Consultancy/Tree surgery companies?

[daltontrees]

You acquitted yourself and the AA pretty well there Paul.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with an organisation providing consultancy services and contracting. The real difficulty, to my mind, comes with the 'free advice' (deliberate parenthes) Here's a few points that I think are relevant.

 

1. Formal consultancy should always carry some sort of formal appointment which clarifies the remit of the consultant and his duty of care to the client. This is rarely if ever present with the 'free advice' scenario. It forms a permanent record of the terms appointment against which a client knows he can sue, if appropriate, for negligence or conflict of interest.

2. The consultancy advice is paid for, removing the temptation or motive to use it as an opportunity to pass unnecessary work to the contracting side as a way of making money from the situation. Not so with the 'free advice' scenario, which in my experience is abused by some contractors.

3. Whereas some contractors have PI insurance against negligent advice, it is largely useless for verbal advice because of the disputable nature of the evidence. Not so when the consulting side has it, it is a useful reassurance for the client.

4. Most professions' representative bodies are very specific about conflicts of interest insofar as a clean break comes at the end of the advice and before the actions, such that the client is made aware of the potential for conflicts of interest and shouldn't proceed with further work from the organisation until the potential has been acknowledges and accepted and additional assurances given.

 

I used to be a Chartered Surveyor (MRICS), and here's what the RICS currently has to say on conflicts of interest -

"It's inevitable that most RICS members and regulated firms will be faced with a conflict of interest from time to time. The best way to deal with potential conflicts of interest is openness and transparency. If you identify any potential conflicts, or things that may influence you, or that others may think could influence you, declare them to all of the appropriate parties involved as soon as possible, being as clear as you can. You should also offer to stand down from acting for any party. By doing this, you enable all parties to make an informed decision about how to proceed. If any party objects to you continuing to act then you should step away from the instruction."

 

As I see it the AA is an trade association rather than a professional body. No slight intended here, but there are many more consultants and contractors who are not members of the AA than are. AA can promote best practice and can threaten to discipline its approved contractors/consultants and members, but it doesn't yet have enough critical mass to make disbarring amount to financial ruin for its members.

 

So, Paul, I hope this helps with the debate but might I ask you to do one more thing? Could you delve into the AA's model terms and conditions (Guidance Note 9 - I've never bought it because it doesn't apply to me in Scotland) and see if it says anything about conflicts of interest?

Edited February 19, 2014 by daltontrees

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

You acquitted yourself and the AA pretty well there Paul.

 

As I see it the AA is an trade association rather than a professional body. No slight intended here, but there are many more consultants and contractors who are not members of the AA than are. AA can promote best practice and can threaten to discipline its approved contractors/consultants and members, but it doesn't yet have enough critical mass to make disbarring amount to financial ruin for its members.

 

So, Paul, I hope this helps with the debate but might I ask you to do one more thing? Could you delve into the AA's model terms and conditions (Guidance Note 9 - I've never bought it because it doesn't apply to me in Scotland) and see if it says anything about conflicts of interest?

 

Hi Julian,

 

In reply to your points above:

 

1. Thank you...albeit I did so in retrospect, never ideal however well intended the original post was.

 

2. Trade Association 'v' Profession Body = an interesting debate and we seek to be both, albeit the ICF now offering 'Chartered Arboriculturist' status makes the debate even more interesting (my role is much more akin to the organisation as a Trade Association and hence that's where my responses normally lie.)

 

3. GN9 - Ts & Cs for Arbor. Consultancy Services does not specifically mention the conflict of interest scenario (as per the RICS statement) although I would suggest it is implied in Sect. 2 Consultants Obligations (2.4 states: "The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultancy Services are provided by the Consultant as an independent contractor and no relationship of employee/employer or agency arises with the Client.") This is further reinforced, implied again though, by citing the Consultant, if an AA member, is bound by the Codes of Ethics and Prof. Conduct (derived from ICF.)

 

Hope this helps...but not sure it does.

 

Regards..

Paul

[daltontrees]

Hi Julian,

 

In reply to your points above:

 

1. Thank you...albeit I did so in retrospect, never ideal however well intended the original post was.

 

2. Trade Association 'v' Profession Body = an interesting debate and we seek to be both, albeit the ICF now offering 'Chartered Arboriculturist' status makes the debate even more interesting (my role is much more akin to the organisation as a Trade Association and hence that's where my responses normally lie.)

