Reputable Worksmen/Companies

[bloomingflower]

Hi Everyone !

Thought this link may be of use to some peeps who might be thinking of looking for a reputable tradesman/company..i.e Electrician, Plumber, Roofer etc etc. In this day and age there are so many 'cowboys'/'rogues' out there who are willing to rip innocent peeps off..

I normally receive a leaflet through the post every now and again... and this is the first time I have checked out their website.


Here>>> Checkatrade - Raising the standards of trading. Find a builder, plumber, electrician, double glazing, drive or roofing contractor






BF xx

[Tools]

Re: Reputable Worksmen/Companies

Apologies BF but that name rang alarm bells for me, something I remember reading about them last year.

I am not saying in an way that they still breach advertising guidelines but they used to.

Taken from the Advertising Standards Agency website ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Vetted Ltd t/a Checkatrade

Non-broadcast Adjudications

Vetted Ltd t/a Checkatrade
5-6 Sherrington Mews
Ellis Square
Selsey
West Sussex
PO20 0FJ

Date: 5th April 2006 Media: Circular Sector: Publishing Complaint(s) from: Surrey Complaint type: Public

Complaint

Objection to a circular, for local trades and services, headlined "Checkatrade The UK's Answer to the Rogue Trade Problem". The complainant objected that the circular, especially the claims "Consumer information service", "Please help us to stop cowboys" and "The UK's Answer to the Rogue Trade Problem", misleadingly implied the advertisers offered an information service only, whereas she believed Checkatrade had a commercial connection with the businesses listed.
Codes section: 7.1, 22.1
Adjudication

Complaint upheld
Vetted, trading as Checkatrade, said the claim "Consumer information service" was an accurate description; they believed their service offered an alternative to the well-established business directories that did not vet or monitor the traders listed. They pointed out that they interviewed every trader in their circulars and each trader left monitoring cards for their customers that asked for ratings in various categories, including quality of workmanship, reliability and value for money; they therefore believed the claim "please help us to stop cowboys" was justified. They said their vetting procedures included asking for the names of four recent customers and two trade referees to write to, checking for public liability insurance and proof of qualifications; they pointed out that they published both good and bad vetting and monitoring results on their website. They believed rogue or "cowboy" traders would avoid their service and pointed to the fact that they had only expelled six traders as proof. Checkatrade disagreed that the circular was misleading and pointed out that they did not charge consumers to use their service, nor did they operate a premium rate phone number. They also pointed out that Trading Standards ran a similar scheme called "Buy with Confidence"; they also charged the traders listed a yearly fee, but did not monitor them.

The ASA noted, although Checkatrade charged a fee to traders, it also vetted and monitored the quality of their performance. Nevertheless, we considered that the presentation of the circular did not make clear Checkatrade were benefitting financially from the service and were concerned that, by not making clear they charged traders a fee, many readers would believe the circular was produced by an official not-for-profit organisation or Trading Standards department. We were particularly concerned that the claims "independent", "trade register" and "consumer information service" actively implied Checkatrade were not a commercial organisation. We concluded that the circular was likely to mislead readers and told Checkatrade to amend it to make clear they charged traders a fee and to remove the claims that implied they were not a commercial organisation. We advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team for help with those amendments.

We investigated the circular under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 22.1 (Identifiable marketing), and found it in breach.