Scottish Government

8. VOLUME SIX - PROPOSALS FOR A NATIONAL TRUSTED TRADER FRAMEWORK

8.1 Introduction

This section provides the findings from the consultation analysis relating to Volume Six of the guidance - Proposals for a National Trusted Trader Framework. This volume considers the development of a possible trusted trader framework accessible to all in Scotland.

8.2 Question F1

What are your ideas on the potential role of CLE within a trusted trader framework in Scotland?

There was a fair amount of support for having some kind of a central body, either instead of, or alongside more local delivery. There was support from a number of respondents for the Construction Licensing Executive ( CLE) taking on this central role. But views were mixed - some respondents did not feel the CLE should have the main or a central role in the framework.

The main strengths of the CLE were that it is already established, and its intention to improve the standard of work by actively encouraging the construction industry was seen to be "laudable" and a "good thing". Support particularly came from professional bodies who saw them as "robust", having a "good geographical coverage", "uniquely placed" and an "ideal platform". The Federation of Master Builders was concerned, however, that the organisation did not have the "critical mass" or "consumer awareness", and currently lacks the resources and expertise to play a central role. Registered Social Landlords ( RSLs) were supportive, seeing it as "a sensible idea to make use of and build upon an organisation already in operation" (Shire Housing Association) or as Glasgow Housing Association ( GHA) put it "it is sensible not to reinvent the wheel".

Respondents raised concerns or challenges in asking CLE to take the lead on the trusted trader framework. Eleven respondents (8 local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ( COSLA), the Scottish Association for Building Standards Managers ( SABSM) and the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland ( SCOTSS)) all made very similar responses. A central concern was that the CLE is not representative of the Scottish construction industry, with "the majority of smaller firms, even in relevant sectors, remaining out with the CLE umbrella". Secondly, it was not seen as an independent organisation (its funding relies on member firms and associations), which would make it difficult to build the consumer confidence needed for a trusted trader scheme. These respondents called for a "more robust and independent administration of CLE approved schemes and a more comprehensive and representative membership", if CLE is to play a central role. Such issues were raised by respondents who didn't support a central role for CLE and those that did. Other respondents felt CLE should only be a partner, or even that such barriers could not be overcome.

Trustmark believed it to be unlikely that the CLE could deliver the trusted trader framework for both financial (the current membership fee would not generate enough income to monitor and market a framework) and operational reasons (following "due process" becomes a challenge to more active consumers).

Whilst Moray Council highlighted that a trusted trader scheme would require some kind of central administration (and CLE could fulfil this role) other respondents felt the focus of the framework should be at a local level - Falkirk Council was concerned that CLE would exclude local traders, and two Care and Repair organisations were also concerned about this, preferring a local scheme and feeling that " CLE would only work for national firms".

Several respondents emphasised their agreement that the scheme should be voluntary. A number of responses highlighted the need to check how a Trusted Trader Framework might comply with the EU Services Directive.

8.3 Question F2

What are your ideas on the potential role of local authority schemes within a trusted trader framework in Scotland?

Table 8.1: Responses to F2 by professional group

Of the 49 respondents answering this question, 38 (78%) supported a role for local authorities, although many felt that this should be within a wider national framework. All local authorities supported the idea of a role for local authorities. On the other hand most trade bodies were opposed to local schemes, feeling that they were either unnecessary, the inappropriate body or simply duplication.

The main identified strengths of local authority schemes were that the public see them as independent, local authorities have an appreciation of local issues, can build relationships with local traders, can resolve issues or pass members of the public onto advice and support within trading standards. Most local authorities, COSLA and SCOTSS drew attention to these issues in their responses. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar supported the principle of a national scheme, but said "for an area like the Western Isles a local scheme is the most appropriate delivery". A number of local authorities and SCOTSS also pointed out that local schemes could address more than just construction issues: "Homeowners are not merely interested in finding a reliable plumber or builder - they also want to have their car serviced at a reliable garage". There was general agreement amongst local authorities, however, that local schemes would need some kind of central coordination - either to ensure consistency or to address the fact that some providers operate across local authority areas. A number of local authorities highlighted that they agreed with the Scottish Government views on the broad nature and features of a trusted trader framework.

