AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi 'Deerman', thanks for the post and enquiry. To get approval you have to present your company to the AA for assessemtn/audit (involving 2 assessors being with you for a long, but pleasurable, day) hopefully with a positive outcome. Not a sales pitch at all but regardless of the outcome, as the reality is with so much stuuf to cover and see something's gonna be missing, almost all firms comment the day has been useful and helpful (we're never trying to catch anyone out but trying to catch everyone 'in'!) The key areas covered are: 1. Office procedures / customer care / insurances & licences 2. H&S compliance / training & competence 3. Worksite audit (inc. rigging ops., ideally with sectional felling) 4. Completed works audit (inc. planting, 1 std. tree, & pruning, 2x reductions + 2x thins) 5. Workplace H&S audit (office, stores, workshop, yard etc.) 6. Arb technical knowledge assessment (detailed, but gentle, Q&A session throughout the day, often applied or scenario based) see http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/aaactcs_v7-2_0110.pdf for further (detailed) info. The cost is currently approx. £870+VAT and this include your first 12months subs from the date of approval (if, as is sometimes the case first time round, we have to revisit the company a further fee approx. £440+VAT is incurred...this is only required where something considered either major, is amiss, or where lots of minor issues are found). Thereafter subs are £450 per year and include your firms entry onto the AA website and into the hard copy Directory. Timescales currently, after receipt of application and fee, 4-6 weeks to visit the firm (but this is flexible). To put the necessary systems / procedures etc. in place can be anything upto 12 months dependent upon time / resources available. AGAIN, "foot, shoot & myself", BUT if there is no pressing urgency I would advise waiting to see how/if the scheme is modified in the near future and particularly for small firms, 'less than 5 employees'. Hoping this answers your questions, post back if not or if more. Thanks.. Paul

'Skyhuck', absolutely! See my previous post. I used to think this was unachievable, hence the current CHAS arrangement, BUT with the SSIP now there's an opportunity. Cheers.. Paul

Gibbon, thanks for the post and for the very 'applied'(?) way you present the process of achieving AAAC. I honestly wonder whether the 'standards/qualifying criteria' (Appendix E) we produce, i.e. all 17 pages (see http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/aaactcs_v7-2_0110.pdf) actually help or hinder us. I previously expanded these form the original 6 pages of tick boxes in an attempt to clarify what was required AND add (hopefully) helpful comments, BUT maybe in so doing I actually did the opposite...dunno! Anyway, another thought out loud. I reply principally to remind people the AAAC accreditation is now 'dualled' with CHAS, i.e 'two for one'...BOGOFF???...PARDON!!!! This has undoubtedly helped increase the recognition and credibility of the AAAC scheme, and in particular outside of the arb industry. My next plan is to get the scheme recognised in its own right as part of the 'Sector Schemes in Procurement' (SSIP, see SSIP - Safety Schemes In Procurement) which should increase this even further and, in an ideal world (does that really ever exist?) will mean the scheme has equal recognition with CHAS/exor/SafeContractor etc. BUT MORE AAACS & A BIGGER VOICE WOULD CLEARLY HELP HERE!!! PLUS we then need to better market and promote the scheme and standards and, whilst I have some ideas, this is absolutely not my domain. I also see value in getting the scheme ISO9001 (UKAS), yet again to add further credibility. So why am I telling you all this?..i) you should know what you're industry body is aiming towards, ii) because hopefully you'll see we are a credible body in which to place your faith (and money...sorry, necessary evil etc!)....oh n also because I get bored easily...'yeah, right!' Thanks again.. Paul PS Glad to hear you found the whole process of assesment useful as well as beneficial.

