AA Teccie (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

Hi John, Sorry, I may have missed your point here but do you mean the Association has 'self-appointed' rather than, for instance, being elected so to do BY the industry? If so, it is my understanding that the origins of the Association are from the industry, albeit Surrey/Hants based at the time, and we do seek to be democratic (although worryingly that has political tones which probably does us no good in the current climate...MY expenses are minimal though..."honist guv!") with the various committees and appointed Trustees we have etc. I wholly agree that whilst we (honestly) try to be representative of the industry it is very difficult at times (frequently) as we seek to be "all things to all...people", i.e. we endeavour to service ALL sectors of the industry from contracting, to consulting, to LA Tree Officers, to reserachers etc. etc. and, probably inevitably, we don't always do this well (in fact I know we don't and, t'be honist, that's in part why I'm here today...COZ we/I recognise we need to do more and thankfully a chap by the name of Nick Beardmore (thanks Nick!) suggested this may be a good way of communicating with a wider industry base as many of you guys, and guy'esses, are the 'hub' of the industry...without you there wouldn't be an industry (now I do sound like a bl**dy politician...sorry!)) Contentious comment I know BUT the Association does seek to be wholly inclusive (no reference to the male reproductive glands here please!) for the industry BUT again 'critcial mass' is the issue. The other day an AC asked why the AA cannot provide legal/HR advice as part of the scheme as they pay us much more than the Fed. of Small Businesses (FSB) and they can do it? The difference is the FSB have 250,000 members (apparently) paying between £250 & £500 (I think) a year = that's why! Perhaps I should have put my posting name down as 'waffle man' rather than AA Teccie but I'm trying to give you the full picture. Re -the ISA, IMO the Cert. Arb. they introduced into the UK (thanks to Mr Dowson for his valuable input here) was 'the best thing since sliced bread', it's an excellent qualification, as I mentioned previously my personal opinon is it should be at level 3 not 2, in recognition of it's value (this is experienced first hand when we assess named manager knowledge and the people with ISA Cert. Arb. always do very well and in particular re-Shigo's stuff...'the late, great Dr.!') But it is fundamentally different as an 'award' being an individuals qualification rather than a company accreditation, albeit it can form an integral part of this! Hoping I've answered everyone fully (you're probably 'over full') and 'thanks' for the opportunity! Have a great weekend. Paul

Hi Danavan, Your points are very valid and prudent AND I'm more than happy to post openly...albeit at the risk of 'hogging' this particular forum...sorry all! 'Mis-use of the logo' is a real pain in my side (& the AAs) to be quite honest, and even though the AA have registered the logo's privately (thereby allowing us to take direct civil action as opposed to relying on Trading Standards to take criminal action which they're often loathe to do) it is still very difficult, time consuming AND expensive to do so but we have previously, and won, AND it cost the AA approx. £35k to do so and the contractor concerned is paying back at £5 a week, or summat stupid like that...'what a crazy world we live in eh?...(it's always the good guys who lose out even when they think they've won...AGHHHHH!!!!!...sorry!) RE-BBC Watchdog/Rogue Traders, we have approached them, several times, making them aware of us and the AAACs etc. but for some reason we're not quite 'prime time TV' material (mind you have you seen us on the AA website...sorry 'girls'!) Jokin apart we have made a bit of a break through here very recently so 'watch this space' in the future (fingers "x'd"!) It's an uphill struggle all the way BUT I firmly believe that, in the absence of imposed regulation from central government (which'll never happen IMO), 'self-regulation' is the only option to move the industry forward significantly and at this moment in time the only real vehicle to do so is the AC scheme (but then I would say that.....COZ I firmly believe in it BUT we don't have the 'critical mass' currently!) Cheers all.. Paul

Hi Mestereh, thanks for your post. You highlight a problem I'm very aware of and it's one we are placing a great deal of emphasis on during reassessments. The key, as I see it coz constant reassessments every time a climber leaves a larger company would be unreasonable, is to have in place a good 'named manager' actively auditing work quality on a regular basis and addressing problems as they arise. This combined with the LA Tree Officer fraternity actively monitoring contractors work quality in their area AND reporting to the AA when poor quality work is observed (on a regular rather than 'one off' basis as everyone can have a bad day) will hopefully improve the situation. We often tell companies "you're only ever as good as your worst job and everyone in the world will see it" in an attempt to emphasise why 'audits' are important (we've developed a work quality audit form I'm happy to share for info AND comment, email me direct [email protected])! Any other ideas / thoughts please let me know. Cheers.. Paul PS Your grammar looks fine to me (not that I've ever met her...ha!), communication is the key and your point comes across very well!

