Government Trustmark scheme exposed as unsafe by BBC Rogue Traders

Professional accreditation has been brought into question this evening after BBC Rogue Traders exposed the Governments Trustmark scheme for failing to ensure that they maintain a strict status reporting procedure via their participating companies.

In tonight's programme, BBC Rogue Traders exposed a roofing company called Munro Solutions for trying to charge for work that either didn't exist or they had grossly overpriced.

What is extremely disturbing is that the roofing association that approved Munro Solutions for accreditation to Trustmark, didn't inform Trustmark that there had been a number of complaints against the member company.

I had already expressed my concerns that Trustmark would further damage the landscaping industry - a charge that was vigorously defended by the Trustmark CEO, Roman Russocki.

Roman told me: "Complaints against TrustMark tradesmen are significantly lower than within the sector generally – proof that TrustMark is working."

Clearly, Trustmark isn't working and it is not acceptable that just one 'rogue trader' slipped through the net...afterall, there was not one, but two levels of vetting that have clearly failed - how can a consumer put their trust in Trustmark?

Comments

[Roman Russocki]

TrustMark has some 16,500 licensed trades across the UK and statistically we are able to show that members of the public who have used TrustMark firms have been very satisfied with the service they have received. In 2008 our 12,000+ approved firms on average carried out 3 jobs a week, over a period of 48 weeks allowing for holidays. This means that consumers had over 1.7 million jobs completed by TrustMark registered tradesmen in the year and in that time TrustMark directly received an average of only four referred complaints a week, the majority of which were resolved fairly quickly. This equates to one complaint for every 8,300 jobs carried out, which is an excellent result in the Building sector, normally known for high levels of complaint according to OFT statistics.
It is very easy to criticise - perhaps you would like to suggest how any organisation can eliminate the possibility of even one bad apple?

[Philip Voice]

Hi Roman

Thanks for your speedy response.

I hope you'll agree that the trader exposed by the BBC wasn't getting away with minor indiscretions (that's assuming that the BBC told the story accurately...at this stage we have to assume that they did?).

For the BBC to have got involved, one must assume that there had been some very serious complaints made over a period of time against the roofer?

The roofing association - to which he must be a member to benefit from Trustmark accreditation - should have vetted and undertook regular inspections of the contracting firm.

The roofing association has a duty of care to its members and to the potential clients who employ the associations members...I am struggling to understand how this 'bad apple', as you call it, could have slipped through...there were some major issues here?

As a business owner and landscaper, I made bad decisions from time to time; I made mistakes on jobs from time to time; I got pricing wrong from time to time and I fell out with clients from time to time...this, I am certain, is par for the course and there are very few businesses, in any walk of life, who can old their hands up and say that they are perfect - customers are from perfect too.

The roofing association should have dealt with the roofing company and it should never have come to light in the way it did...what bothers me is that Trustmark don't appear to have a fluid and instant means of communication with its associations - how are they ever going to be able to bear their teeth if they are oblivious to what goes on?

I have said this to you in a private email in our previous exchanges, but since you asked the question of suggestions...it's simple in my view.

1. Disband Trustmark as it forms an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for businesses.

2. Make Trustmark the vetting and inspection agency for the respective associations and take this responsibility away from them.

In my view, there is a massive conflict of interest when associations are charged with vetting members.

If Trustmark were charged directly with this duty then the level of accreditation for individual member businesses is heightened.

3.Trustmark should carry out regular on-site inspections of contractors and report back to the members' association with their recommendations.

Regards

Phil Voice

[Dave]

Maybe it would be more prudent for Trustmark to have direct vetting and contact with the actual companies claiming membership of the scheme rather than gaining membership via a 3rd party may help to reduce the bad apples slipping through as I doubt this is a one off.

[David Withall]

I tried reporting a cowboy electrician that claimed to be trustmark approved. Trustmark didn't even bother to return my two emails.
When I phoned them they said they'd take not but didn't have the resources to do anything about it.
Trustmark is a joke