[Comments updated: 14.07.2014 – Jon Heuch Responds!]
The Consulting Arborist Society – Mortgage Tree Report CPD Course 2014
Some of Arbtech’s arboricultural team, namely; Matthew Middle, David Garrick and Alan Thompson, went along to the Consulting Arborist Society’s 1-day CPD event – Mortgage & Insurance Tree Reports (4th March 2014). This is their review.
The course was delivered by Dr Jon Heuch at Barcham Tree Plc’s site in Cambridgeshire. The cost to Arbtech in sending each of our three consultants on this course was £150+VAT for members, and £200+VAT for non-members. All told, the CPD event probably cost the business in excess of £2,000 (when you consider hotels, travelling expenses and loss of business opportunity).
Arbtech managing director, Robert Oates, was certified via Dr Dealga O’Callaghan’s version of this course, run at Myerscough College, back in 2004. At the time, O’Callaghan’s course was not affiliated with CAS. Robert says:
“At that time, it was a great course – O’Callaghan is an engaging speaker and stuck rigidly to the subject. He was very clear on what a mortgage report was and was not (a visual inspection that deals almost exclusively with immediate health and safety issues). Any time a delegate – including myself – raised the subject of attempting to assess the future risk of subsidence, O’Callaghan was quick to remark that this was not a subsidence assessment (lacking the data inputs for the arboriculturist to draw informed conclusions of that nature) as to undertake to understand what was influencing a building below ground, would require different and more rigourous methods of assessment.”
Asked to comment on the original course, Dr O’Callaghan had this to say:
The OCA/Myerscough course has stood the test of time. Mike and I started this in 1998/99 and it is still running and we get a full compliment each year.
And when reached for a view on what should be covered in such a course, in addition to subsidence concepts, O’Callaghan, argues that a Mortgage Report course should cover several key points, including;
A practical exercise in assessing a property with trees adjacent [and] Report Writing for this specific purpose (templated) include [sic] how to avoid liability, acceptable exclusions, etc.
For general information, O’Callaghan also runs a course that specifically deals with subsidence through Myerscough: ‘Assessing Subsidence Claims’.
[Matt]
Jon Heuch is a confident speaker and delivered the course in a friendly, agreeable manner. When we reached the subject of soils and geology, it was immediately obvious that this was one of Jon’s areas of expertise as he was able to go into great detail about the various types of soil, rock formations, etc.
Nice guy, not a great course
However, he was quite easily lead off topic by delegates; especially on the subject of subsidence. This became frustrating very quickly, especially given Jon’s opening remarks – and the literature on CAS’s web site – that this course was not about subsidence/heave.
Unfortunately, most of the course was spent talking about subsidence and heave, intricate soil science detail, and one or two other points that appeared to have little to do with undertaking and producing tree inspections to inform mortgage reports. I feel that there should have been more emphasis placed upon the capture of data and the production and format of the report.
I also strongly feel that we should have spent time outside – as is common for most tree inspection type courses. We would certainly have benefited from having a look at various buildings near trees; or at least being shown the on-site circumstances where it would become necessary to defer to another authority, or to instruct a client to take soil samples.
Jon was happy to field plenty of questions, which in his defence, lead to a lot of the off-topic talk I refer to above – though he should have shut that down more quickly to get back on topic. Further, when direct questions were asked of him, a lot of the time he would ‘sit on the fence’. Worse, if a delegate challenged him on issues throughout the day, he would change his mind (to assume the delegate’s argument), leaving me with the feeling that I never got a straight answer on important issues that influence decisions on which ultimately, we provide advice to clients.
Price / Value for Money
Several times during the day, Jon commented that the content of his course was derived from the original course (that my MD went on), run by O‘Callaghan, and how this one is much cheaper. Sadly though, it would have been more beneficial (and cost effective in the long run) for me to have paid for the more expensive course and travelled up to Myerscough College.
My conclusion
Dr Jon Heuch is a really nice, and clearly very intelligent guy. Further, as is often the way at CPD events, by speaking to other delegates I was able to take home some good ideas and tips for improving our own report template and the robustness of our advice. Despite this, I do not feel that the course itself has raised my professional standards and would not recommend it. Instead, if you are wanting to develop professionally in this discipline, I would probably recommend going to the O’Callaghan course run by Myerscough College. I will also weigh this experience heavily when deciding whether to go (or suggest colleagues to go on) on any more CPD courses run by the Consulting Arborist Society – as the course content raises questions about the vetting process for their speakers’ presentation and course material.
