Quality work

The HVCA has always been a strong and effective organisation of good mechanical contractors and this praiseworthy initiative will strengthen it still further.

  Speaking at the launch, construction minister Brian Wilson brought the gathered audience up to speed with the Government's Quality Mark scheme. He rightly indicated that the HVCA's new rules had much in common with the Quality Mark, and that both embraced the Government's support for client satisfaction. The minister spoke very frankly.

He made no secret of the fact that contractor membership of the Quality Mark has been disappointing so far. He accepts that strong trading conditions make membership of the scheme seem of doubtful value to reputable firms. But, he stressed that he has no power to make the Quality Mark attractive to the industry. He cannot predict when the scheme will have a critical mass of public support.

The Quality Mark needs to be reviewed in context. It was introduced to deal with emergency domestic maintenance. The Jones' plumbing breaks down, a gale blows off their roof or vandals break their windows – who can they employ to fix these defects urgently? In practice, they find a firm from the Yellow Pages. That firm may be reputable, but it may also be a cowboy.

Successive governments have been faced with high levels of complaint to the Office of Fair Trading, local authority trading standards officers or MPs about rip-offs of customers by callous or incompetent traders.

The Tory Government commissioned a study called Beat the cowboy in the late 1980s. Ministers did not like its recommendations, although the committee which drew them up was broadly based from the industry. No action followed.

[The Quality Mark Scheme] is extremely well intentioned and everyone should support it in principle

Eight years later, the Labour Government set up another industry committee, from which emerged the Quality Mark.

It is extremely well intentioned and everyone should support it in principle. Unfortunately it does not sit easily with market forces.

The Jones' need their work done at once and they want to pay as little as possible for it. Their problem is that minor repair work is uneconomic for reputable, established firms that join proper trade associations like the HVCA and the ECA, are registered for VAT, have directly-employed operatives and take necessary precautions about safety, properly tested equipment and other legal requirements. Such firms' overheads are just too high and their workload too strong to be able to drop everything to go and fix 85-year-old Mrs Jones' lavatory ballcock, radiator leak or a temporary cut-out of her water heating system for £25. This is all she expects to pay for a very quick job, and all, as a pensioner, she can afford. So she has to turn to the one-man bands without overheads. They may do the job okay, and may even make a reasonable charge (though more than £25), but they may also be bodgers.

Market forces suggest a different approach. In some areas of the country, large commercial organisations such as Anglian Water have introduced voluntary insurance schemes for their customers. The householder can buy protection for plumbing, flooding or electrical problems. When disaster strikes, the insured householder can telephone the water company's hotline and a reputable tradesperson comes very quickly to sort the problem out. The householder pays nothing because the insurance covers it, and the firm doing the work is presumably paid an economic fee by the water firm.

It works well – I have used it twice myself. The work standard is good. The premiums are acceptable. The householder is helped. The firm is properly paid. The water company and the insurers presumably make a few bob as well.