 

3. GN9 - Ts & Cs for Arbor. Consultancy Services does not specifically mention the conflict of interest scenario (as per the RICS statement) although I would suggest it is implied in Sect. 2 Consultants Obligations (2.4 states: "The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultancy Services are provided by the Consultant as an independent contractor and no relationship of employee/employer or agency arises with the Client.") This is further reinforced, implied again though, by citing the Consultant, if an AA member, is bound by the Codes of Ethics and Prof. Conduct (derived from ICF.)

 

Hope this helps...but not sure it does.

 

Regards..

Paul

 

Thanks for checking. Your sect 2 reference means something different, not to do with conflicts nor would I infer it.

 

After much deep thought over the years I don't think it is possible to be trade association and professional body.

 

The ICF website has just yielded this attachment (see below).

 

The conflict of interest thing is covered at Rule 28B very thoroughly much like the RICS.

 

 

I should have looked at the AA code of ethichs and professional conduct first, I suppose. It says -

"Unless a member has previously obtained in writing the permission of the relevant client or employer, a member shall not be engaged by, not have an interest in nor accept remuneration from any other business or principals which may give rise to any conflict with the interests of the member’s said client or employer.

"A member shall only act for more than one party in any transaction if all parties agree in advance in writing.

"A member acting for a client shall inform the client in advance in writing of any other interest the member may have in any activities undertaken on behalf of the client."

 

What bamboozles the public and sometimes me is that the ICF is for foresters AND arboriculturists and the AA is for arboriculturists and arborists. It would make a lot of sense for the ICF to become the ICFA, with two divisions and for the AA to be predominantly a trade organisation for arborists. But I suppose there are quirks of history, reasons and politics as to why that isn't the case.

 

The Cosnulting Arborists Society, which cites itself as representing "tree specialists (sometimes called arboricultural consultants)". Highly misleading. I can't find out if it has a code of conduct.

 

The australians have the IACA which says "Consulting Arboriculturist, commonly referred to as a Consulting Arborist, provides a broad range of verbal and written advice about trees in the urban environment." It's code says "Members will formally notify clients where their services or advice may be influenced by prior dealings with other involved parties in relation to the subject tree resource."

 

The International Society of Arboriculturists has a code of ethics for Certified Arborists including -

 

"Certificants and candidates must:

1. Disclose to clients or employers significant circumstances that could be construed as a potential or real conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety.

2. Avoid conduct that could cause a conflict of interest with a client, employer, employee, or the public.

3. Assure that a conflict of interest does not compromise legitimate interests of a client, employer, employee, or the public and does not influence or interfere with professional judgments.

4. Refrain from offering or accepting significant payments, gifts or other forms of compensation or benefits in order"

 

Back to the point, it loks like AA members (whether contractors or consultants or both) and ICF members are bound by codes of conduct that cover conflicts of interest quite well. I cna't figure out the CAS, whether it is speaking for consultants or contractors. The ISA certainly does both but its code of ethics relates only to contracting. The flip-flopping between the terms arborists and arboriculturists is irritating and confusing. But in the end in this country you can buy a saw, get some LANTRA tickets and EL insurance and climb or advise on trees under whatever glitzy profession name you think will bring you in business, and can if you choose let you run riot with conficts of interest. Almost a disincentive to joining a professional or trade association.

 

Ho hum....

CODE of ETHICS and Prof Conduct 25-4-07.pdf

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Thanks for checking. Your sect 2 reference means something different, not to do with conflicts nor would I infer it.

 

After much deep thought over the years I don't think it is possible to be trade association and professional body.

 

 

What bamboozles the public and sometimes me is that the ICF is for foresters AND arboriculturists and the AA is for arboriculturists and arborists. It would make a lot of sense for the ICF to become the ICFA, with two divisions and for the AA to be predominantly a trade organisation for arborists. But I suppose there are quirks of history, reasons and politics as to why that isn't the case.