NO, NO, NOOOOOOO......we have some very nice 'stickers', maybe not the biggest ones but "size don't always matter" (apparently), well we will/should have soon...'watch this space'! Paul

Hi Rich, thanks for the post. The AA logo's are privately registered which means we (the AA) can take civil action against those 'passing off' as an AAAC but are not, trouble is it's very expensive to do so and even if you win, as we have previously, the offender essentially 'gets a slap on the wrist', told not to do it again and to pay back our expenses...based on their ability to pay, i.e. £5 a week (or similar) = wot a farce!!! Trading Standards can also take criminal action and, interestingly, seem to be getting more active in this area, probably in part due to 'Rogue Traders' programme. To be honest with persistent and determined offenders the law isn't very helpful (an understatement???) and it's very difficult to deter them and get a satisfactory outcome. BBC Watchdog are in contact with us and we are currently 'on the look out', so to speak, for a suitable case of logo mis-use combined with bad practice , 'ripping' clients off and intinidation, ideally, to complete the compliment. Trouble is we can't find one! From a members point of view, ultimately, memebrship can be removed (but seldom is this done as we just point out the error of their ways and they 'play ball'.) Cheers.. Paul

ABSOLUTELY, it is imperative we do everything we can to avoid confusion to the client and hence my postings about a uniquely identifiable logo for AAACs, along with perhaps restricting stickers for none AAACs to 6"x6" generic window stickers rather than door stickers (a thought at this stage!) Thanks for the post 'Gibbon'.. Paul

Hi 'IC', CAVEATED!!!...my EARLY thoughts here are, ideally, to make it 'ALL' for all (WHAT???), i.e. one standard/star rating for all BUT the process of achieving is appropriate to the size of the company and ability to pay, i.e. in particular 'less than 5 employees', AND the annual subs perhaps based on annual turn-over = the bigger companies, who stand to benefit most, pay more. "BULLS/RAGS n RED???"...hope not as thoughts out loud and keen not to stifle them...including mine please! I fully acknowledge the current situation doesn't work for many/most companies, although it clearly does for a few (usually tho, even where small/very small companies are involved, the motivation is often the LA and/or a desire to expand into that sector = financial benefits to be gained make the realted expenditure viable) AND this is something we must address! There, again, why use one word when thousands are available...oops! Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Mesterh', Indeed and that's what we're working towards. Just a thought tho (dangerous I know!), whilst I entirely support releasing use of the AA logo we also owe a duty to AAACs to ensure, with all due respect, they have a uniquely identifiable logo given they've presented their companies, in effect, for peer review ('crabbed' that from someone elses posting...thank you!) Whether that would/should restrict use of vehicle stickers to the kinda 6"x6" generic 'Care for Trees' window stickers rather than the 12"x12' door stickers I dunno...need to think that through. Hope you see where I'm coming from here...any thoughts? Cheers.. Paul

Cheers Lee, thanks for posting back! Paul

David, Kayt, the AA Finance Officer, has been replaced by Louisa for 4 days a week. Polly, the Membership & Accreditation Support Officer, has not been replaced and hence Mel is sometimes Polly...or should that be 'Molly' or 'Melly'! Lastly Zoe, Training & Events Support Officer, was made redundant and is obviously not replaced but Tiff is covering this role too. Sorry for any confusion (would help if I wasn't 'confused' so much of the time..'Matron!') Thanks.. Paul

...n not half as much fun eh?! Thanks TonyTree! Paul

David, thank you for your posting and the question posed. Simply because if we really believe we are the 'voice of the industry' (as we do, or rather as we want to be!) we need to be entirely open and inclusive. This is a public forum and we believe our forum hosted here should be equally open to all. The new AA website, fingers x'd available early April....2010!, will have a members only forum, which is fair enough I think. We did consider making part of that open to all BUT now we have this facility (thanks to Steve!) I don't believe we need another, plus I'd only then have 2 places to look for stuff and inevitably miss things (obviously tho there will, as always, be the general email available to enquirers). The 'ruby' shirts are the 'egg-ball' equivalent to the 'futball' shirts we're thinking of doing...not really, thanks for spotting the (none) deliberate mistake, I'll point it out to the Editor..! Best regards.. Paul

Thanks Stephen (hope I've not broken protocol there!)I do try and check out other postings but obvioulsy this now has to be my priority. My concern is that I still get a bit (lot!) lost round the forums and forget where I've posted things and I'm concerned people may have posted back and I've missed it...IF THAT'S YOU (collectively) PLEASE POST ME HERE! The banter's great and matches the clear camerarderie(?) that prevales...well done all! Cheers.. Paul