[Alan]
OK, criticisms first. Too much of the content was geology/soil science. While I appreciate it’s his specialist area, and he really does know his stuff here, Jon went too in depth on these subjects (30 PowerPoint slides? Certainly felt like it.). This in itself is not a bad thing, but it detracted from the day because not enough (hardly any, in fact) any of the conclusions we could arrive at could be traced back to the local geology/soil science we were being taught.
Side note: if you ARE looking for a subsidence course, I would ‘recommend-a-friend’ to go on the Arboricultural Association course, ‘Getting to Grips with Subsidence’ run by Dr Giles Biddle & Dr Martin Dobson. This course has better tailored content and recommendations for practitioners. You also get given 2 free books – always a good thing! – authored by Biddle, Tree Root Damage to Buildings Volumes 1 & 2.
Plus points. Although Jon couldn’t be pinned down to a straight answer on a lot of issues and questions that involved giving advice to a client, raised by myself and other delegates, he was an engaging and charismatic speaker. He clearly knows his trees.
Overall
The course has not raised my professional standards nor will I be able to offer a better service as a result. I was disappointed as I was hoping to leave the course better equipped to produce mortgage reports and give advice, which as consultants, is what people pay me to do.
[Dave]
Along with fellow Arbtechers; Alan Thompson and Matthew Middle, I attended the course in March this year.
At Arbtech while our primary focus as arboriculturists is undertaking planning surveys (BS5837:2012), we do undertake mortgage reports from time to time. Aware that we need to keep our skills current, and taking advantage of the unlimited CPD budget at Arbtech (which is fantastic by the way – I can literally go on any course I want, whenever I like), Matt put the case to me and Alan that we could deepen our understanding of this type of report and better service our clients. We agreed.
Dr Jon Heuch started us off by finding out what level of experience the delegates had and it was apparent that there were a few tree officers and other local government employees who were there to find out why a report was issued, as opposed to how to write one to a better standard. Fair enough.
So far so good
We were then told that this wasn’t a subsidence course but we would be having a brief overview on subsidence. Myself and the other Arbtechers didn’t want a subsidence-focused course any more than anyone else did (or so it seemed).
However, with questions from the floor, the overview on subsidence took us up until lunch time. After lunch the presentation and lecture focussed on damage to buildings caused by subsidence and heave; and where to find resources for soil maps. There was then a lengthy classroom discussion on how subsidence had affected local authority cases that some delegates had dealt with in the past.
In the course materials was a mortgage report template, but at no point was this covered during the course. We didn’t venture outside to do a group survey, much as you do in say, the LANTRA Professional Inspection or other courses I have been on.
To summarise
Despite mentioning that this course was not about subsidence, Jon spent the great majority of the course discussing subsidence. He was, I felt, constantly taken off topic by discussion points raised by other delegates, rather than sticking to the course material and outline. At no point was there an example of what to look for on-site to produce a better mortgage report. There was no time to review/understand the mortgage report template provided in the course materials.
All in all at several hundred pounds per attendee this course was really money wasted, as it did not provide any additional information on how to do a mortgage report, or improve the quality of our advice. And despite this, we can now use this logo on our reports: (we wont be)
[Matt, Alan and Dave]
The description of the course, provided by CAS themselves, is this:
About the Course
This course is for arborists experienced in inspecting trees and writing reports for clients on their structural and health condition. It builds upon that experience to equip an arboricultural consultant writing reports when the tree is on a property, near a building, road or other target. …. (If you are involved with cases where subsidence is happening or may have occured [sic], separate training is recommended).
Our summary? Despite the headline act being Dr Jon Huech, who seemed to have the respect of everyone (well-deserved, he knows his stuff!), it didn’t really hit the mark. If separate training for subsidence is recommended, then why did we spend the entire day going over it, and not spend any time on the two key issues referred to above by both us and Dr O’Callaghan (namely, that we should spend time outside on a practical exercise and also go through the report template in some detail so as to fully understand the exclusion of liability)?