ALL, sorry to be 'hogging' this subject but I justed wanted to reply to a very good point posted by 'Arborist Sites' earlier to which I did reply but lost it...I T isn't my forte! Its regarding accessibility to the scheme for smaller companies and what we are doing as this is clearly an obstacle voiced on many occasions. Principally we are looking to adopt a modular approach to the scheme which will include (probably) 4 modules, broadly speaking: 1. Office procedures & customer care 2. H&S compliance 3. Worksite/workplace audit 4. Work quality audit ...or similar. The idea being the smaller contractor will be able to attain the scheme in bitesize chunks and achieve modules as they go. All modules to be completed within a 24 month window, for example. This will cost more in the long run, unfortunately, as it will incur extra visits and more admin etc. (poss. £300 per module x4 = £1,200 as opposed to the 'one off' assessment, which will still be available, and currently costs £870)...or something along those lines as the finer details have yet to be developed. Those fees are a result of the direct cost incurred to the scheme by 2x assessors+expenses+admin etc. and this generates a nominal surplus. The other key issue we need to also look at here is, is it fair that a larger contractor, with multiple gangs, is subject to the same level of assessment as a smaller contractor running just one gang, as that is what currently happens? Clearly the answer is 'no', as the larger contractor should be subjected to a longer assessment duration and this is something we are also considering. Lastly there is the possibility of a 'half-fat' approach being developed around the CHAS status we can now award, in that we could posisbly have an AA CHAS contractor who would have completed modules 2&3 above but this may serve to potentially confuse the issue for the client. Everything is in the 'melting pot' at the moment so if you've any other thoughts or proposals to assist here I'm very keen to hear them...please! Many thanks for reading this posting..! Paul

Hi Robert, thanks for your post. Basically it was something of a historical thing, that no-one other than AA Approved Contractors and Registered Consultants were entitled to use the Association's logo and recognised the fact they subjected themselves to rigorous assessment protocols and paid a lot of money (relatively speaking) for the privilege. However as you quite rightly point out this approach is wholly inconsistent with most other industry organisations and associations who actively encourage use of their logo's to the benefit of both the 'user' and the organisation and raise the awareness and profile of both in so doing. Hence, I'm pleased to advise this is on the 'agenda', so to speak, and at the BoD/Trustees level for consideration. Obviously though we need to think very carefully about the impact this will have on ACs & RCs and ensure we act accordingly in ensuring we still represent their best interest too. The ISA Cert. Arb. is indeed very well recognised qualification and will undoubtedly increase your company profile too by displaying such. Indeed the Association included this alongside AAAC in the 'Choose Your Arborist' leaflet we produced (see http://www.trees.org.uk/treework.php) Cheers.. Paul

Hi John, you're absolutely right in that why duplicate things just for the sake of it (thats why we can now award CHAS with AAAC, which in turn has recognition with other H&S accreditations)...however that's not the case with AAAC & ISA Cert. Arborist The key difference between the AC status and the ISA Certified Arborist is that of company practices and compliance etc. as opposed to an individuals qualifications (which is very well recognised and respected in the industry AND personally, one I feel should be recognised higher than NQF level 2 as it is currently.) Hence AAAC is a company accreditation and ISA CA is an individual qualification. The other important thing is that the AAAC scheme carries with it a 'quality assurance' backup for clients with its formal complaints procedure (and which has resulted on sanctions being imposed on ACs, albeit thankfully not that often as we don't receive that many.) This thing gets addictive! Paul

