This thread follows on from a couple of others I’ve read recently. I was glad to hear some of the positives in terms of some of these SSIP schemes undertaking the correct and due diligent checks. I’ve been a great supporter of these however over the last few years I’ve had quite a few examples on a less than positive front including: CHaS – Was informed recently by a PC that I was representing a contractor they had contracted for a project, one that I’ve never even spoken to. I later found my name and details were used by CHaS as this companies competent advice. When I explained to CHaS I’d never heard of this company I was told to write in, which I did and absolutely nothing happened? After a few months I checked again to be told that they could not amend it as it had already been processed. It took numerous letters/ emails etc. over a period of several months before they actually did remove my details, worth noting that I did contact the company who had used my details prior to all of this to see if they needed any assistance to which I was very aggressively informed that they don’t bother with health and safety stuff! (stuff being a replacement word!). Safecontractor – had my name and company listed by a company who had phoned me and requested some marketing information about my company’s services. Again I only found out when they were in there second year on this SSIP scheme. Safecontractor did email me and eventually took action but said that the assessors are not technically qualified and they must have thought the paperwork was in order? This did worry me as I thought an SSIP assessor would do a reasonably thorough job when assessing? Today, had a conversation with Constructionline. They had a copy of my marketing profile that states the following in bold red writing, which cannot be missed “ PLESE READ: This is a private and confidential profile supplied by XXXXX Ltd. This profile does not confirm that any representation is made to act as competent person to any other third party by contract or statutory requirement. This document must not be copied; amended; distributed or supplied to any other third party whatsoever without the written permission of XXXXX Ltd. Use of this document in any legal claim or to gain business advantage is strictly prohibited. This consultant profile does not constitute any legally binding contract between XXXXXX Ltd and any other company or individual”. This was the only information they had regarding me and my company, according to their admin department I should deal with this with the applicant directly? As I stated to the chap I spoke to, this is your system and you should check the documents submitted. The reply that I was given is that they get very limited time to review submitted documents and if it kind of looks ok they pass it, their assessors would not understand anything technical including the above information (disclaimer) – REALLY…? So my reply was to ask as I had just phoned them I can now use their accreditation logo?... “erm, well no of course not, you are not a client of ours”. So if like me you provide marketing or maybe a free newsletter or have a website don’t be surprised if you / your company are listed on some SSIP Scheme for contractors you have never heard of. My view over the last few years is that this is getting more and more common, which strangely is what many of the SSIP schemes are saying, having spoken to them. The problem from my part is that sufficient checks are not always being made and I would question some of the assessors training in terms of competency. Taking another view-point maybe some form of standardisation is required from external health and safety consultants in terms of certificates/ contracts between them and their clients, I don’t know?

Hi Freelance - same thing happened to me last Thursday morning..... and I've been retired for a while, which SafeContractor didn't believe until I asked them to view my website. They asked me to write in etc. etc. My response was to ask them to do me a favour ;-)

Hi Victor, it sort of makes a mockery of the whole process when the simple checks have not been suitably undertaken. When they have been made aware of the reality they then require someone else to do the chasing for them? Surely this is what they should have been doing in the first place…. lol

I'm not surprised. However the services of any SSIP scheme is being paid for by someone on the assumption they are competently doing the checking on their behalf. Evidence offered here says that is not happening; I believe that amounts to fraud.