CHAS is just another bureaucratic money making scheme that does little to improve safety. Yet the construction industry still pay into it.

I guess the scheme has made a few people rich.

I wouldn't deem that scandalous.

I'd consider it pretty dozy to submit an application to purchase a service without reading the T&Cs for that service, though.

Originally Posted by: score

Originally Posted by: achrn

I wouldn't deem that scandalous.

I'd consider it pretty dozy to submit an application to purchase a service without reading the T&Cs for that service, though.

achrn, i dont post on this site verry much but take a keen interest and basically log in almost every day, it will be a while before i will post again due to the reply you decided to post, was there any need to be so rude?

That wasn't rude. 

Obviosuly consumers get quite a lot of protection and quite often succeed in overturning T&Cs that they manage to persuade someone are 'unreasonable', but a business-to-business contract doesn't come with most of those protections.

If a business signs up to a contract that says it will provide information within a two week window, then doesn't provide that information (for whatever reason) and consequently loses any benefit from whatever the business paid, I don't think the business has any grounds for complaint.  Two weeks is a reasonable window (and certainly not scandalous), but even if it was unreasonable then it would be incumbent on the business to get the contract changed.

It is, in my opinion, unwise, foolhardy, cavalier and silly not to read the T&Cs for a service being bought, especially in a business-to-business situation.  'Dozy' seems entirely apposite.

Out of interest, when dealing with its own clients, does this business always provide whatever the customer wants, over whatever timescale the customer chooses, regardless of what the business has budgeted for?  Does this business enter contracts with clients?  Does it expect clients to meet their obligations therein?

1 of my clients used to be acredited to CHAS, but gave it up a few years ago. They now use, SafeContractor and ConstructionLine and used to use EXOR.

If the 10 day rule was rigidly enforced then they'd be buggered. I only work a couple of days a month for them and it could be a lot longer than 10 days between my days.

With the best will in the world you will miss info off on applications like this.

Originally Posted by: craigroberts76

I do accreditations for clients and CHAS is ridiculus,picky and even if it comes back with an issue to be looked at, once resubmitted, more issues can be found as a different set of eyes seem to read them.

Construction line is now going in the same direction, both portals are so slow to use too.  On construction line they will not audit levels 2,3,4 until the previous one has been deemed as suitable and passed, this slows down the whole process of too-ing and frowing.

And when you submit your paperwork they say, it'll take 6 weeks to process (I can't remember the exact timeframe) but if you want to pay us some money we can do it quicker for you.

So why not do it quicker for me anyway or are your clients just a big cashpoint to you.

I take care of our Constructionline accreditation and it is a constant pain i'm constantly trying to update it at various times, whenever a new set or updated set of questions come out they have to be filled out sent off and then wait for them to be verified, it takes even longer with the Acclaim H&S sections. Its also worth noting that through all this some company's still send out their own PQQ's to fill out, most frustrating really.

I agree that these schemes have evolved into jobs for the boys, and have to ask why, if a company is CHAS registered 9for instance), do they then also need SMAS, or Constructionline as well? CHAS has a 'deemed to satisfy' category so surely CHAS should be 'deemed to satisfy' any other accreditiation needs.

I am working on an Achilles accreditation for a client (for which they therefor eneed CHAS0, and I think I have so far uploaded around 120 documents in total for the two schemes...just ridiculous!