Main menu

Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies

Submitted by: MikeC (Admin) on 02-Mar-08 10:25:48 PM

So the Institute of Domestic Energy Assessors (IDEA) are having a members poll asking if they support the institute's ambition to become an accreditation scheme and/or Panel.

The results (as of writing):

Become an accreditation scheme

  • Yes: 134
  • No: 23
  • Undecided: 16

Become a Panel (or 'Business Procurement Unit'):

  • Yes: 158
  • No: 14
  • Undecided: 8

Judging by the general responses made by members, I get the impression that those strongly in favour of the proposals are finding it really tough out there. They feel that if the IDEA can win some sizable contracts, they may get more work for acceptable fees... whatever that means in today's marketplace.

Who can blame them? I certainly don't: It's a possible lifeline, afterall.

However, the desperation for work and the eagerness to have the IDEA grab some of it for them, would entail the complete re-invention of what the institute was set up to achieve.

Not only that, despite utterings to the contrary, nowhere within the constitution does it mention anything about commercial activities. Indeed, the stated objectives in the official document is written in typically commendable tones:

Mission Statement

"IDEA is an organisation which will represent the interests and uphold the professional standards of its members who carry out Energy Assessment in the Built Environment"


The IDEA shall have the following objectives –

  • To be a central representative body to put forward the views of its members to Government departments and agencies, Parliament, Home Information Pack Providers, Industry working groups, Professional and other Trade bodies, and all relevant organisations operating within the Energy Assessment Industry.
  • To facilitate routes for the provision of life-long learning by members and to source up to date information on all relevant technical and best practice issues as part of their ongoing career development.
  • To establish and maintain links with approved training and education bodies
  • To raise a positive, professional profile of the DEA
  • To Promote the EPC as a valuable and informative report
  • To provide a forum for the exchange of information.
  • To pursue such policies as the elected Executive Committee identify as being necessary or desirable.

This reads exactly as one would reasonably expect from a representative organisation.

Yet there are no provisions for becoming an accreditation scheme; no mention of becoming a Panel; nor any mention of becoming a training provider, either.

In fact, there is no mention of any proposed commercial ventures at all.

The real constitution?

It's not until one reads the accompanying Powerpoint presentation slides - not the official constitution - that we first encounter the 'commercial' word, and the possibility of becoming an accreditation body:

"Possibly become the largest accreditation body to establish consistency and professional standards in the industry or as a minimum monitor and uphold professional standards of our members"

Clearly, becoming an accreditation body has either been on the table since last year (since the constitution was apparently drafted in Nov/Dec 07), or this is an attempt to bolt-it-on, outside of the legal constraints of the institute's remit; which poses a question already raised to me by several DEAs:

Is the IDEA using its position - and member-base - as a marketing vehicle for outside business interests?

Other bullet points in the Powerpoint presentation are to:

  • "Engage with all major players in influencing future development of the industry" (Engage? Or compete? Read the "Objectives" again)
  • "Establish a sustainable management structure"
  • "In support of the above establish a commercial branch of the institute run as a business with profits supporting main institute activity"

It's almost as if the Powerpoint presentation is a separate commercial constitution... or is it the real constitution? One could hardly be blamed for thinking so, given the institute's activity to date.

How the constitution restricts the IDEA's commercial aspirations

These days, it is hard to imagine any business that can confidently pledge to never rely upon debt - whether for expansion or for riding the troughs. The institute - not being a business, as such - has ruled out any borrowings in its constitution:

"11.2 The Institute shall not borrow money"

It can only raise funds via the following prescribed channels:

"11.6 The Institute is empowered to raise funds by receiving subscriptions, donations, sponsorship and gifts."

...which is probably exactly how one imagines all such similar member-based entities making ends meet (although the word 'gifts' is open to interpretation I guess!).

So there's not much room to play with here, basically: it can't borrow; and can't sell anything- apart from subscriptions. What's more, it can't raise a profit...

Not for profit

In fending off accusations of 'profiteering' and 'conflict of interest' and such-like, it is often defended with the phrase: not for profit. Which is (rightfully) stated within the constitution.

But I think it's clear, given the revenue-generating constraints imposed upon it by the constitution, that the institute is positioning itself as a hub to receive the revenue it needs from outside commercial ventures: Third party businesses detached from the institute; operating in the marketplace; with staff and overheads; a different legal environment; amongst desperate competitors in a desperate market, and, the vagaries of profit and loss!

