daltontrees

Won't Scotland still be able to use British Standards?

But for any company that currently trades from say England with scottish companies?

I have been using Arborol almost exclusively for Husq 346s 357, 455, 181 Stihl 271, 230. Never a problem. After sitting for a while in the saw it looks awful but the saw vibrations turn it back into a smooth emulsion almost right away. Also never freezes on me, if anything the oil tank is usually steaming a little. Definitely cools the bar. Officially it's a 1:5 dilution but I usually use it at 1:3. Ridiculously cheap, you can carry 5L in the truck, and that's got you 30L anywhere there's clean water. I've never had a stuck chain with it.

And rename it the disunionjackmech.

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

Good post. And I wonder whether, deprived of oxygen at the roots, trees will be able to come into leaf anything like normally?

Genuine unloaded question, but I am curious to know how people see this. I expect not many will be interested in the question, especially non-scots, and I really can't be bothered with any rants about the politics of it. But what if? And if we share the £sterling or don't? And if scotland is no longer part of the EU or comes back in later and the rest of the UK votes to get out of the EU? I am thinking about employment law, certification of kit, regulation, pests and diseases and plant orders etc.

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?

I know, but I came over from another thread where the wider question was being debated. All I am now saying is that if anyone is in any doubt (and there is some doubt) about whether freelance climbers are LOS or BFS and are therefore covered or not covered by employers' policies, PL insurance is the safe bet and can easily be justified if you are doing the odd homer for which you need it anyway. I've made my mind up anyway.

I agree with Kenty. You might not need EL if you only freelance, but it's great to have it there for those occasional days when you are the boss and have someone in doing groundy for you.

A very good point! I was putting the position of the subbie, who would be covered if he had recorded such an understanding as I described. It would alert the employer to the possible dichotomy and that the insurer might take a different view in the event of a claim. But the fundamental thiing I am getting at is not about semantics or who wins or what policies say but it's about communuicating so that everyone knows where they stand instead of whole sections of the industry blundering on in the hope, expectation or misunderstanding that someone else is dealing with the insurance. PL insurance is not compulsory, and does not automatically come with the EL insurance. But not having it is like having a house and not insuring it. It's nuts not to check that ytou aren't covered. I don't think it's hoodwinking anyone for the contractor and subcontractor to reach agreement that even though the subbie uses his own saws and PPE and climbing kit, he is not having the work assigned to him. As long as it is clear that he is there predominantly to provide skilled labour within the contractor's team, that might well fall within the labour-only guidelines. It might not, but surely having the discussion and checking the policy is a beter starting point than not?

Lookign at adjacent street light, building and so forth suggests past pruning. The wounds on the other substem seem to have closed over quite well.Maybe the tree will nip this I.h off.

Fair enough but it doesn't really address the question that hangs in the air (like the metaphorical freelance climber with his own power tools in the tree) as to whether you are crucially a labour-only subbie or a bona fide subbie. Really all you have to do is record an understanding with your usual contractor-employerts that you are working for him as a labour-only subbie and that you (i) consider that he will be responsible for providing insurance (PL and EL) for you while you are on site and (ii) that any PL insurance you have ranks second to his as a result.

I have to disagree, you used the word 'likely' twice in your posting, that's gambling, not certainty. As far as I know the law of the land says an employer must have EL insurance. Hopefully people on Arbtalk aren't naive enough to accept what they are told on Arbtalk without checking. All you can hope is for arbtalk to point you in the right direction. Arbtalk won't be there in court if it all goes pear-shaped, the law of the land will. I have long ago given up expecting the law of the land to be black and white. It's not and never will be.

All you can hope to do is to get a sample of the offending roots and get it tested to find out the species. It won't tell you which individual tree is guilty unless there's only one of that species in the area. Yu don't need to use someone nearby to test it, the sample can be sent to them. An internet search will get you a few names. I expect the real difficulty is matching the roots to the problem. Just because you fidn willow roots near the house doesn't mean they are the problem. You are entering a difficult area of expertise, with maybe thousands of £s at stake.

It's hard to see, is that coming out of a natural branch collar breakage point or a pruning wound?

It's not that simple, as recent posts elsewhere suggest.

Lots of resin blisters on the smooth bark, starting to look a defo for Abies and I wouldn't argue with grandis.

Could it be Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla?

Looking vey much like Acer platanoides, Norway Maple. Complete with nightmare compression forks.

I am just posting here as a cross-reference to recent debate on the same question. http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/69621-re-verifying-climbing-experience-5.html#post1060208

Thanks Treequip. Most helpful.

