AA Teccie (Paul)

Quick reply as I have a 70th Birthday to prepare, well okay I have to go to the 'offie' for essential supplies. Thanks for the post here. Unfortunately, 'the way of the (current) world' dictates much emphasis on H&S...which often includes form filling to 'evidence' compliance...to a point! The added bonus to this these days is it can bring with it CHAS, which may open more doors = greater income for you (hopefully!) PLUS H&S embraced can help running of the company...really!!! BUT I'm on a mission to improve work standards as I acknowledge in some, by no means all, instances these have slipped at the expense of form filling...and we MUST pay due regard to our 'finished product' coz it's that which clients will judged. I think it part, with some companies, its the growth they've experienced that the 'proud company owner' who got the AC status is now employing multiple staff and controlling 'quality' becomes more difficult...BUT THEY MUST!!! Lastly, as much as I can, I do understand you have very difficult decisions to make (more so at the moment) but I can't help thinking that if the W@H requiremenst force the issue of training up someone else AND getting them competent, then that has to be to the benefit of you and the firm...dunno! Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, (sorry to be the H&S 'nurdy' but here we go!) The requirement to have adequate arrangements at the worksite for 'aerial rescue' comes from the 'Work at Height Regs. 2005', guidance for which states: Planning Regulations 4 and 6(1, 2) 17 You must: ■ ensure that no work is done at height if it is safe and reasonably practicable to do it other than at height; ■ ensure that the work is properly planned, appropriately supervised, and carried out in as safe a way as is reasonably practicable; ■ plan for emergencies and rescue; ■ take account of the risk assessment carried out under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. No longer can employers rely on the emergency services to effect 'rescues' at height, the first call is with them! The AA couldn't have done anything to stop this legislation being introduced, the regulations is the regulations. I see no opportunity whatsoever to apply for an 'exemption' for arboricultural works even though I acknowledge most injured climbers manage to 'self-rescue', thank goodness, but what if they didn't? We only introduce requirements for ACs to comply with legilsation / good practice when circumsatnces dictate we have to, or when we believe it is correct and beneficial so to do, and many ACs are 'little guys' who have to embrace this. Surely this requirement is not so restrictive it stops you from trading effectively?..I hope not, and perhaps it forces the training up of a 2nd competent climber which can only be of benefit to the firm. What could have done (restricted our operations) so was the European attempt a few years ago at banning two-stroke engines because of concerns over emmissions. The AA did represent the industry here and got the proposed legislation overturned. Give us a chance 'guys', work with us for the benefit of all..! Cheers and have a good weekend. Paul

Hi all, sorry I'm a bit late coming in on this one...I missed it for some reason. Just a couple(?) of quick comments: Someone mentioned the HSE & key to a succesful aerial rescue is 'competence', which is absolutely right. Hence partly why AFAG 401 was recently updated to include that very word: "A minimum of two people must be present during all treeclimbing operations. One of the team must be available on the ground, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay (see AFAG leaflet 402 Aerial tree rescue)." Apparently their own research uncovered a culture of 'groundies' having the ticket but very little climbing experience, if any at all. GGCP (Guide to Good Climbing Practice 'suggests' practice of AR every 3 months, if the man (or woman) 'in the white wig' gets hold of this in the event of an aerial accident, and you haven't, you'll have some explaining to do. Secondly, First Aid requirements are that it should be 'relevant to the risks' (here he goes again!). Hence whilst you're standard 'SJA' training may meet the HSE min. requirements, as they're HSE regsitered, is it 'relevant'?...you're decision (there are specific industry FA trainers out there worth a look). Also HSE recommend 'annual refrehers' (1 day) which I've never known anyone do...BUT it seems a 'bloomin good idea'! Lastly, AR provision is something we 'major on' as part of the worksite audit for AAAC status and too often this is not up-to-scratch and staff are unprepared and the rescue scenario is unplanned = direct contravention to W@H Regs. (anorak!) And lastly, lastly, question often asked as the AFAG states "on the ground" is what about 2 climbers in the tree = YES, absolutely, HSE acknowledge this is good method. Cheers all.. Paul

