Ps just found this link nolgvbrokers.co.uk/money-bac … g-company/ ■■
Your point being?
Pete 
ROG:
how come we rarely hear about bad training schools
Several reasons:
Folks cant be bothered
Folks are worried about being sued
Folks don’t realise that what they’ve had is substandard as they’ve probably never bought training previously
Folks are embarrassed that they made a poor choice
And I agree with Paul, insofar that some of the poor trainers may be associated with certain brokers and, as a result, are able to hide behind them. But I wouldn’t like to be quoting numbers on that one.
Pete
I don’t think an explanation is needed the website speaks for it’s self.
I’m not picking an argument Peter I’m just expressing my opinions that I believe in.
Paul
May I add when I pick up the pieces from a customer who has previously been through a broker they will never quote the training school they were sent to but quote the broker.
Paul
May I add when I pick up the pieces from a customer who has previously been through a broker they will never quote the training school they were sent to but quote the broker.
This is my experience as well. Which underlines the fact that a proportion of the problem is with the standard of training. And that is where I have the issue.
I don’t think an explanation is needed the website speaks for it’s self.
Which website?
I’m not picking an argument
Spoil sport!!
Pete
FFS Peter I’m not sure your on my wave length.
The problem lies with the broker who works with a poor training provider, take away the source that feeds the poor training then in time they won’t survive.
Not rocket science?
Paul
You make the assumption that brokers only work with poor trainers and that poor trainers only work with brokers.
Wrong on both counts. There are some very large trainers that work with brokers. And there are many 1 man bands that work partly with brokers but mainly without them. And yes, there are some that work mainly with brokers.
So my contention is that if the industry was rid of the poor trainers, end of problem. As I said previously, the brokers have some work to do to get their houses in order and I’m not defending them. I’m merely stating that IMO they are not the main problem.
Pete
Peter Smythe:
You make the assumption that brokers only work with poor trainers and that poor trainers only work with brokers.Pete
Correct a good trainer shouldnt need a third party to source customers!
Paul
Perhaps you would like lto name a good broker?
Paul
Peter Smythe:
elmet training:
I don’t think an explanation is needed the website speaks for it’s self.Which website?
I think that’ll be this one Peter…
http://www.nolgvbrokers.co.uk/money-back-guarantee-scheme-from-hgv-training-company/
It’s in Paul’s post (second to bottom post of last page) and quoted by you in the first post on this page when you asked…
Peter Smythe:
Your point being?
Perhaps you would like lto name a good broker?
If I knew of a “good” one then I’d be happy to name them. At no point have I said that brokers were good or that there are good brokers. Quite the reverse.
But I’ll stick to my guns with poor trainers.
btw why did you use the quote from the no-broker website?
Asked before but no response.
Pete
Peter Smythe:
Perhaps you would like lto name a good broker?
btw why did you use the quote from the no-broker website?
Pete
Why not it’s very supportive to my opinion on the matter and confirms my concerns,
Paul
You’re absolutely right Paul. I’m not on your wavelength!!
Pete
Peter Smythe:
You’re absolutely right Paul. I’m not on your wavelength!!Pete
Thank god we can agree on something at last. I will rest my case now.
Paul 
Be careful where you rest that case or we’ll have to argue about it!! Hahaha
Happy New Year Paul,
Pete
Peter Smythe:
As for “RID THE BROKERS AND THE INDUSTRY WILL LOOK AFTER ITS SELF” you are a mile off the mark in my opinion. Now if we were trying to rid the industry of crooked business practice and poor quality training, I’d be with you. But why the vendetta against brokers? A properly run brokerage, providing the advertised service in a timely manner gives me no problem. If their advertising is misleading, that’s clearly wrong and should be sorted. If they habitually go broke and end up in jail, that’s not good for the industry. But if Joe Public chooses to use a broker, for whatever reason, that’s their concern. And, as I said, if the broker is doing their job properly, where’s the issue?
Pete
Whilst you contribute with mostly good advice on this forum the above quote is absolute garbage.
Perhaps you want to go visit a few broker sites and see what lies and ■■■■■■■■ they use to sell a product that they can’t personally deliver. I can’t find one that doesn’t state porkies.
It also would be nice if you comment on the no-broker link which your connected with which seem very contradictory to some of your comments.
Don’t you think we should be advising candidates to contact training providers direct and warning against brokers rather than defending them?
