AA Teccie (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

Hi (sorry, not quite sure how best to address you.) Unfortunately, not really operating in the world of education, I cannot offer any meaningful advice or comment on how the various 'levels' of qualifications are determined and arranged. However I would expect it to be in a structured and consistent manner based on course content, depth and no. of hours study etc., rather than being 'arbitrary'. Not quite sure I understand your comment about those who have invested in education losing out...unless it's a cryptic reference to our illustrious current politicians? Perhaps I'm missing the point completely (apologies if so) but an early start and a full day 'keyboard bashing' has rather fired my brain. Best regards. Paul

Dear Arbtalk members, and in particular 'Bundle 2' who posted this question. As the person at the Association who determines 'Technician Member' applications I would like to offer further comment on this posting if I may. Whilst I recognise your frustrations, more particularly as someone holding not just one BUT two qualifications AND that if they sat with a different awarding body they would qualify you for Technician member, I'm afraid we entirely 'map' the AA membership grades against the National Qualifications Framework (NQF, as was) now QCF (Qualifications & Credits Framework)). The difference between C&Gs & BTEC, as I have been informed, is that the latter is generallly a 2 year course, as opposed to 1 year, and the technical content of the course is correspondingly to a higher level. Regarding your PTI certification, which isn't techncially a 'qualification' as such as it hasn't been through the due process and registered with the QCA (Qual. & Curriculum Authority), whilst very well recognised (and very hard to achieve) is classed as CPD and would, for instance, support an application from an 'equivalent' qualification holder at level 3, i.e. ND Hort. / ND Forestry. Hoping this clarifies matters, at least a little,...I need a (strong) coffee now!' Thanks all.. Paul

Hi, As others have pointed out the FSB can be very useful in assisting you to comply with ALL those other areas you need to comply with if your are an employer that are nothing to do with arb. The 'Employment Law' issue itself I would suggest is reaosn enough to consider it as this changes almost weekly theese days and ensuring you keep up-to-speed is essential to avoid breaching the law and/or neglecting your duties. Many 'Approved Contractors' are members and feel it gives them value for money AND piece of mind. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Jojam, Apologies for my late reply and if you've already had this information. I would suggest that once the clients requirement go from a standard quote to production of an inventory, including tagging, that fundamentally changes things. As a nominal fee I would suggest to tag and list a tree would be £5 per tree (for instance), the associated work spec would probably be part of your 'free quotes' service, and perhaps the arrangement could be to discount that amount from the actual works on securing the job...sounds reasonable to me?! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Martyn1, I'm no 'legal eagle', and your post presents a very interesting conodrum, however I will try to offer a (personal) opinion. Whilst I quite agree that including a clause on your written quoatation stating 'All arising to be removed from site', or words to that effect, infers you are taking possesion of the timber I'm not sure that would stand up to a legal challenge. This particular case may now be down to gentle persuasion, a little bluffing perhaps, and careful negotiation BUT ideally, I would suggest, it should either state on the writtten quote that the price includes 'with any timber value transferring to yourself, or to include the value of the timber'...or summat like that, OR to include some quite specifc wording to that effect in your 'terms and conditions of service' AND, ideally, getting them (the customer) to sign to accept your quote and thereby the 'Ts & Cs' (although verbal aceptance does act to secure a 'contract'.) Sorry doesn't offer a solution on this occasion but hopefully may avoid a repeat in future. To ALL readers of my reply I promise I will try to be shorter and more concise in replying in future instead of 'waffling on man!' Cheers all. P.

Morning forum members, I just wanted to post a quick 'thank you' to those who contributed to our on-line Approved Contractor scheme (which I manage) questionnaire, your views are greatly valued. The 'full' feedback is now available on the AA webiste (http://www.trees.org.uk) should you wish to view it (in total it runs to about a hundred pages so I'd grab a coffee...or summat stronger, before you settle down to read!) We are now in the process of analysing the feedback (and ALL 1,145 comments) which will then inform the process further. There should also be a 'summary' report posted shortly. Once again 'MANY THANKS ALL' and have a good weekend. Paul