All, Apologies, I've justed posted a further reply and it's disappeared into the ether (I'll see if Steve can help to recover it as it details proposals we have which I'm sure you'll be interested to hear. If not I'll post again later.) We do seek to be the 'industry representative' body AND to be fully inclusive and we have several (approx. 30%) ACs who are 'small', i.e. less than 5 employees, AND whilst they have to demonstrate compliance with all elements of the standards, as do all, the way in which they do so can vary greatly. Customer contact / care systems is a good example, in a small company this usually all takes place in the owners/managers diary with a mobile phone whereas in a larger company there may be 2 or 3 people involved and a couple of different computer systems...it's 'horses for course', as long as Mrs Miggins gets a return call, a visit and a quote politely and in a reasonable time frame that's all we're after. Gotta dash the day jobs pressing. Thanks again for asking! Paul

Thanks for your reply 'Arborist Sites', I wholly acknowledge your point and 'policing' of the scheme is extremely difficult and, as I see it, the LA Tree Officer has a key role to play here as they are often the persons best placed so to do AND area often the biggest critics of ACs...so why not let me know directly AND provide photo's etc. Although I have to say that often their, or rather their Highway Engineers, tree work specifications result in none BS3998 compliant works being undertaken. This is a very difficult one, and yes the reality is that if the company performs well on the assessment day they get the badge, so to speak, hence much emphasis is placed on the 'named manager role' and the fact they have responsibilities to ensure high quality work standards are maintained all the time. We have recently placed a much greater emphasis on 'self auditing' in this area in a bid to ensure this is acheived BUT again much of it's down trust and integrity. As you also say there are many ACs out there doing excellent work, as there are EVEN more none ACs also doing excellent work, and surely it would be to the benefit of all if we joined forces someway to jointly market ourselves and promote standards....dunno?! RE- 'elitism' I didn't ever mean to promote ACs as such, and I'm not aware we have, BUT I can accept there's a perception of such. What we seek to principally offer is an external accrediation of operational and work quality competence, that are relevant to arboricultural contracting, and that is useful to clients as an industry benchmark. ISO9001 is a completely different type of award, as I'm sure you are aware, and whilst we cover some aspects of office procedures and systems management etc. we are principally concerned with H&S compliance and 'competence' performance. Thanks for your comments and the oportunity to reply. Paul

Danavan, sorry no 'shoot downs' nor 'harsh comments' otherwise I'll get my marching orders BUT I completely acknowledge we need to do more to market the Approved Contractor (ACs) scheme and promote the standards for the benefit of all...and we are, albeit not in as big a way as most ACs would like us to as unfortunately we have limited resources with which to do this (BUT of course more ACs = more annual subs = more resources = more marketing & promoting). The other thing here is that those companies who actively market & promote themselves on attainment of AC status do far better in terms of 'new' business generation than those who don't, may sound an obvious comment but my point is it has to be a 'two pronged' attack and, unfortunately those who achieve the status and sit back expecting the calls to come rolling in may have plenty of time for coffee and biccies. The scheme qualifying criteria (see http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/aaactcs.pdf, hope I'm not breaching any forum rules here Steve) seek to be a 'benchmark' for arboricultural contracting AND are recognised as such by the HSE, hence we attend their workshops for clients, Local Authorities etc., promoting them as such. SORRY, I'm veering from your point, currently the re-assessment fees for ACs (2010 = £781.61+VAT) are incurred every 5 years, this is very likely to change to every 4 years from 2011, and there is an annual subs fee too (2010 = £460+VAT) AND 'Yeah' you don't ahve to be an AC to operate a successful tree company BUT if more were, and hence we had a 'voluntary regulation scheme' for the industry, we would have a bigger voice and better recognition....'SOAP BOX' removed! Finally if any ACs feel we do "leave them in the lurch" post reassessment PLEASE contact me directly and I'll do all I can to help. Thanks for the posting Danavan. Paul

Hi Tom, It's actually my colleague Guy Watson who determines 'Prof. Member' apps but I would certainly consider applying on the basis of your current qualifications & CPD etc. which looks quite favourable. HOWEVER, the current requirement is that you need to have been a member at Technician or Associate grade for the preceeding 2 years. Paul