Thanks Andy, that's real good of you! Only trouble is who's gonna wear the 'pink carnation' for ident purposes...ha! Be a pleasure, count me in. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Arborist Sites', thanks for the post. I think it's because the (few) courses we have tried to run 'up north' over the past few years have been cancelled because of lack of numbers (probably principally down to our lack of advertising and promotion = 'MUST TRY HARDER'...dunno!) Thanks to Paul Bullimore (Lancashire Woodland Project), Ken Linford (TreeCheck) and Andy Hirons (Myerscough College, my old stomping ground) I have been back to the 'home country' a couple of times recently and indeed have another couple of event coming up. One to speak to the BSc & FdSc Arb students at Myerscough and the other to deliver a Risk Assessment workshop at Cuerden Park. BUT, if there's support for anything more, or different, I'm more than happy to listen and always happy to trip up there. Re- Conference prices, it varies whether you book early or late, but as a 'ball park' figure each delegate can save between £25-30 (over the 3 days). To be honest, as far as AA courses etc. are concerned, the greatest discounts rates are offered on the standard training courses, i.e. Risk Assessment, Tree Survey & Tree Inspection, where rates are much higher (the conference is always a very expensive event to put on and hence limits the 'discounts' we can offer...sorry!) Regards.. Paul

Hi Lee, thanks for the post. We currently employ 5 full time staff, inc. myself, and 2 prt time staff (one 2 days a week & one 4 days). I solely manage the AAAC scheme, along with other things, and in Polly's current absence (maternity leave) Mel provides some level of admin etc. cover for her role. General funding, as far as I'm aware, is from membership subs rather than any private donations (if people love trees they tend to donate to the Woodland Trust) but we do have income from training courses, seminars, workshops, conference etc. too. The AAAC scheme, which is separate to AA membership, is funded wholly through annual subs and generates a nominal surplus each year. Am I answering your question as I'm trying to '2nd guess' a bit? Please post back. Thanks.. Paul

'IC' I had you down more as a 'Green-Flag' or 'self-mend'...ha! Point taken, good post...thanks! Paul

Hi John, thanks for the post. 'Yes', I know this is a total inconsistency in application of the use, or rtaher non-use, of the AA logo. In answer to your question 'Yes' it would be acceptable, AND we need to sort out releasing use of the logo to all members (putting my neck on the line here but I says what I thinks...not alwasy the best strategy but 'old dog...' syndrome.) Regards.. Paul

Hi John, good to hear from you and thanks for the post. I quite agree, I actually tend to avoid groups of people where I'm unfamiliar (believe or not often at Trade Fair) BUT posting here will make me wanna talk more to people and seek their industry views. Using this form has come as quite a pleasant surprise, 'shocked' even, as I realise what a community spirit prevails and how bl**dy useful it is, sharing ideas, giving advice, a friendly voice(kinda) on the other end...'wicked!' Keep up the contact John. Best regards.. Paul

Cheers Danavan, You may regret it tho now I feel I can 'waffle at ease!" Thanks ofr taking the trouble to post your views and great you found the info useful....rather than 'useless', my norm...ha! Paul

Hi 'Mesterh', Didn't interpret your 'very good' question as aggressive at all so please 'ask away' and I'll give you the AAAC current stance on these matters....no probs! The 'waste licensing' issue for us is something of a grey area, with no definitive case law upon which to base advise AND a variation of interpretation of the Regs, across the country by reional EA offices (as evidenced by undertaking AC assmts./reassmts. over the past few years). Hence we previously contacted the EA national policy team and sought their opinion which, albeit heavily caveated, recommended we should have licences as what we produce is 'controlled waste', and depenedent upon its form and form where it originates there are 3 separate waste categories covering, AND, techncially, there will undoubtedly be times when what we are carrying is 'someone elses' waste. After much deliberation, and trying to take a pragmatic view, AND the fact a 'WCL' costs £140 for 3 years (£95 renewal) and is fairly straight forward to obtain, AND if the contractor got 'pulled in' on a multi-authority check point, i.e. Police, HMRC, Border Agency AND VOSA, you'd get through the process quicker, we decided to impose it as a standard requirement UNLESS you have a curent exemption certificate issued by your regional EA office. Many ACs are aggrieved at this situation, not so much the money involved (whihc isn't that great) BUT the prnciple of teh thing, which I fully understand, and maybe we've taken the easy road and should do more to support their views and challenge the EA but without an industry critcial mass behind us we are in a weak position to take such action. The EA 'Policy Statement' on the 'virgin wood' exemption I thought was our saviour and I would be 'knighted' and everything for bringing it to our industry, BUT I decided to check with my friends(?) at the EA and their view was that if all we carried was 'wood/timber' taht would be fine but as soon as any 'greenery', i.e. leaves, shoots, Leylandii (they mentioned specifcally), was on board it would 'contaminate' the load and render it as waste = WCL requirement. It's a mad, mad world we live in and sometimes we take the easy option BUT this is a topic, with a much greater following / industry representation behind me, and would be quite prepared to challenge more formally. Next question please..? Many thanks for the post. Paul

