Cubit Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Seem like a very dodgy company one for watchdog maybe Well well, unless i'm mistaken, DPR don't appear to be Gas Safe registered either. So i wonder why DPR show the Gas Safe logo on the DPR lettings web site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb-eye Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 what a mornings read. can we do a name and shame? We would have to put our own houses in order first or maybe just use name and shame as an opertunity to address before reporting the culprits to trading standards and inspectorates. some years ago we were cloned by a individual operating in Lancashire, the chap used to be in our employ. Trading Standards prosecuted, A few years later I met the bloke and he appolagised, the one thing that stuck in my mind was he said the fine was less than cost of the approvals so he wasn't bothered. BTW I have now sacked off the NICEIC Customers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Really. Do they actually have any of these approvals? securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Jef and all. I don't mind a name and shame. But it would need a procedure etc. I wouldn't want it to be used to cause quality firms etc problems for no reason. But to my mind anyone claiming approval that they have not achieved deserve naming and shaming. Also it may well be that some of us have old / inaccurate / mistake etc info on our own websites and or printed media. Better to highlight this as well imo securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb-eye Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Jef and all. I don't mind a name and shame. But it would need a procedure etc. I wouldn't want it to be used to cause quality firms etc problems for no reason. But to my mind anyone claiming approval that they have not achieved deserve naming and shaming. Also it may well be that some of us have old / inaccurate / mistake etc info on our own websites and or printed media. Better to highlight this as well imo That's why I said "opertunity to address". I reckon most will not be members of the forum and those identified won't give a hoot anyway because the are cok sure their wont be any fall out.you call it will either defend it or fix it. If I don then report. Clearly the crowd being discussed aren't defending or about fixing. Let's see. Customers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappy Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 We would have to put our own houses in order first or maybe just use name and shame as an opertunity to address before reporting the culprits to trading standards and inspectorates. I think if "name & shame" was simple platform for those claiming something they'd neither earned nor paid for in the same blatant manner that we assume DPR Ltd; t/a DPR Secure appear to be claiming SSAIB approval when nobody can find any proof, along with a missing "Trustmark" listing too. For this to be exposed to glare of the public or better still be reported in some manner to the body who's trademark is displayed w/o consent, trading standards, advertising standards or whatever, then I think the forum & its members are doing a positive service to industry & the public. As for a procedure, I guess the board needs to establish a contact with the relevant security bodies who interested in protecting their intellectual property ? Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPR director Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Dear all. I am one of the directors at DPR And this has been brought to my attention this morning and therefore have joined the forum. This all appears to be getting out of hand. I would like to point out a few items on behalf of DPR DPR have been trading since 1989 and are a valued and respected company out there. We carry out all manner of property related works either by ourselves or via specialist contractors if the need arises. all our outside contractors are accredited, such as gas safe for our Lettings business etc, we do not portray to carry out nor do we carry out such works underhand. Our marketing company researched the use of logos and this was found to be acceptable, however I will arrange a check on this key area. DPR joined chas and construction line in 2006/7 for the benefit of insurance related works we carry out. We are fmb registered and are trustmark registered. We are corc registered. We enrolled with ssaib and paid our initial fees following an ssaib inspector at our premises, we aim to be fully registered soon, we understand the main topic here is displaying the logo but as we use a third party ssaib contractor where needed we are actually not issuing docs to the public that are anything other than ssaib true. If this is wrong I will arrange it to be corrected. I will also contact trading standards myself tomorrow to discuss if we are advertising wrongly. I will respond back tomorrow as I don't wish to while my only day off sat on my pc. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichL Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I dont believe for one second that you actually think its ok to display logos on your website for accreditations you dont have, but your sub-contractors do. Its clearly misleading. Originally said by Charles Babbage On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I dont believe for one second that you actually think its ok to display logos on your website for accreditations you dont have, but your sub-contractors do. Its clearly misleading. QFA I am sorry but those that actually hold accreditation are bound to feel agrieved. Not only that your customers household insurance could be invalid because they have indicated that their alarm is approved and its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubit Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 I think it a shame that there is malicious and vindictive content in this ongoing forum and find it abhorrent that someone feels it to be funny if someone was to fall off a ladder etc etc.....this does not make a good proactive discussion. Displaying a directors address is well underhand also. Such a shame on the above. A case of pots and kettles eh? This site was designed for decent tradesmen and companies not for dick heads like +++Let's hope if he's wishing bad on companies and wanting people to fall off ladders then may be we could all wish that he and his mum die of cancer in a long pain full death... Why do all jealous ******s like you sit in front of a computer anonymously and slag people off!! You lonely sad ****. Instead why don't you call in and see the director and tell him your thoughts face to face instead of hiding! **** head. You might want to have a chat with your erstwhile colleague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.