In answer to your first question, is a SG ticket essential = NO. Although NPTCs are available, as with wood-chippers, the test you need to satisfy is that of 'adequate training' and not a 'certificate of competence', altho clearly you have to be competent. Hence a Lantra Awards ITA (Integrated Training and Assessment) Certificate is fine or evidence of other 'adequate training'. Q.2 = possibly, it would be useful when applying for another job as it not only shows evidence of adequate trainining', that said you/your employer need to ensure this for each type you use, AND that you are/were competent in it's use. Plus if the opposition don't have a 'ticket', even tho not essential, it mayu be the factor that clinches the deal/job. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Stu, By iso I take it you mean 9001, 14001, 18001 & Sector 18 (National Highways Sector Scheme 18 - Environment, Landscape & Ecology...REMEMBER your ISO must be accredited by UKAS here to qualify you....several contractors have been caught out here!!!) The reality is this may suit the procurement depts. & the LA administrators AND, I believe it is seen as a demonstration of a 'bona fide' company who are serious about what thye're doing and in it for the long haul...PLUS of course it is quite useful to the company too. BUT, except ISO (OHSAS) 18001 they have nothing to do with H&S nor 'competence'...hence the combined CHAS + AAAC (or equivalent???), which is the standard requirement for an increasing number of LAs (Devon CC & Oxford CC immediately come to mind but many others also do this.) 'YES' I absolutely agree more (much more) needs to be done to raise awareness of the AA & AAAC brands in the public, and other, domains but we need a 'bigger' voice so to do and more support & resources. PLUS we need to consider releasing use of the AA logo to members, which is currently 'under discussion', AND of course further promote the ACs and better market the scheme (AND, in addition to the standard AA logo give them there own uniquely identifiable logo as an 'Approved Contractor', and for Registered Consultants of course.) With regard to the AAAC scheme this is often still a 'chicken and egg' scenario as many LAs tell us they would consider either using, or recommedning ACs, as they see the beneifts in so doing BUT there simply aren't enough around to viably do so. AND, I believe it will perpetuate itself as more contractors join (hopefully). That's me done now as I've been punching these heavy 'keys' since about 7am...you've no idea, ha! Cheers.. Paul

Noooooo, I just did you a really good, long reply coz that's what I'm good at (wafflin) and it disappeared...I think the system went a sleep on me (no surprise eh?!) Basically 6 probably ain't enough and you should speak to your staff/colleagues to establish all the 'hazards', not risks initially, you're subjected too and then only deal with the 'significant' ones, i.e. the ones that are really gonna hurt you, that's then where the risk bit comes in, i.e. who's it gonna harm and how + if you want evaluate it based on 'likelihood' & 'severity'...meaning a chainsaw is a significant hazard with a relatively high level of associated risk....WHAT????...if you cut yurself it'll bl**dy well hurt so do summat about it...there! Discreetly, if you're interested, a well known industry body offer RA training which includes a fairly good set of generic RAs which may save you a bit of work BUT there's nothing to stop you producing them yourself it's afairly straight forward process just a bit time consuming AND there's no formal way of recording RAs and the HSE have a fairly good format available on their website at Risk management: Risk Assessment Cheers.. Paul

As someone who's had some previous experience as a TPO TO I would say 'fairly often', but the TPO wouldn't be 'revoked' it would be 'overridden', in effect, by detailed planning consent (a technicality, same outcome tho = tree goes!) The trouble, and conflict, is that central government place targets on LPAs for new housing being built and often within fairly short timescales to address the national housing shortage, particularly with 'affordable homes' (only £150k...A BARGAIN!) Hence mini wars breakout in LPA Depts, between the planners, who want housing, and the TOs, who want trees...hence the white flag of 'compromise' is called for. To be honest, IMO (personal NOT AA) AND based on my limited experience of TPOs AND with only 1 LPA, too many trees that aren't really worthy are TPO'd (quick, 'head for the hills'!) and hence we would often press for good mitigation in the form of new tree plantings and often this would be 2 or 3 for 1, a good investment for future generations was my view. Don't get me wrong we did press to retain really good quality trees, particularly where they complimented the development AND could be reasonably and sustainably retained, but the reality was these were the minority so we pulled out all the stops to get it right AND we monitored their protection on site which is absolutely key to succesful retention. Sorry, I've probably gone off subject by now so I'll call matron to wheel me back to my room for the night....sleep well! Cheers.. paul