Fierce HIPs market

It's a very risky strategy: the market is fierce - everyone knows that; fees are diced and sliced at a rate that is now difficult to follow; panels are desperate to keep the cash flowing, even at the expense of margins.

Some say panels take too much of a cut from the top - easy to say when you don't have staff, offices, phones, insurances, equipment, and all the multitude of expenses that must be met, regardless of volume activity.

And the IDEA expects the businesses it controls to sustain both themselves, and the institute... whilst paying "decent" fees and remaining competitive?


As if there isn't enough demands on what the institute should be doing without the huge additional burdens of running all the proposed enterprises!

When the deal with Hip2Go was launched, there was barely no other conversation to be had for weeks. It drowned everything.

Is there really time for any more distractions from the core Mission Statement and Objectives? Isn't there enough to do?

Cutting out the middle man (DEA Panels)

'Cut out the middle man', scream the proponents of IDEAs' proposed "Business Procurement Unit" (AKA: Panel)... only to unwittingly welcome another that will operate in the exact same cut-throat market.

Whilst it is true there are some cowboy outfits out there, equally, there are genuine panels and employers that truly abhor having to cut their fees and standards. Does anyone really believe that panels and employers - having invested so much since the beginning (before many DEAs even began training) - with business plans that, in good faith, offered hitherto acceptable fees, are really enjoying the squeeze taking place in the market?

And the vitriol of DEAs each time they are forced to cut fees?

It has happened to the best of them; no one has escaped making that decision - so how will the IDEA compete, without competing?

It is dangerous to assume that the major players will charitably honour any safe haven for the IDEA.

Indeed, when the Hip2Go deal was launched at a bargain basement - market-beating - price-point, what happened? At least two other HIP providers quickly matched, or undercut it.

So it could be argued that the IDEA has helped create yet another arms race for fellow DEAs. And don't forget, most DEAs are not HIP providers; nor do they want to be, I'd wager. Yet, the IDEA's move into HIPs puts yet more pressure on them... you!

Bad timing

What's more, this has to be the worst possible time to enter this market; there's no sane reason for doing so - no first-mover guarantee of immortal dominance.

Richard Branson made a point of conquering mature, established markets, because they have predictable cost-bases and the cowboys have largely been driven out. The HIP industry, in contrast, is quite the opposite - it's the frickin' wild west out there right now!

And a crowded one at that!

And if that's not enough to convince you, then ask yourself: How will an external commercial venture support both itself, and the institute, whilst still offering acceptable fees and high quality service?

Oh, I've already mentioned that haven't I!

The IDEA may be 'not for profit', but the commercial offshoots it seeks to depend on will certainly need to be profit-making for they will carry the burden of subsidising the IDEA, as well as investing for its own future survival in the market.

The IDEA accreditation scheme

If you want a good quality accreditation scheme, you need a high calibre of staff receiving decent benefits and conditions of employment. You want them to be loyal, friendly and knowledgeable of the industry they serve and work... you don't "run it on a shoe-string".

There is detailed and methodical work to perform having potentially serious legal ramifications. Finding good staff is difficult - keeping hold of good staff is absolutely key... and expensive.

How is the IDEA to find staff capable of undertaking the responsibilities of an accreditation scheme? Training them would be expensive and timely, and poaching them from other schemes would be equally expensive... not to mention potentially damaging to relations - relations which the IDEA should be seeking to strengthen, if it is to fulfill the Mission Statement and Objectives outlined above (which would be difficult as a competitor).

Where will DEAs turn?

For me, one of the most important arguments against the institute running an accreditation scheme -  a representative institute -, was made by one of its own members:

Where should an IDEA member seek support if problems arise with the same accreditation scheme it controls?

That, to my mind, immediately rules the proposal out; no further debate necessary.

But more worryingly, when the above argument was asserted, the response was along the lines of: 'Well, whether we're an accreditation scheme or not, there's nothing we can do anyway; it would just go up to the ABBE or C&G!'

So, is there any need for a representative body at all then?! The response completely failed to address the nuances of the varied problems that crop up in any business where a calming intermediary may be able to smooth relations and/or offer clarification.

