Arb Assoc - 'Affiliate Contractor' proposal

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul, Just registering a belated i9nterest here in Bury!

Regards Tony

 

Great, many thanks Tony.

 

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

This sounds a good idea Paul.

 

Many thanks Steph, I hope you 'et al' are well.

 

Paul

[daltontrees]

Thanks again and please let me have any further thoughts along the way :thumbup1:Paul

 

Paul, thanks for explaining. I am just one voice in this debate, which sounds like it has been round the houses a few times already. You won't get any dissent from aspirant contractors about the word 'affiliated'. It would recognise their efforts, indicate a basic level of competence and encourage uptake of the approved contractor scheme in general. I'm all for the scheme.

 

I still have a problem with 'affiliated', though. Althogh it has loose meanings, the formal meanings all express a degree of contractual agreement or co-ownership/control betwen the parties, even if one party is subordinate. Effectively licensing a contractor to use the term 'affiliated contractor' doesn't satisfy my basic test for the word. And it still doesn't convey the meaning of transition.

 

I would even put it as strongly as this - 'Affiliated' means a higher grade of relationship 'Approved' does.

 

And just be careful if there is a dispute between the contractor and a client, the AA could be implicated initially and to divorce itself from proceedings would have to prove that 'affiliated' doesn't mean 'affiliated'. I suspect it could be worse than that, even if it proved no affiliation the client could say that they only appointed the contractor based on it being affiliated to its regulatory body. That's the AA implicated. Or at least dragged down.

 

SSIP is all very well, but this is abut QA and not safety. My experience of QA systems is that they abhor affiliation without Assurance because they have responsibility for the subordinate affiliate but cannot assure quality.

 

Sorry if it all sounds negative, but I am trying to be helpful. Does the AA have a tame lawyer it can ask?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul, thanks for explaining. I am just one voice in this debate, which sounds like it has been round the houses a few times already. You won't get any dissent from aspirant contractors about the word 'affiliated'. It would recognise their efforts, indicate a basic level of competence and encourage uptake of the approved contractor scheme in general. I'm all for the scheme.

 

I still have a problem with 'affiliated', though. Althogh it has loose meanings, the formal meanings all express a degree of contractual agreement or co-ownership/control betwen the parties, even if one party is subordinate. Effectively licensing a contractor to use the term 'affiliated contractor' doesn't satisfy my basic test for the word. And it still doesn't convey the meaning of transition.

 

I would even put it as strongly as this - 'Affiliated' means a higher grade of relationship 'Approved' does.

 

And just be careful if there is a dispute between the contractor and a client, the AA could be implicated initially and to divorce itself from proceedings would have to prove that 'affiliated' doesn't mean 'affiliated'. I suspect it could be worse than that, even if it proved no affiliation the client could say that they only appointed the contractor based on it being affiliated to its regulatory body. That's the AA implicated. Or at least dragged down.

 

SSIP is all very well, but this is abut QA and not safety. My experience of QA systems is that they abhor affiliation without Assurance because they have responsibility for the subordinate affiliate but cannot assure quality.

 

Sorry if it all sounds negative, but I am trying to be helpful. Does the AA have a tame lawyer it can ask?

 

Jules, thanks again for your valued contribution here and your underlying concern. At the end of the day the terminology, which has already been debated, will doubtless be so further at Trustees when it goes for final sign off where there are far more educated people than I and they can refer to the AA solicitors if any concern is voiced.

 

I've just done a quick Google search on 'affiliate membership' it appears, in general, to suggest a non-professional level of membership (inferring "work in progress" or transition as you say.) Further the AA website will make it clear that 'Affiliate Contractor' member has demonstrated a basic level of compliance by documentary evidence and is not to be confused with 'ARB Approved Contractor' etc. etc.

 

As with any member, inc. ArbACs, they are bound by the AAs code of professional conduct and ethics which does, in effect, give a degree of comeback, or certainly the right to complain, to any aggrieved client / fellow professional (and AA member.)

 

At the end of the day my aim will be to quickly shift Affiliates to ArbACs anyway, thereby minimising any exposure.

 

Thanks again..

Paul

[daltontrees]

Paul, as long as the AA is sure the public will understand...

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul, as long as the AA is sure the public will understand...

 

"I'll do my best"

 

Thanks Jules.

Paul