Hi Stu, that's a fair comment. The reality is that becoming an AC will introduce overheads into the company which in turn may affect the 'bottom line', so to speak, and in an extremely competitive sector such as the domestic market this could affect your competitiveness as price is (usually) 'King'. Now I feel I should say something to counter this view, problem is I can't think of anything as I accept it's a real factor and unless you perhaps see a local 'niche' market in your locality where an industry specific accreditation may be recognised and win you 'extra' work, or more profitable work, then you may have to place greater weight on the other benefits AAAC status could bring to the company, i.e external confirmation of H&S compliance and industry good practice adherence / acts as a company health check (to some extent) / better staff retention & recruitment (probably more to do with you as an employer but it can help) / potential for lowered insurance premiums (particularly now it'scombined with CHAS) etc. etc. BUT you are quite right the greatest value as an AAAC is at the LA / commercial level and it is in this sector where I see the greatest potential for scheme growth. Of course if you see your firm/company expanding into this sector then undoubtedly AAAC status will help. The HSE are indirectly driving the scheme forward in this sector as part of their promotion of H&S at the client level delivered in their 'Engaging Arb. Contractors' SHADs (Safety & Health Awareness Days). I present on this workshop, specifically aimed at LAs / Health Authorities / Housing Assns./Unis etc. etc., and the AAAC Standards are presented as an 'industry benchmark for arboricultural contracting'. As AAAC status is not a legal requirement the HSE cannot 'endorse' it but they certainly 'recognise' it as the mark of a reputable, compliant and competent arb contractor (NOT to say that those who aren't ACs aren't also reputable, compliant & competent by any means BUT in that sector having an external, industry recognised, accreditation certainly carries weight and is specifically mentioned in HSE published guidance.) I know, I need to get out more, I need to get back to climbing trees too but that scares the sh*t out of me these days. thanks for your time. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Al, thanks for the post. Currently, I'm afraid not....sorry! However as you may be aware there is a proposal to 'modularise' the scheme from Jan. 2011 and this will also work by 'mutually recognising' CHAS (and most other H&S accreditations) meaning you will not have to 'go over the same stuff again'. That said it makes me a little nervous as we have assessed several companies to date who are 'CHAS'd' and we've had concerns about their H&S systems (this is usually where the firm has engaged an external consultant to achieve CHAS 'for' them rather than 'with' them.) I wholly acknowledge cost & timescales (in relation to your resources to 'bring things up-to-speed' presumably) are an important factor but the assessment fee (currently £870+VAT) is directly as a result of the cost of undertaking the assessment (2x assessors+expenses+admin) and generates a nominal surplus to the AC scheme. This fee also includes the first year's (from the date of approval) scheme subscription fee (currently £460+VAT) which includes the company entry onto the AA website and in the Directory. Perhaps 'pie in the sky' but the process needs to be viewed as an investment and the company/firm will, I believe (based on feedback from just about every contractor I've assessed in the last 5 years), be better for it (principally in terms of H&S compliance and some company administration but also, in some instances, work quality & working practices). SORRY to 'waffle on'...again, but I believe it's an important message to try and get across. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Czhey, glad you think the CYA leaflet is useful: Prices, inc. p&p are: 100 = £15 500 = £47.50 (for an order form see http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/ChoosingYourArborist_OrderForm.pdf) APOLOGIES STEVE IF I'M (UNINTENTIONALLY) BREAKING ANY FORUM RULES POSTING THIS AS IT COULD BE SEEN AS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY...BUT IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD! Rupe, A 'subbie' is also techncially a sub-contractor, the difference is the way we typically engage them is as 'labour only' rather than as a bona-fide sub-contractor, i.e another company in their own right (stump grinding for instance.) However, whether or not you would be expected to hold 'employers liability' insurance isn't clear. Many will be reluctant I would suggest, even if they really should, as it's something that HR Revenue & Customs could possibly use to get them to take staff 'on the books' (PAYE.) Cheers both.. Paul