Despite our admiration for Dr Heuch, it’s a shame this review of the course content isn’t more positive. Hopefully though, this feedback will be valuable to CAS and future delegates can benefit from the shared learning.
We really hoped you enjoyed reading this review and welcome you feedback and comments below. Were you there? Do you disagree with our opinions? If so, let us know. It’s all constructive, after all. Finally, please feel free to tweet and share this as much as you like. Until next time…
-Matt, Alan, & Dave.
Image Sources: Consulting Arborist Society
For the avoidance of doubt: I have tweeted this to both CAS (@CAS_Tree_News) and the Arboricultural Association (@ArbAssociation) to see if I can get some more views on the subject with the goal being to drive up the quality of mortgage report-related CPD events in UK arboriculture. If anyone has any views, please feel free to post them up! It’s all constructive..
All constructive? Reads more like an assassination to me!
If your phone worked I would call you to discuss, but it doesn’t!
There is clearly some confusion in the Arbtech psyche as to what questions have to be answered to provide a mortgage course. Is it all subsidence or not?
Jon
Again, addressing your points in turn:
1
Honest reviews from delegates that provide feedback in respect to how you led discussions during the course and answered direct questions are not a ‘character assassination’; they are the truth, as
told by three of the 12 delegates on your course (i.e. 25%).
If you read our review again, you’ll notice that Alan, Dave and Matt were all very complimentary about you personally, and the depth of your knowledge impressed all. In fact, let me help you out:
Matt:
“Jon Heuch is a confident speaker and delivered the course in a friendly, agreeable manner. When we reached the subject of soils and geology, it was immediately obvious that this was one of Jon’s areas of expertise as he was able to go into great detail about the various types of soil, rock formations, etc.”
“Jon was happy to field plenty of questions, which in his defence, lead to a lot of the off-topic talk I refer to above”
“Dr Jon Heuch is a really nice, and clearly very intelligent guy. Further, as is often the way at CPD events, by speaking to other delegates I was able to take home some good ideas and tips for
improving our own report template and the robustness of our advice.”
Alan:
“it’s his specialist area, and he really does know his stuff here”
“…he was an engaging and charismatic speaker. He clearly knows his trees.”
Dave:
“Dr Jon Heuch started us off by finding out what level of experience the delegates had and it was apparent that there were a few tree officers and other local government employees who were there to find out why a report was issued, as opposed to how to write one to a better
standard. Fair enough.”
All three:
“the headline act being Dr Jon Huech, who seemed to have the respect of everyone (well-deserved, he knows his stuff!)…. our admiration for Dr Heuch”
So, I hardly think this qualifies as an assassination of your character. Our criticisms are constructive because they related to the course delivery and format; and that’s all. At no point does anyone question the quality or accuracy of the information you delivered, nor do they attack you personally in anyway.
Your responses come across as wildly over-sensitive.
2
Our state-of-the-art phone system works. Period. Call it, or don’t. But don’t bullshit me. On the day of your post, we received in excess of 50 calls through the system. Sure, you might have called at a time when all the lines were busy, or out of hours, but you would have been met with an answering machine.
3
I really think you need to refine your question. It’s not clear whether it’s rhetorical. However, if you are asking a direct question, then clearly the answer is no. Any assessment of trees for mortgage or insurance purposes that overlooks the structural and physiological condition of trees would be defective.
4
Only three people out of our entire staff were on your course. I’d caution you to think carefully before you make statements that refer to Arbtech and not the three individuals concerned.
Rob
There is a good reason why the course has moved on from Dealga’s contributions about 10 years ago, in part because Myerscough declined to run the course for a number of years and in part through constructive criticism from users. I suggest you get your handouts out from 2004 at Myerscough and remind yourself what the content was focused on – “Shrinkable Clay soils and the climate of the english lowlands”. “Chapter 3: Tree/soil relations” from an ISA Arborist Certification Guide. Participants may not like the content and it may be technically complex, but that is precisely what both Dealga’s and the CAS course covers. Clearly the precise content differs between the courses but the underlying content is broadly the same. The risk of subsidence and more specifically the risk to the arboricultural consultant with no experience of building design, construction and subsidence is at the heart of the course. Lack of awareness just raises the chances of being sued…..and regardless of what people may say arboricultural consultants do get to use their Professional Indemnity Insurance. I wish I could share the cases I am asked to advise on, but I can’t.