Some respondents highlighted that existing schemes had been developed in different ways, to address different issues - changes may need to be made to these schemes to fit with a new trusted trader framework. In particular, many focus on protecting consumers, and preventing bad practice rather than promoting good practice. Several local authorities emphasised that setting up or running a scheme would be resource intensive, particularly for smaller local authorities, yet this issue had not been dealt with in the consultation. Clackmannanshire Council explained "unless the scheme is effectively resourced it is likely to fall in to disrepute".

Trade bodies were supportive of a single national trusted trader framework. Several trade bodies emphasised that the local authorities' role should be to support and encourage membership and use of a national scheme. The Property Care Association felt that local authorities should endorse the Trustmark Scheme, and steer good contractors towards it. Concerns were raised about the usefulness of interventions available to local authorities (for example, checking for criminal records or country court judgements, and asking for references rather than inspecting work). RSLs expressed slightly different views, emphasising the need for a national scheme, and perhaps a role for local authorities.

8.4 Question F3

What are your views on CLE and local authorities operating under the one framework in Scotland?

Table 8.2: Responses to F2 by professional group

Respondents were generally supportive of the idea that local authorities and CLE could work within one framework. However, respondents seemed to interpret the question differently: some reiterated their support for a local scheme or a national framework; some felt the two could be complementary; and some took the opportunity to comment on a trusted trader framework more generally.

Most respondents believed there was potential to develop a shared framework and didn't want to see competing frameworks. In line with responses to other questions, there was a sense that a shared framework could address concerns about national consistency, and ensure local adaptability. Trade bodies supported the idea of a single framework, feeling it would avoid customer confusion and local variation. Aberdeenshire Council pointed out that Trustmark successfully run a complementary scheme to Trusted Trader (rather than being a part of it). Trustmark said a single framework would allow "standards to be set at a level to drive improvement" and, based on their experience; felt it is possible to operate one framework which can accommodate all relevant interests. The Federation of Master Builders disagreed, however, stating "A marriage of convenience is never a good starting point for long-term success", feeling that both the CLE and existing trusted trader schemes "lack credibility" and are seen as "additional costs and red tape".

As with questions F1 and F2, a number of local authorities (ten in total) provided very similar responses in line with the SCOTSS response. These respondents highlighted a belief that it may be possible to operate a local authority scheme within the same framework as CLE, but "significant changes to the CLE approach" would be needed because the CLE is not representative, or independent. There were concerns from these respondents and others that CLE memberships should not be mandatory (as this would cause "undue burdens to small businesses". They also expressed a view that CLE has a narrow scope compared with that of trading standards schemes, which cover a breadth of sectors outside construction.

8.5 Question F4

What are your views on more than one level of accreditation existing within the one framework?

Table 8.3: Responses to F4 by professional group

Of the 50 respondents answering this question, 31 (62%) found the idea of more than one level of accreditation acceptable, or actively supported it. Fifteen respondents (30%) actively disagreed with the approach, many feeling that only one level should be used. There was evidence of some confusion about what was being proposed - some respondents said it "is unclear how this would work in practice" and "we would require further information on what is proposed". The Scottish Consumer Council suggested consumer research should be conducted to explore how owners would view a dual level scheme and Argyll and Bute Care and Repair suggested the levels of accreditation should be "discussed in depth with industry representatives".

Most local authorities were supportive of the idea of a sound scheme of accreditation. It was seen as a way to give consumers a level of protection, and there was a strong sense that there should be a minimum or base standard. As COSLA put it "some form of overall accreditation on a set of standards or code of practice is required to give consumers an underlying protection".

A number of local authorities did not hold a particularly strong view saying they were "prepared to accept" the proposals - Angus Council said "provided this adds value and confidence to the consumer".

