+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IFA RO only as approved contractors (/showthread.php?tid=4146)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - moreno - 26th October 2011
trowelfodder Wrote:So does this mean that we are now moving close to membership of the IFA being compulsory?
And will this change the status of the organisation?
Will it be become a chartered institution and is this the position that they are aiming for all along by engineering this situation?
To be honest, it has been my feeling since this issue was raised (Council policies requiring RAO's, MIFA to undertake work) over ca. 10 years ago that this would eventually become the case. I did post a similar issue ages ago (back in 2004). I have my own reasons for not joining the IFA, I don't dispute that some of their aims are useful, yet I do not always support their aims nor do I feel like I should be forced to do so and feel that they far from represent field staff. Obviously these issues have been thrown around in the forum (s) for yonks.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 26th October 2011
I'm the same really, I did join the IFA as a student member and still believe that their list standards is fantastic - I have issues with other aspects and am concerned that if my hand is to forced into joining then I will have to seriously rethink my career plans. I want to know what is happening so I can make an informed decision.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 26th October 2011
Seeing all these posts suggest the following.
a) The old and oft used rule - Have they successfully completed work to a standard. - Does not cut it any more?
b) There is a requirement for a higher power than the Curator?
c) An RO - is only as good as the people in it. and only as good as the management of the people. WE can all recite cases wher an RO has done terrible work and a non RO has done great work (and visa versa) so what does this say about the current system?
d) Are curators saying that the current system does not work and there are too many cases of non-ROs doing questionable work that they are powerless to stop. and worse... they can do it over and over again - as the curator can't stop the company continuing to work no matter how many bad jobs they do?
rEgulation? or monopoly?
ps.. in answer to the tongue in cheek remark about BAJR's Contractor list - yes I do }
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Sparky - 26th October 2011
Host,
Further to your question (d), are curators unanimous in supporting RO status for all units operating in their regions? If not, then this situation will only apply to a few stalwart curators, and the remaining will use those tried, tested and trusted whether RO or not, as it is now.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 26th October 2011
Quote:Vulpes I think that calling me a liar is unacceptable
You're right. It would be if I had. But I stand by my comment. If what you're saying is true and is actually the stated policy of a council or councils then you would be within the AUP to post it. Just I have been all day!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 26th October 2011
and
e) is it legal for a planning authority to prevent non ROs working in an area and by what authority can they demand that membership of an organisation which membership of is optional and not wholy accepted by the industry
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 26th October 2011
Vulpes please stop pressing this point - until 100% confirmation on the public positions of the councils is gathered no names are to be posted and as previously stated that is not the main issue.
I n order to be clear that there would be no issues for BAJR arising from disclosure I will not be goaded into doing something which may cause problems later - and the editing of previous posts shows that others are of a similar opinion.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 26th October 2011
trowelfodder Wrote:and
e) is it legal for a planning authority to prevent non ROs working in an area and by what authority can they demand that membership of an organisation which membership of is optional and not wholy accepted by the industry
I am guessing that the legal advice given to the IfA is that a curator can insist upon a contractor/organisation having to show commitment to a level of standard of service and/or indemnity that is above and beyond mere lip service. In the same way that a planning authority can insist upon a 'registered' contractor in other areas where development control is an issue.....Doesn't have to be one that everyone or even the majority adhere to, but one that is appropriate for the matter at hand. I'm trying to think of a parallel...um...maybe it would be something like a planning authority insisting that roof repairs to a listed building are carried out by a Member of the National Council of Master Thatchers rather than just any old roof repair contractor.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 26th October 2011
Quote:Vulpes please stop pressing this point
ohhh apologies was just trying to clear my name from your previous accusation.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 26th October 2011
Kevin the wording would be something like 'properly accredited' and the interpretation could be IFA member of some kind. The Listed Building example is not great as this falls under the separate LB consent regime and so would likely be dealt with under that. And 'like for like' repairs don't need consent anyway... I think there was some guidance in the IFA article but I can't find my Autumn 2010 copy to cite!