As for delivery technique and what happens on the day – satisfying everybody, especially when they have different backgrounds and interests is sometimes difficult. I have probably trained around 40 arborists on this course over the last few years. The feedback has been positive and comments received have been used to adapt the course for future delivery. This is the first time I have seen such negative comments, delivered in what feels like an unprofessional and cowardly way – there was an opportunity to provide feedback on the course and 8 out of the 12 participants did just that. Only one scored the course in a negative way and since they provided their name and contact detail it seems fair to say that the Arbtech participants declined the opportunity to register their comments on the course.
Jon
Again, responding to your points in turn:
1
I do not care in the least to enter into a discussion about the merits of Myerscough’s decision to suspend or augment their course, because the outcome of that discussion would not change two facts:
-The review is of a CAS course, delivered by you.
-I enjoyed the course run by Myerscough.
End of.
2
I respect your clients’ privacy and have no asked you to share any such information, for the record.
3
Of course, obtaining 100% satisfaction from 12 different people is (probably) an impossible task, if we use all of those words in the literal sense, at least.
Neither Matt, Alan or Dave have suggested otherwise.
What they did do, is share a view between them, that they would have preferred your delivery and format to be different (and that is not the same as saying they question your knowledge, qualification, experience or indeed the accuracy or quality of the data/information you presented).
All they have done is provide an honest review that is loyal to their views. I am at a loss to explain your surprise at a couple of constructive criticisms, given our mutually agreed upon point, above, about the difficulty of pleasing everyone all of the time.
My personal view is that if you want to take money from delegates in exchange for imparting some of your knowledge on them, as part of a trade-organisation certified professional development course, that’s fine. However, in the course of doing so, I suggest that you be more prepared for the inevitable but occasionally bit of (fairly inert) criticism.
I doubt you respond like this when local authorities disagree with e.g. a BS5837 report, or other forms of disagreement, such as when tow professionals disagree in the ‘letters to the Editor’ sections of journals. What on earth makes you think this is an appropriate way to act (calling three of your delegates “unprofessional” and “cowardly”), just because this is a course review?
4
So what? Is the opportunity at the end of *your course* to provide *just you* with feedback, the only valid, moral and acceptable way of doing it? Of course not. To suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous.
This review is found in the CPD course reviews section, of the reviews section, within the resources section of this web site. It sits here among other reviews of courses and products, kit and equipment that are both positive and negative, depending on our honest reflections having spent our own money on it.
It is a valuable resource to other industry professionals, evidenced by the engagement we get from it and the overwhelmingly positive e-mails we receive about it.
Finally, you might wish to take a leaf out of the book of some of our other review subjects, who have chosen to embrace the occasional and fairly inconsequential bit of constructive criticism we have levelled at them. Two noteworthy ones are; (1) Pear Technology, who fixed some system bugs and glitches after we highlighted it and other people (external to Arbtech) commented that they shared our frustrations. And (2), Wildlife Acoustics, who did exactly the same, and in fact promoted our review through their own social media channels because they still felt it gave them value by highlighting the positives and addressing the minor negatives. Both PT and WA are shining examples of great companies with fantastic service, that listen to their customers and react to market demand. Food for thought?
5
That it is the first time you have seen a constructive criticism does not serve to invalidate the criticism or its constructiveness, and is hardly the basis for calling Matt, Alan and Dave, unprofessional and cowardly.
In regard to the use of those words, I take particular issue with it, as I am sure they will separately.
I hardly think that directly contacting CAS to invite their views*, which was done entirely in the interests of fairness and integrity, we can be considered cowardly.
* = see my post below, dated 2 MONTHS ago, where I stated:
“For the avoidance of doubt: I have tweeted this to both CAS (@CAS_Tree_News) and the Arboricultural Association (@ArbAssociation)”.
Rob
Decisions have to be made on the day, based on the interests declared by participants, as to what elements to spend more time on and what may be of less interest to attendees. If I am training experienced consultants, or those claiming to be experienced consultants I don’t think it is very useful to show them how to collect data on trees, or to measure distances of trees from buildings. Whether people need to be shown how to assess soil texture is a key question as taking a course out of the room is time consuming and some are reluctant to roll their sleeves up and get their hands dirty. Another element will be the site of the course itself. No site is likely to have a good mix of trees and houses, with or without cracks, of particular design with conservatory and or extension….so photographs and case studies are much more efficient.
