Licensing builders.

imago

Private Member
#1
I see we're a step closer to getting a licensing scheme for builders. From the 17th of October Trustmark have had their role expanded to become the government endorsed quality scheme for building work. Given their tie in with the FMB, and the amount of lobbying work which they do, along with advising the government on the framework for licensing it's easy to see how things are moving. The clock is ticking, and at long last the time of the self-identified builder may be coming to a close. (y)

Vetting the business, independent inspections by the BBA, dispute procedures and a code of conduct won't clear up all the ne'er do wells, but it'll knock their numbers down.

It also means I get another sticker pack, so I can cover a couple of rusty bits on the tipper doors. :sorprendido3:
 

Stevieo

Well-Known Member
#2
I see we're a step closer to getting a licensing scheme for builders. From the 17th of October Trustmark have had their role expanded to become the government endorsed quality scheme for building work. Given their tie in with the FMB, and the amount of lobbying work which they do, along with advising the government on the framework for licensing it's easy to see how things are moving. The clock is ticking, and at long last the time of the self-identified builder may be coming to a close. (y)

Vetting the business, independent inspections by the BBA, dispute procedures and a code of conduct won't clear up all the ne'er do wells, but it'll knock their numbers down.

It also means I get another sticker pack, so I can cover a couple of rusty bits on the tipper doors. :sorprendido3:
Sounds a mare...what criterion do they plan to apply to this?
 

imago

Private Member
#3
Sounds a mare...what criterion do they plan to apply to this?
Very similar to current FMB membership if the proposals are accurate.

Checks on the business, and person/s (qualifications, experience, insurances etc). A BBA building inspector comes out (currently every three years) to check jobs and ask you questions about what you do level of experience, how you do it etc). You have to use contracts for all work, trading standards are involved if there are any disputes, and you have to follow a code of conduct.

Nothing too onerous, it basically comes down to being competent and not acting like a cnut.
 

Stevieo

Well-Known Member
#4
Very similar to current FMB membership if the proposals are accurate.

Checks on the business, and person/s (qualifications, experience, insurances etc). A BBA building inspector comes out (currently every three years) to check jobs and ask you questions about what you do level of experience, how you do it etc). You have to use contracts for all work, trading standards are involved if there are any disputes, and you have to follow a code of conduct.

Nothing too onerous, it basically comes down to being competent and not acting like a cnut.
HA!!!

I'd almost go as far as not to hire someone who's a member of FMB.

Absolute fuckign rubbish. Pay for a logo to put on your advert.
 

Stevieo

Well-Known Member
#6
I doubt that'll have too much of a negative impact on anyone's workload.



OK, so what's the alternative?
I'm not knocking the initiative. I'm just knocking the FMB. Good sounding name, but that's about it.

I think the answer lies in some sort of cuntbook. Excluding people from contracting, rather than licencing them.
 

imago

Private Member
#7
I'm not knocking the initiative. I'm just knocking the FMB. Good sounding name, but that's about it.

I think the answer lies in some sort of cuntbook. Excluding people from contracting, rather than licencing them.
I felt exactly the same about the FMB. For years they were just a 'pay and display' outfit that didn't really do anything for anyone. About six years ago they had a big change of management following some legal action. They started the inspections and then booted off 40% of the members for being sh1t or not being builders at all.

Now they're tied to trustmark and BSI, and are working with the government. They've cleaned house and genuinely seem interested in making things better.

It won't be a perfect scheme, none of them ever are, but if they can get to the stage they're at in Portugal or Belgium for example that can only improve things.

This article in construction magazine from a few years ago makes interesting reading on how bad things are, and how much they could be improved with a licensing scheme.
 

Rossi46

Private Member
#8
O dear, this won’t bode well for young @loadon after just escaping skimming too.
 

Nicm

Well-Known Member
#9
I felt exactly the same about the FMB. For years they were just a 'pay and display' outfit that didn't really do anything for anyone. About six years ago they had a big change of management following some legal action. They started the inspections and then booted off 40% of the members for being sh1t or not being builders at all.

