[Simon Gerrard]

"My main aim was to try and spread the word for the NCCA "
Is this not the job of NCCA and what you membership for ??
Still we have had all this before....NCCA is not known by anyone outside the business and that has, and continues to be its biggest problem

Spread the word of the misuse of the name taken from the December newsletter, what do you want them to do, a national tv campaign telling carpet cleaners not to use the name if they are not members 

Its up to the members to promote the association, I havent got a problem with that.

Westy,
No it is not. Members surely should expect the NCCA to be actively marketing the NCCA to the wider public. That, surely, is the whole purpose of being a member.

Simon

[Steve Chapman]

Totally off topic.

Great paintings Steve (canvas site).

Thanks Garry,

I've often told my customers I belong to the ncca & they look at me as if I'm talking French ( no disrespect to French people  )

I don't bother now, just tell them how great I am & they seem to be more impressed by that ! 

Steve

[Steve Gunn]

Why should I not list I'm trained by them I have the certificate plus a few paid up years Certs? I've done training with LTT but don't use their products trained by furniture clinic but don't use their cleaning product done training with Solutions but don't use any of their products to list a few. The folder I take into the clients home contains all these Certs so do I remove them because I don't pay to be a member or use their products?

[Craigp]

Does any association advertise on TV on it's members behalf?

I mean in other industries..

[Doug Holloway]

Hi guys

If some of you younger dynamic guys could join the NCCA and shake it up the industry as whole would benefit.

It's not big enough for several Trade asssociations.

Cheers

Doug

[Steve Gunn]

Don't use the logo on any of my sites but in my portfolio the certificates are in there for customers to review,should I take them out as I'm not a member but have attended and passed their exam?

[Jim_77]

No Jim, I am not missing any valid point. I also understand complicated replys so please dont question my intelligence.

Sorry I was a bit tired and grumpy last night, reading back over the thread I was a bit rude, my apologies  

But in reply to some of the points you make:

Fact is: Your every day Joe Bloggs searching the internet looking for a carpet cleaner stumbles upon a site that states trained by the NCCA, this site may have a link to the NCCA website, the potential customer could come to the conclusion that the company is connected with them.

Exactly!  They ARE connected with the NCCA... they've done one of their bloody courses!  Taking someone's money off them for a training course and then forbidding them to say who they're trained by is just nonsensical.  As I said earlier, they could easily wipe this problem out altogether by only allowing association members to do the courses.

But of course they won't, because that means they'll sell less courses and make less money.  Kind of sticks in the throat, taking your money off you and then kicking you in the balls like that.  It stinks.

My gripe is: Why should I have to pay for what really amounts to the same thing. This is damaging a very well recognised association, why? Because next year I and many other members may just do the same thing, so it is in the best interests of the NCCA to stop it now.

Your annual subscription to the NCCA buys you much more than just being able to put their logo on your website, doesn't it.  There's a massive list of benefits you get for your money.  So it is ridiculous to say that you are getting the same benefits as someone who just advertises the fact that they're trained by the NCCA.

I am not a lawyer and havent got a clue if it is enforceable, I would guess that the NCCA have, hence the bit in Decembers issue.

It's an out-and-out bluff.  I'd love to see the NCCA try to take a case like this to court!  It's so short-sighted of them, why don't they realise that outside sources promoting their association and website is a good thing!  Free publicity! What they're basically trying to do is cut off their nose to spite their face.

Where are your facts based from that the majority of skilled carpet cleaners are not members of the NCCA?

The simple fact that there are only 545 members of the NCCA!!!!  Added to that, the general consensus from forum conversations and from speaking to many different carpet cleaners is that very few are members.

It seems that the NCCA tends to snare newcomers to the industry who think it's the same as being Gas Safe registered, but then as soon as they wise up a bit, many realise that they don't have to be members and maybe don't get much benefit, and hence don't keep up their membership.

Surely if such an organisation has been around for such a length of time it should have the vast majority of carpet cleaning businesses on its books?  It just shows that something's not being done right and it's been like that for years.

Why try and damage a long established association?

I don't think anyone's trying to damage the NCCA, if I had PAID for one of their training courses I would damn well expect to be able to tell the general public that fact.  It isn't any sort of attempt to damage the association at all, just to benefit from the investment made.

If there's a trend of people leaving the association for various reasons, the NCCA should blame only itself for failing to provide any benefit to its members.  It's nobody else's fault but theirs if they can't do their job properly.

The NCCA is maybe not for everyone, or if someone just wants to save a few quid, get rid of the NCCA  stuff and maybe put “trained to industry standards”

Hahaha yeah and if you want to see what those industry standards are... that'll be £50 please just for the bloody privilege!!! ker-CHING goes the NCCA's till......

Doug, the NCCA is run by the old guard and is stuck in its ways.  The very prospect that "younger dynamic guys could join the NCCA and shake it up" is exactly what they don't want, so it'll never happen

[Steve Barnett (Carpet Care Plus)]

Excellent post Jim

[Phil @ Extreme Clean]

NCCA or TACCA who give's a **** at end of the day if i clean carpets and **** any up then whoops but i'm fully insured and 2 i haven't ****** any carpet's yet and i think any customer would rather see FULLY INSURED then NCCA or TACCA at the end of the day i know what my customers understand MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Carpet Dawg]

^^ oi! Potty mouth 

I had a letter from the NCCA 3 years ago telling me to remove all mention of NCCA from my advertsing material. I sent it back to them 

I only mentioned it on my business card that I was trained by them. Like Derek.