Hi Andy, I'm not sure the LPA would be able to take direct action solely under the TPO in this case as (as I understand it) it's the 'ommission' of an act, i.e not placing protective fencing around the tree roots, rather than 'commission' of an act, i.e actually cutting tree roots. Having had some previous experience I'd be surprised if an LPA legal team would take this on as a smart defense barrister would simply ask..."are the tree roots cut?" NO!..."is the tree dead?" NO!..."is it showing symptoms of decline?" NO!..."can you say it will definately die?" NO!..."there is no case to be answered m'lud!" etc. etc. However, the fact the tree is TPO'd would likely add weight to the breach of planning condition issue, thereby allowing 'enforcement' to take place...but I still wouldn't be sure about successfully 'fining' them....unfortuantely! Sorry to be the pessismist but my experience of the planning system for protecting trees is that it's hugely 'hit & miss' and it needs a damned good Tree Officer to drive it PLUS cooperation by the developer AND a good consultant too....easy! Cheers all.. Paul

Reet, I'll have a quick stab at this one if I may. Firstly, as already pointed out (but I always did like 'repeats'), BS5837 is guidance/recommendations not legislation and does not contain any fines etc. Compliance with it, principally here in terms of 'protective fencing' requirements, is imposed through planning conditions under the TCPA (Town & Country Planning Act) 1990 (I believe) which does carry penalties if not complied with. Certainly TPOs/CAs are included here and the max fine for 'wilful damage' (prove it!) is £20k or 'unlimited' in the High Courts (on summary indictment) where the gain to be had far outweighs the £20k, i.e, typically on dev sites. However a potentially more damaging tool (and I don't fully uderstand this....sorry!) is for the LPA not to discharge the conditions on completion of the development if they were not complied with, i.e. if protective fencing wasn't erected in accrodance with submitted plans and associated approvals (planning enforcement should help here too), as somehow this prevents the developer from selling the properties, or prevents the buyer from purchasing, or summat like that but the outcome is the same....hence here we 'neeedeth the consultant'. The other thing, again a 'repeat', is that whilst LPAs must ensure appropriate conditions are imposed on the consent (approval, same thing) the reality is it's worth 'Jack Sh*t' if they don't follow it up on site and increasingly they are making conditions including 'arboricultural supervision', at the devs expense, and with a requirement to periodically notify the LPA that all is okay on site and the tree protection is in place and effective. Hoping this to be of interest but please don't quote me verbatim (I'm sure the principles are right tho!) Cheers.. Paul PS Re the likelihood of a succesful prosecution where 10tonne of soil was piled up against a tree OR constant vehicle traversing compacted the ground = very low IMO, n the tree don't help here coz what does he/her do, still comes into leaf for a couple or three years then gradually declines, then honey fungus gets involved AND all the time the original cause becomes less and less 'provable' (is there such a word?)....come on tree, curl up your toes n fall...quicker!

Reet Rupe, here we go (re-'subbies' & EL insurance)...I'm still not sure so will seek a view from HSE but the guidance (see http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse40.pdf) states: "You may need employers’ liability insurance for someone who works for you where: ■■ you deduct national insurance and income tax from the money you pay them; ■■ you have the right to control where and when they work and how they do it; ■■ you supply their work materials and equipment; ■■ you have a right to any profit your workers make although you may choose to share this with them through commission, performance pay or shares in the company; ■■ you require that person only to deliver the service and they cannot employ a substitute if they are unable to do the work; or ■■ they are treated in the same way as other employees, for example, they do the same work under the same conditions as someone else you employ. You may not need employers’ liability insurance for people who work for you where: ■■ they do not work exclusively for you (for example, if they operate as an independent contractor); ■■ they supply most of the equipment and materials they need to do the job; ■■ they are clearly in business for their own personal benefit; ■■ they can employ a substitute when they are unable to do the work themselves; ■■ you do not deduct income tax or national insurance. However, even if someone is self-employed for tax purposes they may be classed as an employee for other reasons and you may still need employers’ liability insurance to cover them." Helpful no?...aghhhh!!!! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Rupe, thanks for the post. RE-'sub-contract arborist' & EL insurance, I didn't think so (that they were covered) but I'll check and get back as I'm really not sure. ALL, several people mentioned about 'educating the client' as to what 'credentials'(?) they should expect a reputable and competent tree surgeon (a recognisable term in the domestic consumer world)/ 'arborist' to have which is a very valid point AND part of a 'professional service'. To assist with this the AA produce a leaflet called 'Choosing Your Arborist' (see Leaflet "Treework - Choosing your Arborist") which may help. I know many arborists leave a copy of this with the client, explaining the content (obviously, sorry!), when they first meet....as a consumer in an unknown world I'm convinced it would reassure them. Cheers.. Paul