How will the IDEA fund a start-up accreditation scheme?

In the DCLG's document that sets out the criteria for approving an accreditation scheme, it states that:

Scheme operators shall demonstrate that they have sufficient financial stability to provide confidence that they can continue to operate throughout the period of approval granted by the Secretary of State

(Emphasis mine)

So, if the IDEA is granted approval to operate as an accreditation scheme for 12 months, it somehow has to show it has the financial wherewithal to remain afloat for that period too. It must also satisfy that it can do so in the face of "unforeseen events".

Another investor?

Which surely begs the question: how will that requirement be satisfied, given that the membership is frequently told there is very little - if any - money?

I can only surmise there must be an outside investor... which, once again, begs the question that has often dogged the IDEA; that of transparency.


Whenever the question of funding has been raised, it has almost always been initially met with defensive obfuscation, followed by a drawn-out begrudging disclosure. In the case of the IDEAs tie-up with Hip2Go, there was an initial flat-out denial that any exchange of monies was taking place at all. Only recently has it been admitted that a £5 payment is made, per HIP introduced.

Now, it could well be the case that, at the time of denial, there were no payments taking place - perhaps due to insufficient volume - but clearly there was an arrangement in place which should, at least, have been transmitted to the membership from the start.

Similarly, no explanation for where the funds came from to become an AHIPP member (several thousand pounds), either.

The reticence in expressing - upfront - how the IDEA plans to operate and fund itself is probably more damaging than the fact alone: It ferments a suspicion that something is being hidden, which is difficult to shift once lodged into the psyche of members in future relations.

DEAs are not stupid

People are not stupid; everybody understands money is needed to operate an organisation. In fact, people understand that truism far easier than being told the opposite. So why hide it?

Members have a Right to know who is pulling the financial strings... especially when it's not them! It's important. They need to make their own judgements as to what potential conflicts of interest may arise from the relationship. Note, I'm not necessarily alluding to those that may arise for the IDEA itself here; there may be implications for individual members, which they should be aware of.

Before I sum up, one last comment on the obligations the DCLG demand: If the IDEA were to become an accreditation scheme, it must demonstrate it will be capable of handing over "core information and resources" to a successor organisation, should it cease to trade - which would be ironic if the successor organisation was one that sought to drive the IDEA out of business!

And why wouldn't they? There are already 8 accreditation schemes competing for the same pool of DEAs. Most of them have invested significant amounts of money - some over several years without a return - do you think they won't vigorously defend their market share?

Permission to institutionalise

Finally, I'll end with a direct quote from the Companies House website which underlines the restraints imposed upon the IDEA:

institute or institution - approval for use of these words is normally given only to those organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing. You will need to show us that there is a need for the proposed institute and that it has appropriate regulations or examination standards. You will need evidence of support from other representative and independent bodies.

About Us - Guidance (Companies House)

Fork in the road

So what is the IDEA to be? An Institute representing its members, or a vehicle to push the products of outside commercial interests? An eBay shopfront, you might say... or a cooperative even!

Either path has its own merits, arguably; but there can only be one path, IMO.

I only hope it chooses the right path because I think it would be a huge demoralising blow to an already battered army of DEAs if it should fail in its Mission Statement and Objectives.

Get listed on the DEA locater - FREE!

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #1 on : Tue March 04, 2008, 01:39:07
All i've had since joining IDEA is offers from companies. Good post.

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #2 on : Tue March 04, 2008, 12:45:58
I'd like to see fewer panels but I didnt join Idea to line the pockets of another one. I've not voted because I've lost faith.

Posts: 19
Goodbye to IDEA
Reply #3 on : Wed March 05, 2008, 18:48:27
Excellent post - I voted no for these reasons. When I have a problem I would like to be able to turn to the IDEA for assistance. Now the IDEA are more concerned with selling 'subsidised' products to me than helping me by fighting my corner. I hope the Steering group read this post before they commit us to something we will regret.

Posts: 19
Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #4 on : Wed March 05, 2008, 19:48:21
Since I joined the IDEA I have achieved extra work from the ability to offer a full HIP, and what’s more because of pricing I get more money for the survey that goes with the HIP.

