Hi Mike

My view on this is that it is responsible technicians who perform quality repairs.

Business can sign up to one of the schemes, all fine and well. However, a garage business is made up of one or more technicians. It is at the technician level where the focus on a quality repair and professionalisim must come from.

I dont believe you can regulate either garage business or technicians in isolation. The quality must come from both the individual and the business.

The process of repair and invoicing are inextricably linked. When the customer is 'ripped off', which part of the process caused it, and who is responsible? Was the repair technically good, but the invoice inflated, or was the repair shoddy and the invoice reasonable? In the worst cases perhaps both the job and the invoice were bad. Some cases lack of info provided to the customer leads to a feeling of ripped off, when actually they wern't.

No doubt many of us will have been in a situation where a customer (be it trade or retail) just wants a 'make do' repair. The technician who is asked to do the job knows if the request is in safe/robust/reliable/in line with best practice. Technicians should repair vehicles in a safe/robust/reliable way in line with best practice. If he is being asked to perform shoddy work, he should have the confidence (which may be supported by a professional code of conduct and support from a trade body arbitrator) to refuse, and should recommend the correct course of action.

Many of the worst jobs I have had to sort were carried out by less-than-professional technicians working in 'shady' garages. A code which the garage volunteers for is unlikely to affect this type of business. In fact, I suggest that it is these types of businesses where the majority of rogue jobs come from. They will be the last/never join such a voluntary scheme - which makes the voluntary scheme a bit of a farce.

My view is that anyone carrying out repairs to motor vehicles should be assessesed on their aptitude to do so. Once the assessment has been passed they should gain a permit/licence to repair. The methods used in the ATA are broadly correct. Each job the accredited technician carries out should be signed off by the technician and he/she be held responsible for its quality. Punative action should befall them if jobs are bad/dangerous or consistently poor quality, ultimately leading to losing their permit/licence to repair until retraining and reassessment is carried out.

The garage should also have a permit/licence to run a repair business. The permit/licence could be awarded only to business who employ assessed technicians and who operate ethically. The business permit/licence could be revoked in the same manner as the technicians licence if they are found to operating poorly.

All this seems easy on 'paper', but no one has the will to do it. The IMI have got the ball rolling with the technician assessment, but again it is voluntary. There is no scheme defined, no legislation in place, and no process for the management of permits (either business or technician).

These are just my own brief thoughts on the matter. I believe licencing is critical. What ever type of scheme is decided should be done so through consultation with garages and technicians, and with the trade organisations. We need a joined up solution which sets out the responsibilities and the roles of the customer, the repair, the garage and the technician. The scheme needs to be mandatory and managed.

There seems to be much made by some of the current 'schemes' stakeholders that 'the worst thing' that could happen is the government become involved. Yes, if the government are left to decide and implement their own ideas. But, we shouldn't shy away from the legslative and mandatory route, and let this be a reason to press ahead with yet another flawed voluntary scheme.

I feel the best solution is that the trade decides on a scheme, through consultation, and once agreed asks the government implement it in law.

Kind regards


James.