Very quick service, but the advertised price is not quite correct. Stuck with a requirement to have a CFSH Ecology assessment, I contacted Arbtech on the basis of cost alone. The website advertises one price, but actually the quote came back with another price. The website could benefit from explaining this in advance, as wasn’t aware that this was likely to occur. The work was promt, and the report issued. I’ve now gone to add some information from Recommended Native Trees and Shrubs list and I’m frustrated that some of the list isn’t split into trees, shrubs and hedges and recommended sizes not given. Correcting this would improve the final feeling of the service. Having said all of that, I would use the service again.
Robert Oates, Managing Director responds:
Hi Daren, Thank you for taking the time out to provide us with your valuable feedback – it really is appreciated. I’ll try to offer an explanation as to why you feel that you were quoted in writing differently to the advertized price on this site, for your Code for Sustainable Homes ecology report.
Essentially, we require a baseline ecological survey in order to produce your CfSH ecology report for credits ECO1-4. This is not something that is unique to you, or even Arbtech. It is true of every single sustainability ecological report that anyone in the UK produces, against the standards set out by the Building Research Establishment for either CfSH or BREEAM.
We do state this in the current pricing table which you can view by clicking on the “our surveys and pricing” tab, above, and choosing the “Code and BREEAM” option. The wording we use is in the table is “Requires ecology survey?” and “Yes”. Furthermore, normally, by the time the vast majority of planning applicants require a Code for Sustainable Homes ecology report, they have already had some sort of baseline ecological survey completed, which we can work from.
Finally, in our no obligation quotation we sent to you, we set out our price for the CfSH ecology report, which was exactly as we prescribed on this site, and included an option for you to have a baseline level of ecological survey done, at a separate and additional cost, should that be required. With all that said, I really do pride myself on the transparency of our pricing structure. So, while this is the first instance of someone’s expectations not being met, since we rolled out fixed prices advertized on the site, I agree with you that we could make it even more clear, just for the absolute avoidance of doubt. Our site is constantly being updated and having new information added to it, in an effort to provide our customers with the most accurate and up to date information we can possibly offer.
As part of the next major update, I will endeavour to make it unmistakably clear that CfSH and BREEAM ecology reports require a baseline level of ecological survey to have be undertaken. In regard to your comment about the species list not being broken down by tree, shrub and hedges; this is not something we do as standard and have not had any feedback that requests it previously, either from our customers, their Code Assessors or the BRE themselves.
It is a point I will bring up at the next team meeting for discussion. I am delighted to note that you were satisfied overall with our service – and most importantly, that you would in fact use us again. I really am pleased to hear this, as my colleagues and I work very hard to ensure that everyone receives the very highest standard of service we can possibly offer, faster than our competitors, and in most cases, a good deal cheaper to boot.
As a token of goodwill and to thank you for completing this review of our service, the next time you require a CfSH ecology report, if you come back to us, we’ll do it for you free of charge.
My best wishes, Rob.