Long may the IDEA reign in going all out to help its members in gaining business. If other people are gaining, so what, as you say in your post, we all have to make a living.
Posts: 1
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #5 on : Wed March 05, 2008, 20:39:02
Hi Mike

I'm really glad you've had more work providing HIPs, really. But that is possible without IDEA devoting (limited) time and resources which should be focused on the 1200 or so members it pledges to represent in its Mission Statement and Objectives.

There are more people involved in this than DEAs trading as HIP Providers too.

Like I say, I don't blame you for welcoming any opportunities to gain work if you are suffering but presumably Hips2Go would still be around as a service provider regardless.

IDEA should not be a competitor within the industry it purports to represent - It should be about bringing people together to speak as a single voice. The proposed path will limit the effectiveness of that voice if it ceases to be listened to, or only speaks for a small subset.

Posts: 19
Recent Polls
Reply #6 on : Thu March 06, 2008, 01:52:35

A very lengthy contribution from you this time; clearly there must have been nothing else for you to write about that day.

As per usual all "anti IDEA" replies are anonymous, presumably made from the usual suspects who hide behind nicknames on the HI Forum too.

It is perfectly feasible for IDEA to run both the commercial aspects of the institute in tandem with the members services, liasing with Govt, etc. Isn't that what other established institutes do all the time now anyway? Maybe not the best one to chose given their recent track record, but look at RICS for example.

You played the "transparency" card in your monolgue yet again. Any monies made or created by IDEA commercial activities are then used for running the institute. That is how we are operating now, in conjunction with the generosity of the steering group who continue to give their time and support to run IDEA free of charge. Can I remind you that IDEA currently doesn't charge membership fees, yet look at all we have achieved in just 6 months. By comparison NARHI and IHI both do charge membership subs, but what do their members actually get for their money? Not a lot that I can see.

You insinuate that IDEA has spent several thousand pounds joining AHIPP. That is simply untrue. If you had cared to ask me, instead of jumping to conclusions then including it in your "article" like some red top journalist, I could have told you that our membership costs £200pm which is payable by direct debit. This cost is easily covered by the monies generated by our hugely successful HIP IDEA product; which I recall you were equally vocal and sceptical about when we launched that too.

AHIPP passes a wealth of information onto it's members and IDEA in turn shares this information with our membership, within the IDEA member forum. We liase and work closely with AHIPP and I am personally involved within their EPC Action Group.

It seems to me Mike that you simply like to knock or question everything we do or try to achieve yet you can offer no viable alternative. Talk is cheap and there is certainly lots of cheap talk on here. I am one of the VERY few individuals who have eminated from these HI forums who has actually got off his backside and TAKEN ACTION and done something positive to help DEAs & HI's.

By the tone and content of some of your blog postings I really am beginning to question just what your true agenda is now Mike. I make no apology to you or anyone else for empowering our members to be able to compete in a very overcrowded marketplace and we will continue to do so to the best of our abilities. We now have hundreds of IDEA members, all over the country successfully selling the HIP IDEA product to estate agents, solicitors and end users. Our members also enjoy market leading £2 million PI & PL insurance cover, exclusive to IDEA members too. If that rattles a few cages or upsets a few vested interests then that's their problem, not mine or IDEA's.

There are many enlightened individuals out there who recognise the good work that IDEA is doing in bringing many elements of this fragmented industry "under one roof" so to speak. IDEA is the natural home for forward thinking, positive, professional individuals who genuinely wish to make a career out of energy assessment within the built enviroment. To those of you who fall into this category I assure you all that IDEA is a member driven organisation who will always fight the corner of it's members and we will continue you to bring you market leading products and services, which will be exclusive to our members.

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #7 on : Sun March 09, 2008, 20:42:49
Am I alone in finding it sad that:

* The Chief Executive of the IDEA should be so openly abusive to mike just because he has posted an alternative view on the proposals to that of the Chief Executive. you wonder why most posters don't give names. perhaps they don't want to join the long list of people who have been banned from using the IDEA forum by the current management

* that the Chief Executive of IDEA openly expresses the view that the posting of alternative points of view is being 'anti-IDEA'. why is thinking differently from the Chief Executive of the IDEA being 'anti-IDEA'? perhaps these people are just against these proposals and mike has set out what seem good reasons for his view. perhaps they actually have best interests of all Home inspectors and energy assessors who belong to the IDEA at heart. is the IDEA a democratic organisation which respects free speech or not?