Mark, as you quite rightly point out it's not a legal requirement to have PL insurance but EL (Employers Liability) is, if of course they have staff 'on the books' (unlikely). AND CS units are....PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment) Regs.1998 Reg 9 - Competence (see HSE Chainsaws at Work top p.3 http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg317.pdf) requires a 'certificate of competence' over anad above the requirement for 'adequate training' its the 'enforcement' of this by HSE that doesn't happen AND the 'awareness' of it as a legal requirement by clients engaging tree surgeons. Paul

Hi Johnty, You could try contacting your local HSE (Health & Safety Executive) office, probably Exeter, if you observe any serious regulatory breaches / unsafe working practices and if you've got your camera at the ready that might help to back up your claims. That said they are massively underfunded and under resourced so to be quite honest you'll be very (very) lucky to get a response from them, let alone a visit to site. They're much more about promoting, rather than enforcing, compliance these days and spend a lot of time educating prospective clients on their responsibilities and what to expect from competent contractors. I know it's a huge frustration (and worse) but you must take reassurance that your actions are those of a responsible arborist/emloyer and you can sleep well at nights with a clear conscience...as hard as it may be! Sorry no magic answers I'm afraid but sure just about everyone reading your posting will be wholly sympathetic to the cause. Keep up the good (and safe) work..! cheers.. Paul

Hi John, great 'piccies'! Can't comment on timber/milling value as I wouldn't have the 'foggyest' I'm afraid but a coupla of other pointers which are hopefully useful....ish! Firstly the 'recommendation' to notify the LPA (Local PLanning Authority, the formal speak for the Council's planning/tree dept.) is, I believe '5' and not 6 days and remember the legislation works 'a*se about face' here, in that you're (technically) guilty until you prove yourself innocent....not often contested BUT you must be sure to have your defence in place n I reckon your photo's do that. Remember also, thereafter, there is an automatic 'duty' to replace the tree unless agreed and dispensed with by the LPA (get it in writing/email.) In terms of what's happening on um I'll venture an opinion in that I too reckon the fungi are old 'mushy' toadstools of Honey Fungus (Armellaria mellia) doin what it does, i.e killin off weak trees, and the white stuff could either be the white mycelial sheet just under the bark, often associated with HF, or 'frass' from the beetles, i.e. the holes...are they the exit holes of Agrillis (a beetle/borer)???....right time to shoot that AA bloke down now eh (it's my best guess remember!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi Robert, Pretty sound advice so far with key pointers highlighted = there's a real community spirit on here and a sense of looking out for each other which is great. The only thing I would add is to ensure those joining the job are well briefed by the Foreman / SSC (Site Safety Coordinator, a construction site H&S term but one that many clients like) prior to signing and that the RA is reviewed at the start of each day, and indeed during the day if things change (significantly.) Hope the job goes well...sounds a 'biggie!' Paul

Hi Joe(?), ooooow that hurts! Trust it will be entered in the 'accident book' with some degree of investigation undertaken to id the 'root cause' (forgive the pun). Sounds obvious I know but it's unlikley it's just an accident...something failed somewhere to make it happen and that needs to be established, understood and, if necessary, risk assessments reviewed accordingly...mmm! Now back to polishing my 'NEBOSH' cert...('anorak'!) Get well soon and needless to say don't going sticking it anywhere you shouldn't and risking infection! Tc...Paul.