As with other questions relating to Volume Six, a number of local authorities provided very similar responses. These respondents emphasised that it is not the number of levels of accreditation that is important but that the information on accreditation and standards are clearly and unambiguously presented. Other local authorities who supported the idea of two levels believed it would allow different sizes of traders to get involved. RSLs were also generally of the view that two tiers would be needed to encourage more smaller traders to join. A number of local authorities would not support "extending a high level of accreditation across a wide sector or over a range of sizes of business "

A significant number of local authorities and most trade bodies were opposed to a two tier scheme, preferring a single, minimum standard. Moray Council felt it is important that "all members are seen as being trustworthy", East Dunbartonshire believed two levels would suggest "an acceptance of levels of competency . . . .contrary to the principles of a trusted traders scheme". Trade bodies in particular felt that "lower levels of standards should not be introduced", and believed it would be confusing to customers - "open to misinterpretation by consumers and contractors".

Trustmark believed that consumers would want one level of accreditation, but if more than one level was to operate it "would require a lot of work to make clear the differences". The Federation of Master Builders emphasised that they already operate a two tier membership.

8.6 Question F5

What are your views on how the framework should be monitored and evaluated?

Table 8.4: Responses to F5 by professional group

Forty-six respondents offered views on why and how the framework should be monitored and evaluated. Ten local authorities provided responses which were similar to or formed part of the SCOTSS response.

Generally, respondents agreed that monitoring and evaluation was important to the credibility and transparency of the scheme. East Renfrewshire Council described a "self-sustaining improvement cycle", where monitoring improved consumer confidence, encouraged more traders to become involved, and would lead to improvements in the quality of work.

Some respondents described possible measures of success. These included levels of public confidence, client satisfaction, reduced numbers of complaints (perhaps measured by Consumer Direct), and the actual quality of work provided by traders. Care and Repair organisations emphasised the importance of customer perspectives (on the standard of work, speed of process and conduct of the contractor), but the Scottish Disability Equality Forum felt evaluation should "not rely purely on feedback from customers", as people can be misled about the quality of the work. SCOTSS and several of the local authorities that provided a similar response felt that the scheme needed to be "evaluated against realistic outcome measures". They felt another measure of success would be the take up of the scheme by Scottish business.

East Ayrshire Council highlighted that whilst this information could be provided on a website, it would be important that people without internet access could access the information, possibly through advice providers.

Respondents suggested monitoring and evaluation methods could include tenant surveys, client ratings, investigation of individual complaints, site inspections and yearly audit visits.

There was debate about which organisations should be responsible for monitoring and evaluation, and whether the emphasis should be at a national or local level. This discussion reflected comments elsewhere, with local authorities supporting more local monitoring (although with a national aspect), and trade bodies feeling central or national monitoring (possibly by the CLE) as more appropriate. Some respondents felt that the bodies running the scheme should be responsible for monitoring and evaluation but others felt that some kind of external or independent audit would be important. Some outlined models that took a combined approach.

Different suggestions included:

• a local authority based scheme;
• a central scheme monitored by CLE;
• a central role for the Scottish Government in collating national statistics;
• auditing of individual schemes in line with Local Authority Assured Trader Scheme Network ( LAATSN) requirements;
• a joint Board with representatives from local authority Trading Standards; and
• possible involvement of Audit Scotland.

COSLA warned that any monitoring and evaluation that a council undertakes should be proportionate, focused on outcomes and not burdensome, in line with the Crerar Review.

The Federation of Master Builders felt strongly that the scheme should be externally monitored to agreed quality standards - "self regulation and internal quality control measures can give rise to concerns over a lack of transparency and consistency". Property Care Association agreed that independent external validation is required and suggested "the Trustmark scheme is hard to beat". Trustmark suggested a similar framework should be used, and suggested that an authority other than the operator owns the name and scheme design to allow changes of scheme manager if necessary.

8.7 Question F6

What are your views on how the framework should be delivered e.g. by local or central government, the construction industry, the private or voluntary sectors or some combination?

Table 8.5: Responses to F6 by professional group

Most local authorities believed the framework should be delivered by local authorities (to ensure consumer confidence and trust in the scheme) but most said that some kind of national coordination would be needed. Some thought this role should be fulfilled by the CLE but others thought the Scottish Government or the UK Government should have a role. In particular, national branding, publicity, monitoring and data collection would be needed to raise public awareness. A central overview would be needed to run the website and ensure consistency across local authority areas. Fife Council and Glasgow City Council suggested LAATSN could fulfil this role. Glasgow City Council also suggested that a substantial "back office" resource would be needed - this could be delivered by a private sector contractor or perhaps by the Scottish Government. Housing associations also placed an emphasis on the need for a central or national scheme rather than local delivery.