* that some people who post on the IDEA forum think that writing an article contrary to their own thoughts/jim's thoughts is 'a lot of bitching'.

you might not agree with mike but this is a democracy and you should respect his right to have a different opinion and his right to express it. by failing to do this you make yourselves look bad - not mike.

where is the IDEA when it is needed by members who have been having problems lately? lots of us have had problems with our training provider. one guy had the courage to post his thoughts on the HI forum and ask if anyone else felt the same and had evidence to support a complaint to the trading standards people. he is now being bullied by the training company and threatened with defamation. i have not seen any posts suggesting the IDEA will be backing the trainee who dared to criticise that training provider and writing to trading standards. why are individual members of the Home Inspector forum the only group that appears to be providing support?

this hardly fits with jim's view that 'IDEA is without doubt the leading representative organisation for both DEA's and HI's and will continue to remain so, even if the other two did join forces'

don't you think the IDEA should be concentrating on supporting its members before diverting attention/effort/funds to commercial activities and being an accreditation scheme

finally jim you're not the only person who 'got off his backside and TAKEN ACTION and done something positive to help DEAs & HI's'. mike has been canvassing the accreditations schemes on their CPD requirements and advising DEAs and HIs on what they need to do. don't recall any IDEA input on that one - perhaps they won't speak to a rival. i recall mike also listed the various schemes on this blog and the various costs of membership. don't recall IDEA helping with that either. mike has probably done more, but i'm trying to earn a living and i don't have time to read the forums that much.

The Chief Executive of the IDEA should think carefully before publicly criticising someone else who is making a good contributions to this industry just because, like many people, he disagrees with the proposals being made by the current management at the IDEA.

it is sad that i don't feel i can give my name because i too am afraid of getting banned if i post these thoughts on the IDEA forum.

Posts: 19
Reply #8 on : Mon March 10, 2008, 00:36:03
In response to the latest anonymous poster, irrespective of my position within IDEA I have a right to reply and I have done, using my own name.

Mike made some totally unfounded allegations and made no effort to contact me (he has both my mobile number and office number) before doing so. Even a red top journalist would have done so before writing such an inflammatory article.

This constant reference to remaining anonymous for fear of being banned from IDEA is yet more unsubstantiated nonsense. The anti IDEA brigade are few in number, have their own hidden agendas and frequent the HI forum.

Any IDEA member is free to speak his or her mind on the IDEA members forum.

As for assisting people in connection with any TP or accrediation problems, IDEA has never shyed away from this. We help everyone who approaches us for help. All anyone has to do is ask, but of course, this cannot be done anonymously either.

I withdrew from posting on the HI forum as I was essentially hounded off their by the same half dozen people, which Ryan chose not to moderate. I refused to stoop to their level. My posts on here are now equally futile as the same people will simply hide behind the anonymous tag here now too and spout the same nonsense.

This is therefore my last post on here too. I'm getting good at spotting dead horses and when to stop flogging them. On the whole, IDEA is full of good, like minded, positive and professional individuals and that is who myself and the rest of the steering group are answerable to, not a handful of bitter individuals who are so petty they cannot even put their real names to their own words.

I stand by my earlier post, which any fair minded, reasonable person will understand.

Posts: 19
Reply #9 on : Mon March 10, 2008, 11:42:54
How laughable that the CEO of IDEA feels he has to retreat the 'safe ground' of the IDEA forum (where of course he has moderator privileges). Equally how stupid to suggest that Ryan did not moderate those posts challenging Jim's opinions- moderators have a role to keep forums on the straight and narrow, not to 'protect' individuals who have opinions that others want to question. If Jim has nothing to hide perhaps he wouldn't mind if all the threatening and abusive messages from him were posted publicly? Somehow I doubt it, he'd end up looking a complete muppet.

And don't even get me started on anonymous postings cos Sir will look a fool.

Perhaps IDEA members need to look who they have got into bed with? The good thing about never asking questions is that you never get replies that make you feel uncomfortable isn't it?

I get flak for asking the uncomfortable questions sometimes, it seems this time round MikeC is on the receiving end for posting his genuine thoughts.

