Arb Assoc - 'Affiliate Contractor' proposal

[Pete Mctree]

If it becomes a requirement for TPO work (Which I agree in principle with) then you should be very busy with assessments then!!

 

To exclude other quality contractors, who choose not to be AA approved from TPO work would be elitist & exclusive. Things that the AA are striving not to be I hope. This new scheme being an example

[Tom D]

This all sounds good Paul but every time I think about this I am drawn back to the question 'What's in it for me?" And then I realise ....not much.

 

The problem is, while I whole heartedly support the ethos of the scheme I never get asked for AAAC status. I have worked for 4 different local authorities doing works worth over £500k none have ever asked for AAAC, I have done a lot for the forestry commission, even they have never asked.

 

So when I look at my accounts and see my overheads are £200k why do I want to spend more time and money on this?

You still haven't addressed the basic issue of awareness, none of the big buyers round here have even heard of the AAAC, I know because I have asked them. If I am going to spend on an assurance scheme it will be ISO, having ISO will really help in the tendering process as many buyers automatically give top marks for ISO companies.

 

When having AAAC is the difference between winning and loosing a £50k contract I will be the first to buy into the scheme. You need to get buyers involved.

 

AAAC is way more relevant than ISO, I would far rather work towards an industry relevant contractor scheme like AAAC, but if no one is interested wether I have it or not what is the point?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

To exclude other quality contractors, who choose not to be AA approved from TPO work would be elitist & exclusive. Things that the AA are striving not to be I hope. This new scheme being an example

 

No, no, no, no, noooooooooooo! PLEASE don't misinterpret what I (thought / meant) said here that increasingly LAs are putting links from their website to ours (Find A Tree Surgeon) to guide members of the public looking for a tree surgeon.

 

The LPA cannot insist works are undertaken by an ArbAC and previous conditions to this effect have been successfully challenged and upheld by the ombudsman.

 

However, by default, if we can attract the other 'quality contractors' then this could happen. This would further marginalise the dis-reputable contractors out there and hopefully to everyone's benefit.

 

Thanks for the posts and I hope this reply has clarified things

 

Cheers..

Paul

[fen01]

Sounds like you've a bit more work to do on this, but basically I'm in.

 

See at the workshop in Brizzle in September. I have a couple of other issues to discuss as well on a similar theme.

 

Cheers

 

Mark

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Arbtalk mobile app

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

This all sounds good Paul but every time I think about this I am drawn back to the question 'What's in it for me?" And then I realise ....not much.

 

The problem is, while I whole heartedly support the ethos of the scheme I never get asked for AAAC status. I have worked for 4 different local authorities doing works worth over £500k none have ever asked for AAAC, I have done a lot for the forestry commission, even they have never asked.

 

So when I look at my accounts and see my overheads are £200k why do I want to spend more time and money on this?

You still haven't addressed the basic issue of awareness, none of the big buyers round here have even heard of the AAAC, I know because I have asked them. If I am going to spend on an assurance scheme it will be ISO, having ISO will really help in the tendering process as many buyers automatically give top marks for ISO companies.

 

When having AAAC is the difference between winning and loosing a £50k contract I will be the first to buy into the scheme. You need to get buyers involved.

 

AAAC is way more relevant than ISO, I would far rather work towards an industry relevant contractor scheme like AAAC, but if no one is interested wether I have it or not what is the point?

 

Hi Tom, whilst this was something of hard, and frustrating, read, it is very valuable.

 

Certainly as far as Tree Officers are concerned I find it hard to believe they haven't heard of the scheme, whether they chose to use/recognise it or not is another thing. I do acknowledge though we need to do more with their procurement people.

 

I also believe its something of a 'chicken and egg' scenario in that the more reputable, quality contractors who became approved the greater the awareness, by default (kinda like why everyone know to use a CORGI/GAS SAFE plumber for central heating...okay it's a legal requirement, unlike ArbAC, BUT people know it coz the logo is on every van.)

 

The FC, certainly at HQ, are very well aware of the scheme but despite my best endeavours to date to convince them ArbAC is the way forward they are sticking with their own processes for securing work and doing their onw H&S and compliance checks (they don't even recognise CHAS / SAFEcontractor etc. for this.)

 

We have tried to enhance the status by adding CHAS and Trustmark and I do believe this is / will have an effect, albeit not likely in immediate future. Whilst many look to the accreditation to secure more work / increase turnover, understandably, their are the other benefits of 'benchmarking' the business and being reassured you've attained and adequate level of compliance to help protect both your employees and you as an employer.

 

Please keep an open mind and perhaps come along to a prep workshop to find out more. We do also have proposals to put a procurement event on aimed particularly at LAs with our new marketing manager.

 

Thanks again for the post.

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Sounds like you've a bit more work to do on this, but basically I'm in.

 

See at the workshop in Brizzle in September. I have a couple of other issues to discuss as well on a similar theme.

 

Cheers

 

Mark

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

Excellent, thank you Mark and I look forward to discussing things further.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Tom D]

Thanks for your positive response Paul, my point is a valid one, and I would be delighted to see the AA address this issue. I'll try and come to the next workshop in scotland.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Thanks for your positive response Paul, my point is a valid one, and I would be delighted to see the AA address this issue. I'll try and come to the next workshop in scotland.

 

Tom, I do acknowledge we have even more of a challenge in Scotland but it is one we're keen to address.

 

Thurs. 13th November is the next workshop in Scotland at the Royal Highland Centre next to Edinburgh Airport.

 

Hope to see you there.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Pete Mctree]

No, no, no, no, noooooooooooo! PLEASE don't misinterpret what I (thought / meant) said here that increasingly LAs are putting links from their website to ours (Find A Tree Surgeon) to guide members of the public looking for a tree surgeon.

 

The LPA cannot insist works are undertaken by an ArbAC and previous conditions to this effect have been successfully challenged and upheld by the ombudsman.

 

However, by default, if we can attract the other 'quality contractors' then this could happen. This would further marginalise the dis-reputable contractors out there and hopefully to everyone's benefit.

 

Thanks for the posts and I hope this reply has clarified things

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

I was pointing out that the AA are becoming more inclusive & that the opinion that only AAC should be allowed to do TPO work would be a retrograde step in there evolution.

 

Pete McSheffrey

OakdaleNEltd

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I was pointing out that the AA are becoming more inclusive & that the opinion that only AAC should be allowed to do TPO work would be a retrograde step in there evolution.

 

Pete McSheffrey

OakdaleNEltd

 

 

Thanks Pete,

 

Paul