Now they're tied to trustmark and BSI, and are working with the government. They've cleaned house and genuinely seem interested in making things better.

It won't be a perfect scheme, none of them ever are, but if they can get to the stage they're at in Portugal or Belgium for example that can only improve things.

This article in construction magazine from a few years ago makes interesting reading on how bad things are, and how much they could be improved with a licensing scheme.
Anything that puts a stop to cowboy builders has to be a step in the right direction.
 

Lodan

Well-Known Member
#12
O dear, this won’t bode well for young @loadon after just escaping skimming too.
Will make no odds to me mate, I have the right insurance, will make sure I've passed any courses they require necessary to be part of their scheme and they'll come and look at a job or two for competency I'm fine with all of that. Only bit I don't like is I bet you'll have to pay each year like sparks and gas engineers do
 

imago

Private Member
#16
Will make no odds to me mate, I have the right insurance, will make sure I've passed any courses they require necessary to be part of their scheme and they'll come and look at a job or two for competency I'm fine with all of that. Only bit I don't like is I bet you'll have to pay each year like sparks and gas engineers do
I doubt anyone interested in doing a good job will have anything to worry about. It'll probably follow the competence models that the electrical does for example.

There's no way that they'll miss an opportunity to charge. Currently FMB membership and TrustMark registration combined are £600 a year. That said I get more than ten times that in enquiries/jobs direct from people looking specifically for builders on the FMB site. The jobs that come through are from people who are interested in quality and will pay a premium for it.
 

Lodan

Well-Known Member
#17
I doubt anyone interested in doing a good job will have anything to worry about. It'll probably follow the competence models that the electrical does for example.

There's no way that they'll miss an opportunity to charge. Currently FMB membership and TrustMark registration combined are £600 a year. That said I get more than ten times that in enquiries/jobs direct from people looking specifically for builders on the FMB site. The jobs that come through are from people who are interested in quality and will pay a premium for it.
I agree mate, will only drive standards up and that can only be a good thing for everyone, but your right they'll never miss an opportunity to charge but wouldn't expect anything less, I bet eventually they'll be a full licencing for all domestic trade where you have to pay subs, treasury needs to get extra money from somewhere.
 

imago

Private Member
#18
I agree mate, will only drive standards up and that can only be a good thing for everyone, but your right they'll never miss an opportunity to charge but wouldn't expect anything less, I bet eventually they'll be a full licencing for all domestic trade where you have to pay subs, treasury needs to get extra money from somewhere.
I reckon they'll tweak the CIS to take care of that side of things. It's a pain, but it does seem to work OK for @Nisus I deduct his 20% on my jobs and hand it to HMRC but as he also does his own direct domestic work it means he's on for a nice rebate at the end of the tax year.

The people licensing will hammer are those working without insurance, not offering warranties, doing sh1t work, dodging BC etc. It will also be much harder for people coming into the trade after it's introduction. People already in will be sitting pretty if they go along with the changes.
 

zolco

Private Member
#19
Fmb is a pile of wank, same as nhbc just have a look what they sign off as new homes built by the national housebuilders, that will give you the right idea how much is it worth for the punters who buy the houses. Being fmb registered or fair trade or checkatrade will make you no more or less. BC haven't a clue most times what is going on in a build as 90% of them didn't come from construction background, all they do is tick the boxes and pass the ball.
 

imago

Private Member
#20
Fmb is a pile of wank, same as nhbc just have a look what they sign off as new homes built by the national housebuilders, that will give you the right idea how much is it worth for the punters who buy the houses. Being fmb registered or fair trade or checkatrade will make you no more or less. BC haven't a clue most times what is going on in a build as 90% of them didn't come from construction background, all they do is tick the boxes and pass the ball.
OK, so what's the alternative?

I think most agree that the system as it is doesn't work and needs change to get rid of, or at least reduce the number of cowboys. That would have to be done nationally and requires government legislation which then has to be introduced to the industry. The only organisations capable of that are the likes of TrustMark, FMB, CITB.