Posts: 19
Facts not Fiction.
Reply #10 on : Mon March 10, 2008, 12:59:11
I have read the previous posts and responses to Mikes Article which l have to say, I support.

Like Neil I was a former member of the IDEA Steering Group and even a member of JGs inner Samctum.

My informative observations are that JG is not the right man to head up IDEA, my reasons are as follows:

1. Jim Gillespie is a commercial man and is driven by profit and loss.
2. He is very good at manipulating.
3. He is single minded and will make decisions and justify them afterwrds (Dictatorial).
4. If you do not agree with his way forward then you will be either ignored or banned from the IDEA with a red card and awarded 10 points.
5. JG is not good for IDEA and will always have his own agenda.

As JG is not himself an accredited DEA/HI, I understand, within the constitution, if he is not a full member he is unable to vote, or even use the full members board; but he will make an ammendement to cover that I'me sure.

By posting on here Im sure my membership to IDEA will be revoked.

JG has cannot be removed as CEO of IDEA for three years, based on that alone the IDEA will soon become JDEA

[Formatted post as per Christopher's request - Mike]
Last Edit: March 10, 2008, 13:53:45 by admin  

Posts: 19
Sad and Anonymous
Reply #11 on : Mon March 10, 2008, 15:06:08
How sad a very eloquent reply from an IDEA member who is too frightened to give his/her own name for fear of retribution.
Now call me dim or Jim will just say unprofessional but does that sound like a truly representative body?
I have a pop from time to time about things I feel are lacking with the IHI but I have never had to do so anonymously for fear of loosing membership, and to be 100% truthful if i did feel that way I personally would cease membership of an organisation that made me feel that worried.

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #12 on : Mon March 10, 2008, 15:51:34
I find it absolutely appalling that anyone would even dare suggest that Jim Gillespie is anything other than a totally solid, fair and reasonable sort of a chap. Obviously he only has the membership's interests at heart and would never even consider manipulating the 'institutes's' finances for personal gain. Everyone who has been aware of his dealings over the last year or two would, I am sure, agree with me. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise. Oh, I'm sorry, I just weed myself whilst laughing.

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #13 on : Mon March 10, 2008, 18:52:19
OK - in view of jims comments i will update my comments - Am i alone in finding it sad that:

* The Chief Executive of the IDEA ACTING AS AN INDIVIDUAL should be so openly abusive to mike just because he has posted an alternative view on the proposals to that of the Chief Executive. you wonder why most posters don't give names. perhaps they don't want to join the long list of people who have been banned from using the IDEA forum by the current management.

Jim says he has a right of reply - yes he does but it looks bad for the idea that his reply is abusive. I personally know two people who have had their access to idea forum withdrawn or restricted because they spoke/wrote against jim's view. One is not even allowed to access the voting poll on the idea proposals. I Have no hidden agenda - I just dont want to be banned.

* that the Chief Executive of IDEA openly expresses the view that the posting of alternative points of view is being 'anti-IDEA'. why is thinking differently from the Chief Executive of the IDEA being 'anti-IDEA'? perhaps these people are just against these proposals and mike has set out what seem good reasons for his view. perhaps they actually have best interests of all Home inspectors and energy assessors who belong to the IDEA at heart. is the IDEA a democratic organisation which respects free speech or not?

So jim speaking personally thinks anyone who disagrees with him is 'anti-idea'

* that some people who post on the IDEA forum think that writing an article contrary to their own thoughts/jim's thoughts is 'a lot of bitching'.

i note jim thinks i am talking nonsense, am bitter and petty - because i disagree with him.

Jim - you should resign as chief executive of the idea cos you personally have no respect for my right (or anyone elses) to hold views which don't match your views and you just resort to abuse rather than debate. is there anything in the constitution about bringing the idea into disrepute? when you throw abuse your personal words bring the idea into disrepute.
Last Edit: March 10, 2008, 19:35:17 by admin  

Posts: 19
There had to be a reason!!
Reply #14 on : Tue March 11, 2008, 20:21:47
I have always held the view that there had to be a reason for IDEA, and I think we have now seen it! It is not possible to have an Institute, in the correct meaning of the word, in the manner that IDEA has developed. Commercialism has always been behind this so called Institute, and lining the pockets of it's unelected chief executive has to be the main focus.