Many local authorities felt that national government should also dedicate resources to a trusted trader framework. Some felt funding should be shared between national and local government, whilst more thought that the Scottish Government would need to support local authorities who did not have the capacity and resources to develop their own schemes. Angus Council believed local traders should pay a levy for the costs of administration. Some local authorities thought the construction industry should play a role in delivering the framework, particularly where trade body schemes already existed. Others had concerns about this, some feeling the construction industry did not have the right track record to run a framework like this and others believing that existing schemes are "small, highly localised, less credible and more costly to member firms".

Care and Repair organisations agreed that the framework should be delivered at a local level. Two thought that local authorities should do this, perhaps within national guidelines. One highlighted that Care and Repair organisations can help older home owners identify suitable contractors.

City of Edinburgh Council questioned the business case for the framework, feeling the costs are likely to be significant and the scheme could not be delivered by local authorities within existing budgets. It was concerned that there is no real incentive for traders to join a scheme, and that there would be risks associated with local authorities being liable for contractors if "approved".

Most trade bodies believed that a partnership approach is needed to delivering the framework. This should involve a range of partners including industry, the CLE, national and local government. CLE envisaged "stakeholders working under a set of standards promoted, managed and monitored by CLE", seeing "no need for a new structure but resources for expansion of CLE". Property Care Association emphasised the need to involve all partners to build "a robust scheme that delivers protection to consumers whist at the same time being deliverable by industry".

The Oil Firing Technical Association ( OFTEC) and Trustmark agreed that set criteria or standards should be set by Government. Trustmark said that "everyone points to someone else to blame for the situation with rogue traders", and a government lead is essential. The Federation of National Builders disagreed - they felt government (local or national) has neither the expertise nor infrastructure to deliver the framework, particularly to engage with small or micro sized companies.

One individual did not believe a trusted trader framework could be delivered outside a framework like Care and Repair, and homeowners would need additional support and "complimentary assistance".

Several respondents raised concerns about the liability and legality of local authorities "recommending" or commenting on particular traders - there was a feeling that this issue needed further exploration.

8.8 Question F7

What functions would you wish to see a framework perform to encourage use by homeowners?

Table 8.6: Responses to F7 by professional group

There was general agreement across responses that a trusted trader framework should include:

• A " critical mass of businesses". Some respondents emphasised (based on experience) that the biggest challenge will be getting enough traders on board. A good number of traders were seen as being absolutely essential to encourage homeowners to use the scheme and to make it worthwhile.
• An accessible source of information for homeowners. Suggestion for information to be made available included trader histories, references of projects, monitoring information, price guides, feedback from customers and links to related agencies or information. Some respondents felt that information should be made available outside the internet if it was to be accessible to all.
• A sound complaints and redress process was another critical feature. Some respondents suggested there should be "an insurance bond", warranty and deposit or a payment protection scheme for consumers. There was certainly a need for the framework to be able to deal with customer concerns and complaints and take action against traders where necessary.
• Benefits to business. This could include increased trade, but several respondents felt it would have to go further. This could include training and accreditation, updates on legislation and current practices. The benefit to traders would have to be real for them to participate.
• Links to industry standards and accreditation schemes to demonstrate competency, and be connected with codes of practice. Information should be provided on which standards each sector should comply with.
• A " respected and recognised brand", "badge or mark" was seen as essential, alongside publicity - one respondent suggested a media campaign. The Property Care Association emphasised that such a brand exists, and "implored" the Scottish Government to adopt Trustmark.

8.9 Question F8

Please provide any further comments, stating your views on how a trusted trader framework should be established and operated in Scotland.

Table 8.7: Responses to F8 by professional group

Some respondents took the opportunity to re-enforce points made in response to other questions. Others identified new issues, which are outlined in this section. Dumfries and Galloway Council and Shire Housing Association warned that there may be complaints or issues with traders not included in a trusted trader scheme who feel discriminated against.