I would suggest it also requires a law change to prevent directors walking away from Ltd companies, but that's not likely to happen.
 

zolco

Private Member
#21
OK, so what's the alternative?

I think most agree that the system as it is doesn't work and needs change to get rid of, or at least reduce the number of cowboys. That would have to be done nationally and requires government legislation which then has to be introduced to the industry. The only organisations capable of that are the likes of TrustMark, FMB, CITB.

I would suggest it also requires a law change to prevent directors walking away from Ltd companies, but that's not likely to happen.
Make BC up to standard they should be the first line of defence to guard both parties as such, as they on the ground on a build whereas fmb, trustmark, fair trade etc only as and when and they just government endorsed nothing else they have no power other than remove the "builder" from a listing.
Give BC proper up to date training on building methods and materials, they haven't a clue most of the time.
They already ban people being directors in new firms after they found guilty, but UK laws are outdated and slow and cost a fortune.
If they start licensing builders they should start licensing customers too. We're all human and there's c**ts in both groups
 

imago

Private Member
#22
Make BC up to standard they should be the first line of defence to guard both parties as such, as they on the ground on a build whereas fmb, trustmark, fair trade etc only as and when and they just government endorsed nothing else they have no power other than remove the "builder" from a listing.
Give BC proper up to date training on building methods and materials, they haven't a clue most of the time.
They already ban people being directors in new firms after they found guilty, but UK laws are outdated and slow and cost a fortune.
If they start licensing builders they should start licensing customers too. We're all human and there's c**ts in both groups
Using BC won't work.

They only get to see part of a job after it's done, they don't check quality of finish, nothing in the building regs require insurance, nothing in the building regs covers disputes (they specifically refuse to arbitrate) and they have no involvement in the skill or ability of the people doing the work. You can meet every aspect of the building regs, but leave an absolute horror behind you. The onus is always on the customer to ensure building control are notified.

There are huge parts of the work which don't fall under the building regs, and some work falls outside of building regs entirely. No notification required, if they're not notified they never see it.

Take plastering a living room in a 1930s semi for example. Customer gets someone in and they strip walls back to brick because the plaster's loose, board or float the walls then skim it.

Job goes fine and the customer's happy with the finish, but it breaches building regs (remove more than 25% of a wall finish and the replacement has to meet current regs for the entire wall). No one's ever going to know.

Alternatively the plasterer makes a complete lash of it and leaves a sh1t job. The customer has no recourse as the plasterer isn't registered or even trading properly.

Building control are no help whatsoever.
 

zolco

Private Member
#23
Using BC won't work.

They only get to see part of a job after it's done, they don't check quality of finish, nothing in the building regs require insurance, nothing in the building regs covers disputes (they specifically refuse to arbitrate) and they have no involvement in the skill or ability of the people doing the work. You can meet every aspect of the building regs, but leave an absolute horror behind you. The onus is always on the customer to ensure building control are notified.

There are huge parts of the work which don't fall under the building regs, and some work falls outside of building regs entirely. No notification required, if they're not notified they never see it.

Take plastering a living room in a 1930s semi for example. Customer gets someone in and they strip walls back to brick because the plaster's loose, board or float the walls then skim it.

Job goes fine and the customer's happy with the finish, but it breaches building regs (remove more than 25% of a wall finish and the replacement has to meet current regs for the entire wall). No one's ever going to know.

Alternatively the plasterer makes a complete lash of it and leaves a sh1t job. The customer has no recourse as the plasterer isn't registered or even trading properly.

Building control are no help whatsoever.
I see you would prefer to have a builder who's fmb listed who will get a subbie in to skim a few walls making sure it's up to standard.
 

imago

Private Member
#24
I see you would prefer to have a builder who's fmb listed who will get a subbie in to skim a few walls making sure it's up to standard.
Not really, I'd just like the playing field to be levelled and get rid of some of the utter dog sh1te that's out there.

That said, if the builder's license is at risk as they are responsible for the subbie's work (as currently with the FMB) then that's a good thing IMHO.
 

Ronnie

Active Member
#25
Will it help or protect good builders who have bad customers in anyway?