Whether you like it or not, the other two organisations out there are run by CS, HI and DEA, for the sole benefit of CS, HI and DEA, and not for the benefit on one mans ego and bank account.

Ban me if you wish - oh - you can't can you - I'm not a member!

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #15 on : Fri March 14, 2008, 00:36:01
As a result of the above postings I have arrived at the following decision. Please see attached a copy of my recent posting on the IDEA forum.

Cancel My Membership

Please accept this posting as a request to suspend my membership from the Institute of Domestic Energy Assessors.

After some consideration I have arrived at this decision, I feel the Institute does not truly support the best interests of the DEA and the industry in which they conduct their business. I do not fault the hard work and dedication of the steering committee and I think HES made an excellent decision when they recruited the CEO to set up the Institute on their behalf, but unfortunately the Institute at this moment in time does not in my opinion serve the members in a way I feel most appropriate.

I would like to reserve the right to reapply my membership in the future when the direction and objectives best serve me as a DEA and/or Home Inspector.

I was always taught to vote with your feet and on this occasion I would like to utilise that privilege.

I personally would like to thank the steering committee for all their hard work and the primary sponsors for having the foresight and initiative to enable this Institute to develop, and I would be happy to rejoin when a membership fee is introduced and the institute is lead by the heart and not the commercial hand.

Good luck and tatta for now.

Posts: 19
Individual DEA
Reply #16 on : Sat March 15, 2008, 10:58:00
Hello all,

It has been very interesting to read the above. There is obviously a very bitter element of the DEA community and I can understand why, when we have all been lied to by many organisations and the government. But remaining bitter and knocking each other in the way that this post implies only releases the frustrations we have all felt at one time or another and takes our efforts away from more important things.

We are in a time when clear leadership is required and that means we need to follow a leader, someone with the vision, passion and drive needed to lead. This does mean that other strong individuals will wish to challenge for the right to lead. I believe that Jim G to date has more or less got things done, he has given us an institute that gives its members renewed belief and direction. Has given us the tools to go out and compete in the real world, provided us with the opportunity to look to the future with some direction, even though we work in an industry with shallow foundations. I believe that IDEA has the ability to help underpin our problems.

I have not met or personally spoke to Jim G and cannot say I know him but he has given us the leadership that I think is needed at this time. I am not a great believer in committees, as we would end up in the same mess as local governments where it takes a near life time to resolve issues and move forward.

I would be grateful to all the knockers of JimG and his IDEA if they would set up their own organisation and put their efforts into what they believe in and to demonstrate that their way is better. Time will tell. But what are required are positive attitudes and clear thinking, not back biting and personal agendas.

Posts: 19
Why set up yet another new organisation when we should be combining efforts?
Reply #17 on : Wed March 19, 2008, 13:57:06
Chris you said "I would be grateful to all the knockers of JimG and his IDEA if they would set up their own organisation and put their efforts into what they believe in and to demonstrate that their way is better. Time will tell. But what are required are positive attitudes and clear thinking, not back biting and personal agendas."

Chris I have 3 questions for you

- Why do we need yet another group set up to represent us?

- Why do you think that the people who appear to be making constructive comments about issues facing IDEA members should go elesewhere just because they disagree with Jim's running of IDEA?

- Why do you think putting forward opposing views and contributing to the debate is not clear thinking?

You appear to be following Jim's example on this website of abusing those who disagree with your position when you say they are 'back biting' and have 'personal agendas'. Then you tell them to go home and play with their own ball, not Jim's, like Jim owns the IDEA and is the only one who has a say in how it is run.

The IDEA is supposed to be a democracy and I wish people like you would stick to participating in the debate and not try to shut it down. This doesn't help the IDEAs members understand or solve the issues which exist.

Why shouldn't all members be allowed to put forward their suggestions to get IDEA running efficiently and within whatever legal rules apply - to everyone's advantage in the long run?

We need a proper constitution which is followed by the leadership. These are the rules we should operate by.

If the current rules doesn't permit the business activities Jim suggests then is the SG or Jim looking into ways of getting round this?

Do the members need to change the rules?

Does the IDEA need to set up a separate company which runs any business activities and accreditation scheme?

Why won't the SG or Jim assure IDEA members that the SG will not be acting outside its powers and breaking the law by setting up the business unit or scheme?
Why won't they assure the members that we won't we expected to pay any debts the business unit or scheme may run up like the Labour Party NEC may be facing for the loans it accepted!

