Anonymous allegation

[Sparky]

As much as I sympathise with Trowelfodder, I would urge people to lodge complaints and supply evidence in the form of photos, diaries, emails, letters etc. If the IfA don't act then make it public as long as the case is strong; name and shame. I would be very interested to hear of complaints made and whether the outcome was sufficient or not. I wonder how many people have been fobbed off with 'We'd prefer you sort it out between yourselves...'.

If it can be shown that the IfA have more concern of maintaining membership than standards, then that indeed will be very worrying.

[BAJR]

I would urge people to lodge complaints and supply evidence in the form of photos, diaries, emails, letters etc.

These are the key elements, which can often be forgotten about at teh time... PROOF!!!!

I wonder how many people have been fobbed off with 'We'd prefer you sort it out between yourselves...'.

quite a lot - allegedly :face-angel:


Intersting that we now have Whistleblowing adverts... on teh google ads... Sometimes annonimity is essential... but so is proof!

[kevin wooldridge]

Are any County Lists RO only? Is that legal? Surely they'd be wide open to being taken to the cleaners in court by non-ROs who could demonstrate a sufficient level of competence? RO status has no legal validity whatsoever and hence surely can't be used as the basis for a bar? :face-stir:

The IfA has received legal advice suggesting that 'RO only tender lists' are legal and are investigating the adoption of such lists. This news has been known to IfA members for a while now. Surprised that it hasn't leaked through to non-IfA members!!.

Would be interested as to whether any non-RAO is big enough or rich enough to discover contrary legal opinion and challenge the IfA on this matter. They may have a case but 'taking someone to the legal cleaners' when legal opinion would seem to be at least 50% in favour of the other side is a high risk, potentially bankrupting course of action...

[Dinosaur]

So in fact it is IFAs agenda to create a 'closed shop'? - have suggested this before on other threads and it's been adamantly denied by pretty much everyone, but surely that's what RO only lists constitute, preventing anyone else from working? :face-stir:

[BAJR]

They may have a case but 'taking someone to the legal cleaners' when legal opinion would seem to be at least 50% in favour of the other side is a high risk, potentially bankrupting course of action...

on the other hand, it also means that the company would either have to join the IfA OR go down the tubes?

[Dinosaur]

Sounds like a Restrictive Practice to me.....how can an organisation representing a minority of the profession think it has the right to dictate how the majority function? Would be interesting if IFA published lists of who's left each year, and ideally state why, am aware of a few reasonably high-profile ex-members.....sadly rules prevent examples other than BAJR of course....

[vulpes]

As I've pointed out several times recently. There is no need for Local Planning Authorities to themselves maintain lists, RO only or otherwise. Especially when there is a perfectly good list of accredited individuals and companies supplied by the relevant professional body to which people can be directed.

[kevin wooldridge]

I am not privy to the legal advice that IfA have recieved regarding closed tenderer lists, but if they were to ask me I would suggest they looked at Schedule 3 of The Competition Act 1998 which states:

1. — (1) The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement— (a)to the extent to which it is a planning obligation;

(The prohibition in this case being that the agreement is anti-competitive or a restrictive practice). Seems to me that the Competition Act 1998 allows closed lists of approved tenderers for services which are a planning obligation. Er....such as archaeology...

Of course the IfA may have recieved legal advice on another area of UK law....I wouldn't know...but they seem to be covered fine and dandy under the Competition Act 1998!! Closed lists are not a restrictive practice if they are used in conjunction with planning obligations....

[Dinosaur]

Wierd! So councils can run their own little closed shops too.....so much for the free market!

[vulpes]

This thread is getting a bit confused

Let's be clear, Tender Lists (where they exist) for local authority tenders are a completely different thing to lists of archaeological contractors to inform people carrying out planning related archaeological work. Many local authority tenders are placed on open online tender systems such as Intend. The IfAs statement does suggest that RO status could be a reasonable pre-qualification requirement however.

As for Councils running closed shops in relation to their own projects, the reality is quite to the contrary. As councils are spending public money they are subject to much more scrutiny over tender processes than the private sector. Not to mention being subject to Freedom of Information provisions etc.

Kevin - In the context of the Competition Act - 'Planning obligations' refers to obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. As such I'm not sure that your point is of particular relevance here, except in those specific instances where archaeological matters are dealt with under a Section 106 legal agreement, as opposed to a Planning Condition. That's my understanding anyway.