BPVA / STA - Either, Both or Neither?

[whinmoor]

Just wondered if anyone was involved with either the BPVA or STA? We are not members of either as it simply seems like another way of burning cash. We have to be in REAL anyway so I think that gives us sufficient credibility in the eyes of the customer.

In case people are wondering, annual costs are:

BPVA - MCS Certified Installers - £500
STA - Small company - fewer than 10 employees - £400 p.a. + VAT

Anyone got any thoughts as to the advantages of membership of one or the other?

 

[JulianC]

Unless they can feed me a steady stream of customers they are a waste of my money.

 

[solarsavings]

If you're a logo collector why not go for both? If not, what use to YOU will they be? How can they justify 400-500 quid.

A one time head of the STA lives a few miles away from me he told me left once it was invaded by those who thought their **** doesn't stink. Can anyone point me to something they have done to benefit installers?

 

[Gavin A]

we're in the BPVA, though our membership is now up for renewal, so we might not be for much longer.

I did get an invite down to a meeting with decc re the fit cuts with them, but frankly I don't see that anything changed as a result, and I very nearly wound up getting nicked for lamping this smug git from decc (I didn't, but it was a close call).

I don't like the way they make out they're representing their members when not once in the last year have they actually canvassed opinions of their members properly prior to tell decc what we think.

 

[SolarCity]

BPVA well and truly blew my chin off with their ambiguous support of the government in the FITs change court case. I wouldn't go near them.

 

[Gavin A]

as you probably remember, I can see both sides of that situation.

I understand why STA went to court, but in doing so what they actually achieved IMO was to prolongue the period of uncertainty and negative publicity, as well as resulting in another mad rush of customers getting totally unjustified FIT returns, which IMO then led pretty much directly to the decision to cut the FIT again from 21p to 16p almost immediately. Now, I'll accept that the STA aren't directly responsible for all this, BUT it was blatantly obvious from the outset what the result would be in the medium term if they did take this legal action, and tbh I don't see that it's going to have had any sort of deterrent effect on DECC for the future, as they've demonstrated their ability to drag the legal proceedings out as long as they want to in order to further their aims of reducing the impact on the FIT budget.

The one good thing I will say about the action they took is that it confirmed that FIT changes can't be applied retrospectively.

They do also potentially clear the way for compensation claims, although any compo claims are going to be pretty divisive as they'll only benefit the firms with the funds and time to put into the legal action (if successful), thereby giving them a massive competitive advantage over everyone else, whereas the entire industry will pay for it, as it will no doubt come out of DECC's renewables support budget in some form or other, so no new money will enter the industry as a whole, it'll just be concentrated on a few firms with decent lawyers.