If IDEA needs a Code of Conduct it has to make sense and be enforced consistently against anyone that breaks the rules. Otherwise ditch it coz the IDEA will be even more of a laughing stock in this industry than it appears to be now (after calling itself an awarding body) and could end up in court to explain why it disciplined some people but not others.

So Jim how about answering ALL these questions for IDEA members? If you won't post on this site and be part of the debate on neutral ground where no one can claim they are being intimidated, then post your reply TO EVERY QUESTION on the IDEA forum so people can see it before they vote.

Posts: 19
IDEA Continued
Reply #18 on : Sun March 23, 2008, 08:41:21
As some of you may know I have had my membership revoked by JG and the steering group for "my direct atacks and being abusive to Jim Gillespie and the IDEA"
I have also been warned that any further postings on other sites will lead to IDEA taking legal advice in my last post on the IDEA forum Re: Mark Lecks request to have his membership suspended Jim identified Mark as a HI and a member of IHI.
I asked JG why he had to identify Mark in this way? Why could he have not stated that Mark was a HI who jim new personally and assisted JG in the set up of the IDEA Mark actually came up with institute name and Logo and gave lots of advice to Jim.
No as a result of my posting JG replied on the forum for me either put up or shut up.
Ithanked him for giving me the opportunity to put up and replied that I would place a personal article on Mikes forum where it wouldnt be edited.
I am still working on the article.
Jims comments to me are edited by no one but JG and therefor he will not be revoking his own membership were his words to me obusive?
IMHO IDEA is becoming a dictatorship.
And its clear if you fail to follow the doctorins of JG then you will at some stage receive a warning or worse case end up like me and have your membership revoked.

Posts: 19
Re: Hello to the IDEA Group of Companies
Reply #19 on : Tue April 08, 2008, 19:07:11
I warned everyone about this even before IDEA was formed, I was accused of being vindictive, abusive and I was even accused of personally threatening behaviour - None of which was the case in reality, I simply saw through Jim and wanted people to know what lay ahead.

If Jim were to stand down as CEO/Chairman or whatever his title might be right now I for one, and I imagine many others, would join IDEA and put my effort in to making it a success.

Well done to Chris Jaibahadur for speaking your mind and standing your ground.

Posts: 19
Biting the Hand That Feed Us.
Reply #20 on : Sun April 13, 2008, 17:54:37
Following on from the latest IDEA news letter l cannot believe that its leadership want us to compete with the
very people who supply us with work.
The idea that we compete for conveyancing work to gain kickbacks is commercial suicide.
JG writes on on the HI forum that we are are the windgers of the industry and will have no work.
This coming from a man who has never done an EPC dealt with EAs or solicitors on our level, what a load of crap this man talks.
If we go down his suggested route it will a big mistake.
I have 10 EAs on board and currently doing the full Hip I never work for less than £100 per EPC, I have spoken to my EAs and they all have their own deals with Solicitors and conveyancers and would be more than pissed if I attempted to poach there clients.
What IDEA should be advising, should you happen to come accross a client/vendor who has not instructed a solicitor or conveyancer then suggest that the EA you are working for will sort things out for them, You need to gain credibility with your EAs and keep them loyal to you and your service.
This is just another ploy for JG to gain favour and do a deal with some E Conveyancer.
I my hope is this will come back a bite him in the arse, If DEAs and HIs follow his advice it will certainly come back and bite them.
What he is asking you to do is not be upfront honest and transparent with your EAs. DONT DO IT.


Blog Posts



Stay informed - no email required.

RSS Feed

What is RSS?

Join in
Twitter feed

Recent Podcasts

Just for fun: Cock-ups & Highlights - Mashup
From the cutting-room floor

31: DEA Roundtable 3: Get rid of "low-life scum"!
John Semens and Malcolm Scott

30: Quest Associates: Software, EPCs, HIPs and chat
Tom Parker, Colin Blears and Liam Parker

29: ProDEA: Passion, pin-ups and pro-activity
What's so different about ProDEA then?

28: Northgate Accreditation Scheme: Russell Osborne
Domestic Energy Assessors welcome

More: DEA podcasts

Recent Articles: