to ensure they are proportionate and appropriate dependent upon the size o fthe company and, for the larger companies, turn over.

 

Watch this space...but not just yet!

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

IMO why the hell should the AA be changing anything? it isnt expensive, once every five years for god sake!

 

every standard you have to meet for the AA is a basic proffesional minimum you should all be working to anyway so you shouldnt have to outlay any more in the first instance, and if you do have to pull your socks up to make the grade see it as an oportunity for an education which is well due if you havent already!

 

Elitist? what a load of rubbish, thats just a way of saying you cant be bothered and even if it is, why wouldnt you want to be associated with the elite?

 

Is it really a question of the AA having to do more? or are some of you going to buck your own ideas up and meet them half way? cos it seems to me the AA are having to take one up the rear just to get a load of lazy toads up to scratch, dumbing down the proscess is bad news if you ask me.