Dear 'Hamadryad', thanks for the post. Oooh, an (AA) “official” eh?...hopefully not too much so, but thanks for the welcome...sorry it took me so long to get here (there I go again!) I wholly agree, it’s about recognition both individually, to the ‘member’ or AAAC, AND collectively with the ‘critical mass’ in terms of industry representation which gives us a much ‘BIGGER’ voice, and more resources to get things done for the betterment of all. In terms of paying ‘subs’ this can be done now from as little as £52 a year (now I sound like a salesman eh?...’honist John!’), unfortunately this doesn’t give you access to ALL member benefits BUT it does make you a member. We do indeed endeavour to achieve ‘progress’ for members and the industry but to date this has been at a fairly slow, albeit steady, pace given the limited resources (principally time and money) we have available....there is so much yet to be done. John Flannigan (North Somerset DC) has been trying for some time to get the government to recognise the need for a ‘Tree Commission’, whether this is a ‘rebirth’ of the FC or a completely separate ‘new’ body (very unlikely IMO) doesn’t really matter, it’s all about raising the profile and funding for research on amenity trees. Obviously the AA is fairly well recognised in the ‘tree industry’ and is well positioned to assist with / input to this project but again it all about resources (‘the drum’ sounds again). We do not, and, as far as I’m aware, never have undertaken ‘random spot checks’ of ACs to ensure compliance etc. and I apologies (!) if you’ve been given that impression. Certain people / AC assessors strongly advocate this as a means of ‘controlling’ compliance and quality BUT, again, we don’t have the resources available so to do. I’m also not wholly convinced, in practice, these would be as effective as they first sound (although I do acknowledge the sound good and fairly obvious). Perhaps if clients brought their trees to a ‘tree surgery factory’ so when we arrived at their (the depot/factory) we would be guaranteed to see them working it could work. However the reality is it’s very difficult to achieve a ‘random, unannounced spot check’ unless you just happen to come across an AC on your travels. At the current time we are pursuing ‘self-auditing’ (I know that has its critics, and I understand why, but it’s better than nothing and most ACs really embrace it as they want their company to consistently perform well.) Also LA Tree Officers are very well placed to perform this role and we are in discussions with NATO (National Assoc. of Tree Officers) regarding protocols to achieve this. To conclude on this point (from my side), if we did implement it I’m convinced very few, if any, ACs would resign. Those who would do so probably already have when we implemented the reassessment programme in 2001, repeated from 2006....and ‘yes’ some’ did drop out and still do (thankfully tho each year more come on board so numbers are gradually increasing.) “The AA have a tough job, and I respect what it is they are trying to do, it has to be the toughest role and we should all be supporting that role in anyway we can. pay your subs pay your dues, the AA represent us all for better or worse and its a job you or I couldnt do any better!” Thank you for this, and I hope your ‘call’ has great effect, but I think (KNOW!) the AA still has much work to do to better engage with the industry representing ‘your’ interest and views AND winning your trust and support....again tho thanks for engaging with me and giving me the opportunity to present the AAs views. Thanks all. Paul

Danavan, thanks for the post. Rapid response as I’m on ‘curry cooking’ duties tonight...YUK! Basically I don’t believe the arb industry will ever become regulated by central government as: 1. We’re not high enough on the political agenda and they’ve more than enough stuff currently to keep them occupied. 2. Until such time as we either have more significant injuries / accidents, even tho our record’s not that great if you acknowledge HSE figures (I don’t as they’re contaminated with none professional accidents),and/or damage amenity trees on a regular basis then we’ll stay below their radar. 3. We’re a relatively small industry with a ‘little’ voice at government level (hence my call to pull together). 4. We’re already directly (PUWER Reg. 9 – chainsaw certs. competence = compulsory (in theory, who checks?)) and indirectly (HASWA, MHSWA, LOLER, W@H, FA, RIDDOR, COSHH etc. etc.) regulated anyway so why do we need anymore. 5. Unlike ‘Gas Safe’ (formerly CORGI), a frequent comparison, we don’t deal with a highly explosive substance inside (almost) every domestic, and commercial, property in the country. 6. Can’t think of this one at the moment but there’s probably more than enough above not to regulate us. I agree entirely, everyone subscribing here and taking the time to read the posts are working to a common goal, good quality tree care = good quality trees...simple as that really! Gotta dash I’m afraid mi onions are burnin! Cheers n enjoy rest of weekend. Paul Skyhuck, thanks for the comment and you’re more than welcomed (I should be thanking you for reading my ‘over long’ posts....good for insomnia!) I think it’s great that you’ve taken the time to post regardless of whether you support the AA or not, its really important we hear your views, and criticisms, so hopefully we can answer you. Whether you change your mind about us is entirely your choice and that I fully respect. Cheers again....sh*t onions now charred....”Hamadryad’ can I come back to you tomorrow....v sorry! Paul