 

Back to the point, it loks like AA members (whether contractors or consultants or both) and ICF members are bound by codes of conduct that cover conflicts of interest quite well. I cna't figure out the CAS, whether it is speaking for consultants or contractors. The ISA certainly does both but its code of ethics relates only to contracting. The flip-flopping between the terms arborists and arboriculturists is irritating and confusing. But in the end in this country you can buy a saw, get some LANTRA tickets and EL insurance and climb or advise on trees under whatever glitzy profession name you think will bring you in business, and can if you choose let you run riot with conficts of interest. Almost a disincentive to joining a professional or trade association.

 

Ho hum....

 

Hi Julian, the Association (AA), been around in since 1964, has developed with the industry over time and hence is a very "broad-church" type organisation seeking to address the needs of all its members, be they contractors / consultants / tree officers / tree managers etc. etc.

Whether it does this well is for the members to decide and "vote with their feet", so to speak, at the AGM.

 

I do however agree (my personal view) that the industry is too fragmented and the major 'bodies' should / could agree a clear structure for the benefit of the industry and those working within it (this, 'organisation,' landscape is now quite different to what it was when I joined the industry in 1985.)

 

Forgive me for protracting the conversation here, and apologies if I've misinterpreted (as I did with the Sect. 2 / 2.4 quote), but do the first and last sentence of the para above contradict to some degree...or is it that you're making the point anyone can set up as a tree surgeon and does have to join any organisation?

 

Thanks in anticipation..

Paul

[daltontrees]

It's not clear which sentences you mean. But take me for example. I did my CS30/31, got a taste for it, set up a small business (sole trader), got my CS 38 and 39, took on a business partner, got EL insurance (and PL) and grew the business, taking on subbies, to the point where I nearly had to go VAT registered. I never knowingly broke the law once or cut corners. I take the H&S very seriously. I passed my AA Tech and have a good understanding of it all. Still no membership of any organisation at that point, but I could call myself and my company an arborist, an arboriculturist, a tree specialist, a tree doctor, a tree worker, a tree cutter, a tree surgeon etc. And still not done anything wrong. These terms mean very little as they are ambiguous, vague, have no formal meaning and no restriction on use.

 

Now, add Certified or Chartered or Consulting and you're starting to sound mighty fancy. But only in the minds of the public and cients who have a perception of what it says about your business. The fragmentation of the industry is to me fairly damaging to it reputation. You know my thoughts by now, have one ICFA and one AA. And I suppose we'll never stop the americans thinking they run the world (a la world series baseball mentality) so we'll always have a ISA.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It's not clear which sentences you mean. But take me for example. I did my CS30/31, got a taste for it, set up a small business (sole trader), got my CS 38 and 39, took on a business partner, got EL insurance (and PL) and grew the business, taking on subbies, to the point where I nearly had to go VAT registered. I never knowingly broke the law once or cut corners. I take the H&S very seriously. I passed my AA Tech and have a good understanding of it all. Still no membership of any organisation at that point, but I could call myself and my company an arborist, an arboriculturist, a tree specialist, a tree doctor, a tree worker, a tree cutter, a tree surgeon etc. And still not done anything wrong. These terms mean very little as they are ambiguous, vague, have no formal meaning and no restriction on use.

 

Now, add Certified or Chartered or Consulting and you're starting to sound mighty fancy. But only in the minds of the public and cients who have a perception of what it says about your business. The fragmentation of the industry is to me fairly damaging to it reputation. You know my thoughts by now, have one ICFA and one AA. And I suppose we'll never stop the americans thinking they run the world (a la world series baseball mentality) so we'll always have a ISA.

 

Apologies Julian, I meant to say 'last' para.

 

Your reply explains exactly your concerns...would the words 'ARB Approved' do?...if so give me a call.

 

Your proposal for the structure of industry bodies is interesting but as you intimated previously there is much history and politics to be considered.

 

Thanks for your time here.

Paul

[daltontrees]

Apologies Julian, I meant to say 'last' para.

 

Your reply explains exactly your concerns...would the words 'ARB Approved' do?...if so give me a call.

 

Your proposal for the structure of industry bodies is interesting but as you intimated previously there is much history and politics to be considered.

 

Thanks for your time here.

Paul

 

And thanks for your time, I enjoy a civilised cerebral debate.

 

So what does 'ARB' stand for?