SORRY 'Skyhuck', realised that after I'd started replying, trouble is 'once I starts a 'waffle' I's gotta finish the 'waffle'. Cheers.. Paul

Stephen, 'et al', apologies for the delay in getting back to you but Friday afternoons is 'footie' afternoon with my boys n their teams (a chance to give Dad a good kicking for making them do their home-work in the week!) and then 'Friday night curry night' followed straight after...with the odd beverage to help wash it down...anyway! THANK YOU for your post, from which I am greatly encouraged by the content and I am more than happy to send through an AAAC information/application pack if you email me directly with your contact details, address etc. (eithere here or [email protected] whichever suits you best!) HOWEVER, "foot, self n shoot" time but if there's no pressing urgency for this then I'd recommend 'hanging fire', particularly if you employ 'less than 5 people', until we've had a full and proper debate here and we've had more feedback to Andy's poll on the main forum. The future of the scheme is in a state of flux, so to speak, and anything's up for consideration. The other thing is you say "..but if i had this then others would find me..", to be completely honest I reckon this is a shout too far at this moment in time. Although they 'may' find you, and particularly if you made a concerted effort to market yourself with the approval, the reality at this current time is that there are very few AAACs in Scotland and, generally speaking, the awareness of the scheme is also probably quite low (perhaps give some of the other AAACs a call and enquire with them). BUT, eventually, with more 'on board' this could be/will be be changed. There, now you know why I never made it as that car salesman...."onist Jon!" Thanks for the post Stephen and if you still require that info please do get in touch. Best regards.. Paul

Thanks for you post. You're quite right that if there was a 'bigger' pot we could do more, inc. maybe checking works intermittently, but I still see the LA TO having a key role here too plus having their involvemnet in the scheme will increase 'buy in' and commitment to the cause...so to speak. PLEASE DO EXPOSE ANY HOLES AS THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO 'PATCH THEM UP' AND GET IT RIGHT. Not wanting to do anything covertly but if you're happier contacting me directly then 'PM' me..PLEASE! Thanks.. Paul Now get back in that sunshine..!

Whilst I fully understand your comments, and take them on board completely, I'm afraid the 2 aspects of what we do are intrinsically linked AND, I would suggest, with any form of approval clients at all levels would expect you to be complaint with H&S, undertake safe working parctices AND then do good treework. We can certainly look at 'cutting it (H&S compliance) to the bone', so to speak, and particularly for the "less than 5 employees" (remember regular 'subbies' would be include here too) BUT the 'aerial rescue' thing is gonna be a sticking point...I'm sorry! Regardless of how often they're used, as it would seem 'self-rescue' is the norm (not good wording but you know what I mean), ground based 'rescuers' (or indeed a 2nd climber already in the tree) competent, fully kitted up etc. etc. is the only realistic way (except for a MEWP of course) we can comply with the 'W@H Regs' requirement AND manage the HSE expectations AND adhere to AFAG 401/402 guidance...unless you've any other ideas/thoughts? (I'm worried!) In terms of cost, as an example, if you wanna become a CHAS 'Accredited' "less than 5" contractor it will cost you £95 for the assessment (desk-top exerecise, i.e. send off your docs. and statements) + £60 admin = £155 annually, so it needn't be silly money. The assessment aspect of this fee (£95) is incorporated inot the AAAC fee. Give it some thought, as will I, and post back later. Thanks for the post! Paul