Andy Clark

The climber and the "boss" had a 5 or maybe even 10 minute debate, about how to cut the branch...... the climber, airing on the side of smaller, but the boss insisting on "In One". There were 4 or 5 groundsman on the job (seriously, it was a very big tree) who also heard their debate. Ultimately, the boss was to blame, and it was he who paid the price, but the moral of the story has kinda been missed......... The company insurance refused to pay, because the subby was not a direct employee, therefore not covered by company P/L insurance.

Well that's not what the police and his insurers said. Anyway, to continue the story...... The car owner was prosecuted for no tax/MOT/ (insurance) etc.... £1000 fine, and a written off car. He tried to claim against the boss, for the damage to the car, but the company insurance refused to pay out, as the chap up the tree was a subby and not a direct employee. The subby had no insurance of his own, so no claim could be filled against him either.... The car owner then filled a private suit against the company, which the court upheld...... the company had to pay out for the car, plus costs and expenses.

It's a volunteer scheme run by the Tree Council...... http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/?q=history-of-the-tree-council

Sort of...... but not how you'd think. Anyone else??

I remember a case about 4-5 years ago now, back when i was on the tools....... The chap i worked for at the time (on the books) used to also use a subby climber who came in now and again. They'd had that working relationship for 5 or 6 years previous. We were re-pollarding a big old poplar on a local LA contract that the company held.... the climber at the time (the subby, not me) cut a re-growth stem (12" dia, 30-40' long) from the pollard head, under direct instruction from the boss. The climber disputed with the boss, saying that the section was too big to take off in one piece, and that it would cause damage to the small (30' tall) sycamore tree under the canopy of the poplar... the boss disagreed and insisted that the climber cut as directed.. ie, in one. The climber cut the limb, as directed..... the limb landed in the top of the sycamore, wich then peeled out half of the sycamore canopy....... both poplar limb and sycamore canopy landed on top of a nearby parked car.... the car was a right off. Upon closer inspection, the car was not taxed, so therefore should not have been parked on the public highway. After reporting the accident to the police, it also became apparent that the car was not mot'd, so therefore also not insured. Anyone care to have a guess at the outcome????

But given that the "all in" price for the original NEW 110" vehicle plus conversion is iro of £27k, including re plateing and chip box/tool box.... What's the basic otr price of an iveco daily??

That was who i went to in researching my 6x6..... they still do them, but recon they don't have enough interest in them any more, to warrant making a serious go of them. They'll happily do bespoke/one off stuff though. I also spoke to Rogers of Bedford, about covering any work under warranty, as in theory, the mods detract from the original L/Rover warrant. They were more than happy to do any warranty work, as they recon that only the original rear diff would be the only main part affected by the mods.

Ah, got ya. Not sure to be honest. The demo model that i looked at, just had the middle axle diff converted to a straight through diff, with the extra driveshaft for the 3rd axle coming straight outta the other side. As for locking, surely that still have the same effect as locking the centre diff, as the 3rd axle would just be included with the 2nd axle on the front/rear split?

Hi all, I see there's been a few past/old threads discussing the subject, but as i've just become one myself, i wanted to get a quick update on the topic of Tree Wardens. Any others out there in Arbtalk land?? Any one got any stories/thoughts/experiences with Tree Wardens?? Any one else thinking of becoming one??

No idea mate, to be honest.... what do you call 'cross locks'??

Actually mate, no! By uprating and stiffening the springs on the middle axle, and keeping softer springs n the new rear axle, it keeps the same turning circle as the 110"! The whole thing pivots on the middle axle.

Mr H, Here's an attachment that you may find usefull..... i've posted it on other L/rover threads on here also. The doc forms part of a presentation that i put to the Fleet and Procurement depts. at fountains plc, a few years ago. Basic principle is, take a 110" High capacity pick up and with a few modifications, convert to 150" 6 wheeler. This'll give you a vehicle that'll still be small enough to retain accessibility, but will have the towing and carrying capacity/volume similar to that of an Iveco Cargo/Merc Mog type vehicle. Hope it helps. Arb Crew Vehicle.doc

I'd love to see the look on the LOLER inspectors face, tying to get the wooden sticks through the next inspection. Tommy B....... Looks like it might be the answer to the kit funding problem!! Cheap as chips, mate. .

Yeah, but c'mon Tony, there's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many other variables in the equation.... allocated and available personal study time dependant on individuals work/home life, would be the main key factor in that, surely??? Even the Myerscough bumf on the Bsc top up, states that it's 2 year pt/time, but 'specific duration will depend upon individual progress'!!! So?? It's 2 years?? It may take longer, but it may also be as equally shorter!! What ever happened to "looking on the bright side"??

Ahhhhhhh..... i got ya now. Sorry Bundle, bit slow on the old uptake there. Agreed though, it IS a 'PITA', BUT do you not find that the benefits outweigh the ball ache?? I can see that written notice would be and is easier to facilitate the little, one off jobs, but on large scale works, i always found that the "traceability" factor alone, was well worth the effort.

Or Prof Dip..... which is only 1 year, part time. (And the plan is to do that along side the second year of the FdSc)

Pita???

Well Bundle, i'm just speaking from personal experience. For example..... 18 years in the industry (15 of which were on the tools), Used to teach C&G Phase II AND BTEC/Edexcel ND, Ex contract manager on both area AND national level, God knows how many NPTC's, competency certs, training workshops, CPD hrs, More than enough creditable experience to FAAAAAAAAAAR surpass any level 3 qual...... What answer did i get?? 'Have you ever thought about studying for our Tech Cert qual?' Thanks, but no thanks. I'm now gearing up for the fdSc at Mysercough, with the plan to go on to Msc, and ultimately aiming for chartered arb status with the ICF.

Either way though.. the principles still the same. TechCert = Tech level membership.

Nope, you're right John... Level 3. I stand corrected.

You sure?? I thought it was level 4?? Supposedly on the same level as the ND, and hence why most LA's want techcert as opposed to ND for the tree officer jobs.... I'll gladly hold my hands up though, if i'm wrong.

On a more serious note, and in a slightly more productive answer to your question...... The old C&G quals, are "sort of" not worth much any more. (and I DO mean SORT OF, before anyone rips me to pieces!!) C&G is now in partnership with NPTC, and as such the quals are unfortunately deemed as more of a "vocational" level/type of qualification, with the BTEC/Edexcel quals being seen as more "academic" level/type. (just look at what the ND Arb is worth nowadays) In theory though, level 3, is level 3, is level 3, and "grandfather rights" should sort of apply...... but unfortunately this is more often than not, not so. (trust me... i did my NCH Arb at M/wood in '94, and i've had exactly the same probs) Hence why the AA came up with their own level 4 qual.... the TechCert. Basically, this did away with the AAs need to "interpret" the changes that've been made over recent years to the qual grading by the education authorities, and therefore allow the AA to standardise the entry requirements, without any inherent risk of allowing a lower accredited skill/knowledge level, to darken their doorstep. Similar basis to way that the RFS Prof Dip, is now seen as THE entry level qual for consultancy. Long and short of it is, you wanna join at Tech level.... you gotta do their qual.

Give it time..... public awareness IS growing. Cases such as Poll vs Bartholomew etc, set the precedence in terms of the academic aspects such as surveying/consultancy/contractors making work recommendations etc, but there's still little out there to promote and carry that same ethos in relation to the practical aspects of Arb. Until that time comes, we'll have to rely on Joe Publics sense of "doing the right thing".

And the best way to keep that record, and clear this whole point up??? Use PLANNING PORTAL!

Wouldn't we all??