Hi Andy, thank you for your post and it is my intention to be here for the 'long haul', so to speak, AND thank you also to all forum members for making me feel so welcomed (hope that's not famous last words). I acknowledge times are very difficult in the industry at the moment, this has impacted on the AA too with a colleague being made redundant AND no maternity cover for another (and why shouldn't it as we're innit together), and its aboslutely right to scrutinise every business outgoing to ensure it represents value for money (that's a very individual decision for all of us as circumstances are so different). In terms of what benefits will AAAC status bring, and thank you for the question, several...potentially. Firstly, and most importantly IMO, it would contribute towards the 'critical mass' I referred to in an earlier posting which = 'a bigger voice' and more resources. Also, you can view it as a company health check, which whilst not essential has to be viewed as an investment in ensuring you are operating in a manner compliant with regulations and consistent with industry good (best?) practice. This may also serve to protect your interest, as an employer, in the (hopefully unlikley) event of an incident / accident and investigation by HSE. Some ACs also report it's become easier to attract/retain staff as an AC (but IMO this is probbaly more to do with being a good employer). The other thing is access to certain tree work contracts as many, and 'anecdotally' an increasing number, express a preference for ACs OR award an additional score to ACs (if they use that mechanism in procurement). This is particularly the case since HSE have been running their 'Engaging Arb Contractors' SHADs (sorry, Safety and Health Awareness Days). It can secure further discounts on insurance premiums, some ACs by as much as 5% of premium. It now involves a dual award with CHAS, on full approval, as we carry the ability so to do thereby avoiding duplication to you, the contractor. Also many firms feel a sense of achievement and kudos and wear their badge with pride, so to speak, and it is probably from this that the term 'elitism' came in which isn't the case at all. Some conctractors see benefit in AC status, some don't, some clients request it, some don't, BUT (hopefully) we all work to the same standards day-in, day-out...nothing elitist about that, we're innit together (as they say). I'm sure there are other potential benefits that I haven't mentioned but one thing almost all, and yes I really do mean the vast majority and regardless of whtehr they pass or fail, say is that it's been a really useful exercise and they've seen great benefit in the process. Also we're not out to criticise in any way shape or form, 'yes' if something isn't right we'll flag it up, explain why (actually I usually get the named manager to do this whihc works really well, kind of a self-checking process AND works extremely well when scrutinising work quality) AND then offer advice and guidance on how to address it, i.e. we don't leaving them in the lurch and floundering. Andy, sorry I have to dash at this point as I have a 4pm training session with my sons and their junior footie team, great fun, even tho I do always get a good kicking. PLEASE respond if you have further questions or I haven't addressed anything adequately...thank you! Paul

Thanks 'D', and yes I'm here to stay I'm afraid, well at leats until Steve bars me, AND with Mr Eden's blessing..."s*d the paperwork this is far more important"! Will pass on your 'Hello'. Have a good weekend (sadly no '6 Nations'...boooo!) Paul

Congrats 'Warhammer', no mean fete these days in particular as the 'Tech. Certs. a toughie! Good luck for the ME day in Chorley (my old stomping ground) be sure to listen to 'Chorley FM' (Peter Kay) on the way and that'll settle ur nerves. Cheers.. Paul

Robert, many thanks for your reply and confirmation that the posts are useful, I really welcome the opportunity so to do. Okay 'verbose' maybe, why use one word when ten will do. Cheers.. Paul