AAAC logo use

[Amelanchier]

Hi Paul, me again! I was going to PM this but thought it might be of (limited?) wider interest!

 

Can an AAAC use the AAAC logo on any risk / development reports that they produce?

 

Cheers

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Paul, me again! I was going to PM this but thought it might be of (limited?) wider interest!

 

Can an AAAC use the AAAC logo on any risk / development reports that they produce?

 

Cheers

 

Hi Tony, thanks for the (very interesting) post.

 

Essentially, at this moments in time, provided the company / firm providing the report is that which is the AAAC then 'yes' (I say this as several companies/firms operate consultancy through a separate business OR use a consultancy firm.)

 

Howevere this is (highly) likely NOT to be the case from 1st Jan. 2011 as it is proposed to remove the 'Reports' section from the standards. Principally this is because inclusion of a reports section infers that all AAACs are competent to provide them when, in fact, the majority do not and of those that do we see very few (to be honest we don't have the time with much other 'contracting' related stuff to check.) Also, to some degree, this overlaps with the AARC (Registered Consultants) scheme and 'greys' distinction between the schemes.

 

Hoping this clarifies things and thank you for posting it 'open' but with the AA box where I can readily monitor any discussion that ensues.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[arb culture]

It makes little difference anyway.

 

An unqualified gardener is now considered capable of tree assessments, so if they can also write they can also do tree reports.

 

So I wouldn't worry about the distinction between a consultant and a contractor, there's not even any need to worry about whether anyone has any qualifications any more.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

It makes little difference anyway.

 

An unqualified gardener is now considered capable of tree assessments, so if they can also write they can also do tree reports.

 

So I wouldn't worry about the distinction between a consultant and a contractor, there's not even any need to worry about whether anyone has any qualifications any more.

 

Are you qualified arb culture?

 

and am I?

 

Equaly capable, are we not?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It makes little difference anyway.

 

An unqualified gardener is now considered capable of tree assessments, so if they can also write they can also do tree reports.

 

So I wouldn't worry about the distinction between a consultant and a contractor, there's not even any need to worry about whether anyone has any qualifications any more.

 

Hi 'arb culture', thanks for the post.

 

The key word, or rather legal term, here is 'reasonable'. Interestingly, as I understand it, in a recent(ish) legal case a judge effectively decreed 'Mrs Miggins' competent to inspect her own trees to a reasonable standard by virtue of seeing them every day and noticing no change in their appearance, form or structure (apparently she was also a keen gardener).

 

IF Mrs Miggins had noticed any changes then she should have referred opinion to someone suitably competent and experienced.

 

The NTSG 'draft' guidance does not seek to undermine the status of the professional here but merely seeks to point out that one does not need to have bundles of quals and experience to spot obvious hazards in the tree, i.e dead branches, broken branches, large fungal brackets etc. etc., just reasonable eyesight and an understanding of what a normal tree looks like....so then you can spot the 'ab'normal tree where problems may occur. It seeks to take a pragmatic and reasonable approach but does not promote 'unqualified' gardeners' (actually many of who are higher qualified 'horticulturally' than we are in 'arb') as capable of undertaking tree 'assessments' as that does require skills, knowledge and expereince to be able to understand the defect, assess its significnace, and determine what, if any, remedial works are required and by when....that in totally is the tree assessment.

 

SORRY for the waffling.

Paul

[Amelanchier]

Ah see - I was going to delete that derail but I can't be bothered now 'cos I'd have to tick three boxes instead of one...