Nothing ever came of it.

[Phil @ Extreme Clean]

Exactly who gives a **** 

[Jim_77]

I'm not trying to belittle the NCCA at all.  I only wish it would/could do what the industry wants it to do, but it seems unwilling or unable.  I think the points I've mentioned are valid arguments and represent the views of a fair proportion of carpet cleaners in this country.  Hence why some people feel strongly enough to get off their ar$es and try to offer an alternative.

Let's get one thing straight here, I AM NOT involved with TACCA in any way, shape or form.  I have taken out membership for my business, like many, to show solidarity to Derek and to make sure I'm on the bus should it end up in a decent destination

So I'm a member of both associations.

And with all due respect, it's a bit early to say whether anyone's time has been wasted as TACCA is only in its infancy and it still has a long way to go.  But as Derek keeps emphasising, TACCA has not been set up to take on the NCCA at its own game or undermine it in any way - its mission statement differs, and the way it is being managed differs.

I personally think that an association that taps in to the needs of the average carpet cleaner is going in the right direction.

Time will tell

[Colin Day]

If you feel aggrieved by paying over the odds for very little in return, you shouldn't really take it out on those who know how to "legally" manipulate words in their advertising by saying they were trainedby the NCCA.

I'm sick to the back teeth of being told to join up to make a difference to an already established association, I would be much happier to pay for a service that already exists. It's a bit like taking your car to a garage and being told  to fix it yourself
 

[jasonl]

If someone paid for NCCA training , and wishes to advertise the fact without paying up , and then they are threatened with legal action for doing so , they can be safe in the knowledge that this will never happen , because the NCCA does not have anything like the resources necessary to carry out the legal action, and if they did they are not guaranteed to win, which would then open the floodgates and also be a waste of members money. 

Tacca is in the same boat , neither organisation has any clout , just the odd job for each member each year.

[Mike Halliday]

slightly in the NCCA defence.... they problem with using the term trained by the NCCA is if I search google for a NCCA carpet cleaner google cannot recognize the significance of the the words.... trained by....

so if i want a NCCA carpet cleaner( because some one has told me that's who i should use)  when I searched 'hull NCCA carpet cleaners' I get 3 companies who are not members of the NCCA but have used the NCCA letters

I'M ONE OF THEM!!!!!! It has picked up an obscure  directory that I joined 8yrs ago while I was a member

[Simon Gerrard]

I've just soken to my son who is a Litigaton Lawyer. By saying you were 'trained,' or attended courses run  by the NCCA, you are merely making a statement of fact and if a case were brought by the NCCA on the grounds that you have stated a fact, that you were trained by the NCCA, the case would be brought down in seconds and all costs persuant to the matter would into the lap of the NCCA.
If you say you were trained by the NCCA and display their logo without being a member then they would be a different matter, but only because of the logo which implies membership.

Simon

[jasonl]

CD tried to stop me putting ex Cd in my advertising , it would cost them at least 20k to take it to a court , I just put it sporadically out of mischief now.

[creighton foyle]

i am a member of the ncca and tacca and when i ask people if they have heard of tacca they say no, when i ask people if they have heard of the ncca they also say no, i pay the ncca over £200 pa to be a member with no obvious benefits that i have seen so far, i pay tacca nothing also with no obvious benefits so far however tacca is evolving and may prove to be beneficial in the future once it has enough members whereas the ncca is already evolved and seems to be failing miserably.
I agree with westy that people should not benefit from an organisation that they do not contribute to however where i would disagree is where people have done the very expensive training course with the ncca as then i think it reasonable that they are able to state on their websites and paperwork that they are ncca trained, I do not think this is morally or legally wrong and perhaps the ncca are overstepping the mark by trying to say it is.

while we are on the subject of the ncca they may now employ someone to do their marketing but all they seem to do is more and more training courses which in my view only benefits those that get payed to do the training what do the members get out of it?
that last statement in no way implies that any of the ncca trainers are doing anything untoward and if i knew as much as them i wood like to get payed for it too. the point i am trying to make is that all that training benefits the industry and the trainers but the money made from it does not seem to benefit the organisation or its members.

[Shaun_Ashmore]

The NCCA make money out of training far more than out of membership fees I think they could cut off their nose to spite their face if they push the issue but I would image that a statement like this had to be said to appease members, litigation could cause less training courses which would see NCCA, IICRC (or what ever) reduce in size and finances making the trade poorer on money and quality also trainers like Derek Bolton Paul Pearce etc wouldn't be able to pass on their wisdom and also it would hit them in the pocket because they don't work for nothing.

Shaun

[Steve Rothwell]

Why would someone pay for a training course if they were then not allowed to tell anyone who trained them??

"Yes Mrs customer I have been trained to the industries highest standard.. Who with? sorry not allowed to tell you without shooting you afterwards"

Doesn't really work does it?


This could cost the NCCA more.......