I have been reading this thread but I wasn’t going to post since I’m only a wannabe and my comments don’t therefore come with any weight of experience.
However, the recent posts made me change my mind.
Two pertinent facts:
Firstly, the hgvlgvtraining site states that only DSA, RTITB, ITTSAR etc schools/instructors will be accepted and yet it seems this is not a bar to initial registration: only after it was pointed out in this thread were those who did not meet this criteria removed. Whether or not DSA etc registration has any bearing on how good a trainer is, the point is that hgvlgvtraining states this as a requirement. Self-policing is irrelevant as this should surely be something that would be asked of companies when applying to join (of course, if they lied and said they were when they were not that’s a different matter).
Secondly, Mothertrucker says she was invited to join the site and that the fact her company was not DSA registered was pointed out (so the ‘lying’ point above does not apply). Her company was accepted, listed…but has now been removed. That does not sound fair and in fact could be seen as detrimental to her business.
As a wannabe I have learned much from the Trucknet site, including information about the dubious claims of some ‘broker’ operations and the advice to find and visit a local company.
I would not use the hgvlgvtraining site to do that, although if/when it gets listed high on Google searches that might change. However, I believe the Trucknet list of schools recommended by members on the basis of their personal experience is likely to give more accurate information about schools that do a good job (rather than schools who are DSA registered and who may or may not do a good job).
Of more concern, it seems to me, is the risk of hgvlgvtraining damaging the business of companies who do not join (especially if the site does gain high Google ranking). The reasons for those concerns are:
-
If hgvlgvtraining was presented as a club of like-minded DSA schools/instructors that would be one thing, but the wording and overall tone are designed to imply that it is an impartial arbiter of quality training - with the consequent implication that any school not listed is not up to scratch.
-
The site says there are 400+ independent training providers. How many of them are DSA registered? There are 40 listed on hgvlgvtraining at the moment apparently and this may increase with time, but will it include all 400+? Are those among the 400+ who decide not to join useless at training (the implication of point 1 certainly suggests this)?
-
As a wannabe I had no idea what DSA et al meant. The site does say what it means, but not until the last point on the About Us page. Moreover, it doesn’t say ‘registered’, it says ‘approved’ and then stresses that word again and again, ending with: ‘We only link you to independents who employ approved instructors’. To any wannabe, the info taken away after reading that is that DSA ‘approval’ equals ‘quality approved instructor’, and that non-DSA schools are dubious because all you need to be an instructor is three years’ licence entitlement and if an instructor does not become DSA ‘approved’ there must be a suspect reason.
-
It does say that DSA registration is voluntary, but it does not say that DSA registration (and even more so RTITB, as I understand it) is expensive and that there may be very good reason for independent instructors not to spend that money. It does not say that those who chose not to spend money on voluntary registration may still be very good trainers.
-
If the criteria for joining the site is registration to DSA or whatever, what will happen if one of the ‘national’ companies - some of whom run their own trucks apparently - decide to put one or more instructors through for DSA registration? If the site refuses to accept them as members there might be legal redress for restraint of trade.
I understand about marketing and branding and I understand why the words and phrasing have been used. Sean wants to make money out of the site, and there is nothing at all wrong in that (that is, after all, the only reason for any business to exist). However, in seeking the higher ground of being an independent site trying to assist wannabes in discriminating between the majority of good schools and the minority of schools who make dubious claims, it is using a large sledgehammer to crack a small nut.
I do understand the problem the site is trying to address. I do understand that with the lack of any formal requirement for a trainer to have some sort of accreditation then the DSA etc is the best there is. But I think it’s dangerous, and some independents may suffer financially if they do not join, because the overall tone of the site is about providing links to ‘quality independent providers’ (a theme oft repeated through the site) rather than to a list of schools that have paid for DSA registration (which is something that ought to be easily available from DSA anyway, without schools having to pay an additional fee to be listed on hgvlgvtraining on top of what they’ve already paid for DSA registration).
Cheers…M
Blimey, did I really say that?? 
)
My first contribution to the new legislation would be the suggestion that it defines “LGV training school” and “LGV driving instructor” in very precise terms. (So as to leave out undesirables. 
I should have taken this issue to the above link.