I wish you all the best for the new year
Paul
the above quote is absolute garbage.
That’s what I like - succinct and straight to the point!
Perhaps you want to go visit a few broker sites and see what lies and ■■■■■■■■ they use to sell a product that they can’t personally deliver. I can’t find one that doesn’t state porkies.
Don’t you think I’ve researched broker sites? And, as a result, I made the following comment
If their advertising is misleading, that’s clearly wrong and should be sorted.
Don’t you think we should be advising candidates to contact training providers direct and warning against brokers rather than defending them?
Clearly this is correct. But what are we warning against with the brokers? Historically brokers have taken folks money and promptly closed down leaving both trainer and trainee in the lurch. Much of the advertising is downright misleading. BUT I said that
A properly run brokerage, providing the advertised service in a timely manner gives me no problem.
. In the same post I made it clear that corrupt trading practices are clearly wrong and can never be condoned or supported in any way.
It also would be nice if you comment on the no-broker link which your connected with which seem very contradictory to some of your comments.
You have brought up a quote from 2011. No problem with that. My presence on that particular website was to advertise our services - a point well made from the quote you used. That was my only reason for subscribing to the site. I found it to be not as effective as I had hoped and no longer subscribe. The owner of the website clearly has “anti broker” feelings and that’s fine. But advertising on the site doesn’t infer that I agree with everything that the owner of the site feels.
Can I point out that I’m still waiting for answers from my previous questions. Just in case you’ve forgotten them
Could you please tell me where the “commercial gain” is in the register? I’m not aware of any, quite the reverse. But I’m willing to listen so I can take advantage of your superior knowledge on the matter.
As for ignoring your view and proposals, simply not true. The hazard perception test has GONE. There’s flexibility in the way the tests can be taken. As far as I’m concerned, every reasonable objection you had to joining the register (or any register) has been addressed but you are still avoiding the opportunity to prove your ability.
“Suspicions”. I’m baffled.
Pete
I’ve never taken a booking from a broker, mainly because I would always prefer both the candidate and us to be protected by our very fair terms and conditions rather than most brokers T&Cs.
Overall the principle of brokerage works well in many Day to day industries. Insurance, Travel, house purchase to name but a few but one major aspect is different. In other industries the agent/broker gets paid by the seller NOT the buyer.
One day this industry will catch on to that. When that day comes LGV brokers will be a good option for trainers.
Happy new year to all
Peter you quote a minimuim of £425 to join the register in a previous post so to me this is a commercial gain unless you have waived this cost now?
Happy new year
Paul
Here’s my New Year’s broker rant, so take cover…
When it come to brokers, I’m probably a bit different in my views…
Short and simple:
Let’s stick to basics and not forget that any course should be delegate centred. 
IMHO, I can’t see that a broker adds any value whatsoever for the candidate. [/end and full stop.]
As John has rightly said, brokers do have their place in other walks of life, and I’ll add that sometimes we couldn’t do without them.
Now back to the subject under discussion… there are several ‘models’ of broker, but essentially they all do the same thing in that they insert themselves into a process in which they’re not really needed.
All the contributors to this topic are extremely reputable trainers, of that there is no doubt.
So I’d ask them this: … Exactly what delegate centred purpose do brokers serve that you cannot provide??
If you’d like to get rid of brokers, why not play them at their own game and spend some real money on some serious Internet advertising?
You guys have got the brokers beaten on price and quality, because they can’t exist without their mark-up, BUT they’ve got you (well and truly) beaten on advertising because very few trainers seem to realise the power of media. That’s the door that you didn’t close as you walked by.
You guys own the vehicles and provide a first class service right from initial assessment and seamlessly all the way through to test, and sometimes beyond. The brokers can’t match that, and so IMHO you’re missing a trick in that you’re not shouting it out as loudly as you can.
Times are changing and we all know what happened to the dinosaurs, but I’d not like to see the same happen to the cats. (Cats as per Rikki above.)
FWIW, in summary, I think the idea of a loose partnership of like-minded high-quality trainers clubbing together to share some costs FOR ADVERTISING REASONS could beat the brokers at their own game because you all have that which the brokers don’t have.
I know, let’s call it… Consortium of Authentic Training Services.
Oh no, that’ll never do… because it would be abbreviated to CATS for short.
I believe a pair of these are now in order… 