Richard Dilks: Why consumers deserve a better deal

The TrustMark scheme works well – for builders who gain from its marketing value. But it’s leaving too many consumers in the hands of the cowboys

FINDING A GOOD BUILDER can be a tightrope walk for consumers. Once a dispute goes beyond the small claims limit, redress through the courts is not easy. The financial losses can destroy consumers’ life savings. So it’s worrying that home maintenance and improvements rank second-worst overall in the 2009 sector complaints figures from the government-funded advice service Consumer Direct. The sector notched up 65,000 complaints, beaten only by second-hand-car sales.

In the absence of any regulator or ombudsman, many endorsement schemes have sprung up. These range from purely commercial operations with minimal vetting to the not-for-profit schemes of local council trading standards departments. Although the latter are the “best in class” Which? has seen, none offer national coverage. Each scheme, of whatever kind, has its own methods and merits. So consumers wanting a builder must add investigating the schemes to their long roster of research tasks.

At a national level, inaction has been followed by overreaction (Quality Mark) and then underachievement (TrustMark). Quality Mark received relatively substantial spending (£6.7m) from central government. It had demanding criteria and high costs of membership, but failed to reach a critical mass.

TrustMark offers member firms a good marketing deal. They get a recognised brand and a high-traffic searchable website for £25 a year on top of membership of one of its trade association scheme operators. But TrustMark offers little to consumers, who cannot complain to it directly. They can only complain to TrustMark about a scheme operator’s handling of a complaint. The operators have their own differing processes and standards.

Which? has seen extremely troubling and unresolved experiences involving losses of many tens of thousands of pounds and years of stressful disruption where TrustMark scheme operators have mainly not been able to help, despite the consumers trying to use their adjudication processes. In 2008, TrustMark had an income of only £310,388 and made a loss of more than £50,000.

For our recent article “Building confidence” (Which? magazine, April 2010), we posed as a consumer wanting a brick wheelie-bin shelter and got quotes over the phone from 245 builders and bricklayers. Of those quoting, 61% were not members of a trade association. To conclude they were not good builders would be absurd. Many excellent builders have few or no formal qualifications, while some of the most troubling cases Which? has seen involved builders who ticked all the boxes. So the idea of red tape coming to the rescue seems far-fetched.

We would like to see a national endorsement scheme that works for consumers and the industry. This would need to involve rigorous vetting of a firm, including a demonstration of competence at least partly through site inspections, before acceptance; then ongoing random checks and consumer support once a firm had joined. Such a scheme would need to be funded initially and continually. A small industry levy per job may be the best way to achieve this.

Which? is also interested in the idea of extending the ombudsman schemes seen in the financial, estate agent and energy sectors, perhaps by establishing a general consumer ombudsman. This would hopefully improve the chances of consumers getting redress, while still offering both parties third-party resolution. This would be in concert with the continuing good work of trading standards departments’ endorsement schemes and enforcement action.

In 2006, Which? set up a website to help members looking for building services. At www.which-local.co.uk, moderated by Which?, members can recommend excellent traders and services to one another. There are thousands of recommended builders, and consumers obviously find it worthwhile to take the time to recommend them. Although limited to Which? members, it offers a glimpse of how consumers and builders could be better served than they are. cm

Richard Dilks is a researcher at Which?