Aberdeenshire Council felt that the Scottish Government should "discuss with local authorities, SCOTSS and other interested parties a common approach to what a scheme should provide", and felt early work needed to be done to "get the trading community on board in each locality". They warned that putting local authority schemes in place would take time.

Dundee City Council highlighted they have a registered UK Trade Mark in respect of the words "Trusted Trader". Whilst happy for the Scottish Government to use the term in the consultation, agreement would be needed for local authorities to use the term to describe schemes.

North Lanarkshire Council set out a possible model framework with three components: having a "National Regulator" (to regulate the Trade Associations and the new Local Quality Traders Associations); "Trade Associations" (to regulate Level 1 or Gold standard companies with accreditation from the regulator); and "Local Quality Traders Associations" (who would regulate Level 2 or Silver Standard Traders and the trusted trader list operated by the Local Authorities).

Highland Council emphasised that existing guidelines established by the Office of Fair Trading should be adopted. Falkirk Council asked if there is a role for "Construction Line" - a national database of pre-qualified suppliers. A Care and Repair organisation suggested the Trading Standards Approved Traders scheme in England is a useful model to explore further. Trustmark suggested it might be appropriate to consider a scheme which builds on the strengths of a "pan UK approach", exploring the synergies between CLE and Trustmark.

An individual asked if Ministers had sought legal opinion on introducing a trusted trader framework, expressing surprise that it had been included in the guidance given that Scottish Government solicitors advised such an approach should not be included in the core functions of Care and Repair due to legal liability issues.

Views of people from ethnic minority communities

People from ethnic minority communities discussed the idea of a trusted trader framework, and provided their views on how this should work, and how the needs of people from ethnic minority groups should be taken into account.

The idea of a scheme was popular and welcomed by all. It was suggested, however, that a web based approach would be unlikely to be accessed by older people or new migrants with limited English skills. The idea of a telephone helpline was welcomed.

There was strong support for traders in this scheme completing cultural awareness or anti-racism training (especially as BME communities are under represented in trades) and this was seen as more important than an anti-racism policy. There was a hesitancy to invite someone into your home if you think they may be abusive.

It was agreed that regulation was important, both in terms of treatment of vulnerable groups but also quality of work and prices. A lack of knowledge of 'typical' prices (per hour or day of work) was given as a barrier by participants, and it would be helpful to publish this.

Other suggestions for the website included reviews of particular trader's work, "star ratings" voted by customers, as on travel websites.

There was strong support for the continuation and extension of Care and Repair and handyperson schemes, with older participants particularly supportive. There was support for the idea that some tenement flat owners, inexperienced homeowners and people whose first language was not English would be included in the groups who have access to Care and Repair, although including people whose first language was not English should be handled and communicated sensitively. There was strong support amongst women participants for the inclusion of some vulnerable female groups into this scheme.

8.10 Summary

• Respondents disagreed on who should lead on the development and delivery of a trusted trader framework. Overall, there was support for a trusted trader framework with some degree of central coordination and a degree of local delivery. Local authority respondents were less supportive of a role for the CLE, as it currently exists - it was not seen as being very representative of smaller traders. Many trade bodies were very supportive of a central role for CLE, and were concerned that too much focus on local schemes could lead to inconsistencies for customers and traders.
• There was some confusion over what a shared framework would look like, and what was being proposed in terms of delivery so responses varied.
• Most respondents supported (or were not opposed to) more than one level of accreditation. However, there were a significant number of respondents who felt this could be confusing for the public, and could lead to two tiers of quality. Some respondents felt that more work with trade bodies and the public was needed and a clearer framework outlined for them to be able to offer a view.
• Respondents felt that monitoring and evaluation would be important to the success of the scheme. Some emphasised the importance of customer perspectives. Some respondents felt that monitoring should focus on a local level, whilst others focussed attention on national monitoring and evaluation. Some respondents placed a strong emphasis on external or independent monitoring.
• Respondents thought a successful trusted trader framework should deliver:
• a "critical mass of businesses" to offer enough choice;
• an accessible information source;
• a sound complaints process and action where the Framework is breached;
• positive outcomes for the businesses in the scheme;
• link to industry standards and not be burden to businesses; and
• a recognised brand, badge or mark and a strong commitment to marketing.