Right, I'm trying to watch the telly here but this is irking me. Your insurer is covering you and trusting you to manage things responsibly and professionally. You send a subby up and you are no longer in control. Therefore your insurer is not in control of you. That's why an insurance policy says what it says. The insurer doesn't cover you unless you get back-to-back insurance cover off the subby. That's what a court will see, with hardly a snort of derision for any argument to the contrary. Ignore me if you wish, I'm cautious. Insured, but cautious. I gave up worrying about my insurance responsibilites a long time ago when I trusted my judgement, the advice of my brokers and my experience and decided to be insured as a subby and to make sure my subbys are insured. My caution cost me about £200 extra a year. Now I can sleeep better knowing I have passed on my advice and experience. Make your own minds up. Anyone care to indemnify the OP meantime?

I was vaguely with you right up to the last sentence, then you introduced an arbirtary definition. I have worked on some mighty complicated contracts in my time, multi-million £ contracts, everything from nuclear missile depots to indoor climbing centres, motorways, office blocks, demolition jobs, housing estates ... and in my experience and in the view of the QSs and REs and lawyers running the jobs it is not as simple as placing the jobs entirely in the hands of a subby for him to be bona fide. He doesn't need to be responsible for the operation in lieu of the contractor, he just needs to be in control of part of it. In control. Using his power tools, his LOLERed kit, his methods (whether written down or not), his directions to other operatives under authority delegated to him by the contractor and so forth. I have no-one to persuade her and no axe to grind. All I am saying is that it is increasingly apparent to me despite everyone's helpful input that the OP would be well advised to err on the safe side to treat his freelance climbers as BFS and ask for their back-to-back insurance. All you old-hands in the industry can make your own mind up, but it is really clear to me that most freelance climbers doing a day for a tree contractor in Britain tomorrow will be de facto BFS, and that a lot of contractors are taking a huge chance through ignorance or otherwise if they aren't insisting on back-to-back sucontractor PL insurance. At least ask your broker at your next renewal. Get it wrong and one day it could give rise to a very ugly situation.

OK, here's what I have established. The Business Insurance Expert says this - "There are two distinct types of sub-contractor and it is important that your business is able to distinguish between these different types of sub-contractor. The nature of the contract and your working relationship with the sub-contractor (whether they be a bona fide sub-contractor or a labour only sub-contractor) will have ramifications for the responsibilities you will be assuming and consequently the type of Liability Insurance you require to cover your potential liability. "The following should help you to determine between the different types of sub-contractor and whether Employers Liability Insurance is required. "Labour Only Sub-Contractors - Labour only sub-contractors generally work under the direction of the employer and they do not provide their own materials or tools or than small hand tools. They would be considered as employees for the purposes of an |Employers Liability Insurance policy. "Bona Fide Sub-Contractors - Bona fide sub-contractors generally work under their own direction and provide their own materials and tools. They should also take out their own Public Liability Insurance. Provided they are not working under your direction, have their own legal liabilities which they insure themselves, there is no need to include these in the count of employees." My insurance policy Arborisk includes EL and PL for labour only subcontractors (LOS) but not for bona fide subcontractors (BFS). So ask this question. If a subby turns up with his own climbing and lowring kit and saws, gets into the tree and directs the brash-rats as to what to do as he prepares to send stuff down, is he a LOS or a BFS? To my mind there's no doubt at all that he is there as a BFS. He is therefore not covered by Arborisk and if he screws up and hurts someone or flattens a car, you're liable because you brought him there but he's not covered by your insurance. The Business Insurance Expert goes on to say "It is therefore imperative that whenever you enter in to a contract with a bona fide sub-contractor, you must check that they have Public Liability cover in force for the type of activities they will be undertaking for you and that it will be in force for the duration of the period for which they will be undertaking the work. You must also check that the indemnity limit provided under their policy is at least as much as the limit provided under your own policy. If you do not do this, your own policy would be invalidated and you would therefore have to meet your own legal liability and associated legal costs out of your own coffers." He then adds, very usefully and I expect authoritatively - There are a number of factors to take into account when determining the status of a sub-contractor. A worker would be regarded as a Labour Only Sub-Contractor (and would need to be covered for Employers Liability Insurance) they meet the following criteria (1) They are paid by the hour, week or month (2) They are entitled to receive overtime pay or a bonus payment (3) They only supply their own small hand tools (4) They always have to do the work themselves (5) The main contractor can tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it (6) They work a set amount of hours (7) The main contractor can move them from task to task A worker would be regarded as a bona fide sub-contractor if they meet the following criteria (1) They undertake a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take (2)They have a contract for the provision of services as opposed to a contract of employment (3) Within an overall deaddline, they are able to decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services (4) They regularly work for a number of different people other than the main contractor (5) They have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense (6) They hold their own Public Liability insurance in their own name. (Public Liability insurance is not a statutory compulsory form of insurance so it is possible that a sub-contractor may not have this form of insurance) (7) They pay the cost of all materials or supplies required for the work without being reimbursed (8) They are free to hire someone else to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense (9) They risk their own money (10) They provide or hire in the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves. Which does a typical subby sound most like? Tell me please that I'm wrong and why?