Is the course about subsidence or not? Clearly based on the comments above the Arbtech participants didn’t appreciate the difference between investigating subsidence after damage has occurred and attempting the assessment of the risk of subsidence (and the uncertainties and risks to the consultant) before damage had occurred (i.e. in relation to a mortgage report). When a statement was made to say the course was not about subsidence investigation I didn’t appreciate that inexperienced people might hear the word “subsidence” but fail to appreciate the difference between investigation and risk assessment.. A lesson learnt.
Spending more time on the mortgage report template itself is valid feedback; perhaps the elements of the whole day were not linked clearly with specific sentences of the report and although a lot of time was spent raising the awareness of subsidence the course is not the same as the Dobson/Biddle AA course but both courses deal with the issues of why buildings move and crack. The Dobson/Biddle course deals with the situation after damage has occurred for the most part and includes a whole variety of issues that the CAS course doesn;t touch upon. I’m more than happy to review the content to remove elements that may not be essential for understanding the risks to the arboricultural consultant.
Jon
Addressing your points in turn, as follows:
1
I disagree strongly. Most courses that involve a practical element in real life, are run at a venue that has been scoped out first as suitable. As a single example, I recall going on a THREATS course, run by JFL, where it was evident he had ‘cased the joint’ beforehand. All the delegates were taken outside and shown specific examples to discuss and assess, within a several mile radius of the venue itself.
2
That is for you, the instructor, who ultimately will certify people as a “CAS Accredited M&I Expert’, to decide yourself, alone, and then communicate very unambiguously to all delegates. Our reviewers felt you didn’t to this to their satisfaction.
Your tone has deteriorated unnecessarily, again. You’re now challenging the experience of delegates you know absolutely nothing about, when their confusion is direct the result of your own lack of incisive and clear advice.
3
That’s good feedback. Appreciate it.
Rob
I’ve eventually found the Syllabus for the Myerscough “Arboricultural Pre-Purchase Mortgage Assessments (Investigations for Insurance Purposes)” dated 30 April 2002. Who knows whether this was what was used in 2004 or what is used in 2014 but it shows Mr Oates memory may not be what he thinks it is:
Session 1 run by Dealga is titled “Subsidence of low rise buildings” (1 hour 15 mins)
Session 2 “Shrinkable clay soils and the climate of the English lowlans” (2 hours 15 mins)
Session 3 run by Dealga “Vegetation activity and shrinkable clay soils” (1 hour 15 mins)
They ran from 08:30-2.15 with an hour for lunch. In addition there was pre course reading on Session 2 in particular. So ArbTech attendees at the CAS course were led through pretty much the same set of information, not split exactly the same but anyone bored by subsidence shouldn’t go on either course…..and shouldn’t be offering to provide Mortgage Reports!
OK, Jon.
While I am really disappointed in the way you have responded, which would normally invite a different tone of response from me, I can see that you are aggrieved, so I’ll try to respond in a balanced and hopefully constructive manner.
I’ll address your points in turn, as follows:
1
What you’re saying here is; you found some materials used on a course that was run two years prior to the one I attended, and then followed that up with “who knows whether this was used?”, implying that you were not present, and therefore, have no idea at all whether or not your point is even qualified, let alone relevant, let alone salient.
You then feel that it is reasonable and proportionate – and I’ll accept it was a decade ago; I’m after all human – to question my memory.
I hope you can see why it isn’t worth my investing the time in a comprehensive response to that.
2
You then inform that your course is “not split exactly the same” (referring to the course that you procured materials from). Overlooking for now, that in all likelihood this was not the same course, I think you would do well to consider on your own words for a moment (or two).
In general, as I will demonstrate in responses to your other three posts on the subject, the delegates from Arbtech felt you could have delivered the content differently, and led the discussions differently. Whether you align with it or not, that is their view. And they are certainly entitled to it.
3
Again, Jon, I’m not willing to invest time in responding beyond the declarative statement that at no point in the review does anyone use imply they were “bored” or that they find the subject matter “boring”. Please don’t introduce irrelevancies into the discussion.
Rob