Special treatment license?

[Jenny Jo]

Good luck, and let us know if we can help in any way to make representations to the MPs.

The Register of Beauty Professionals (beauty nails and spa) might be interested in this issue, as they are a government funded register (habia and skills active) who aren't affiliated with an insurance company.

Perhaps they could help sort out this cloudy issue of vastly different postcode bias licence fees!

 

[Jenny Jo]

http://www.registerofbeautyprofessionals.co.uk/

 

[rubywoo]

Thanks Jenny Jo, I'm waiting to hear back from my MP who is a rather fab chap, then I can see where this leads!

 

[IBUK]

I wish I had a salon in Lewisham £180 pa!!!!!!!!!!

This information is incorrect or "from". We are based in Lewisham and pay just under £1k pa

They inspect once you pay but that's it for the year.

 

[nortti]

Good luck, and let us know if we can help in any way to make representations to the MPs.

The Register of Beauty Professionals (beauty nails and spa) might be interested in this issue, as they are a government funded register (habia and skills active) who aren't affiliated with an insurance company.

Perhaps they could help sort out this cloudy issue of vastly different postcode bias licence fees!

I think you kinda hit the nail on the head there

For to long now the only real representation our industry has had is by people trying to sell us some sort of training or insurance, so the special treatment licence is no real concern to them.

As far as I know premises purely operating as a hairdressers dont need a licence , so the National Hairdressers' Federation probably does not see the need to get involved with the issue either.

I will contact a few associations today by e-mail and let the know about this post and see if any of them want to pick up this issue or even respond to us about it.

 

[foxy_princess]

Just read up this thread and I must say im so disgusted! My teacher told me she pays less than £100 p/a for her license (she lives near Slough). I got extremely unlucky where im based. Why do I need to pay £1000 for a piece of paper?! Meanwhile someone down the road from me has to pay £500, or £250, or whichever. I agree with whoever said it should be based on the size of the salon. I think there needs to be outrage about this and a string of complaints to the council. especially Westminster and Kensington boroughs. Besides where the hell am I going to get £1000 from?

 

[emsiee]

Hi all, can anyone on this thread tell me if the council come to inspect the property (home salon) once you apply for the licence ?

 

[emsiee]

Ps, I live in the Lewisham borough

 

[nortti]

If you register and work from home they most likely will inspect you at some stage.

If you say your just doing mobile work they will not inspect you and you do not have to pay any licence fee, although you will still have to register with Lewisham council as a mobile therapist but as I said you pay no fee.

You can contact the council directly by e-mail if you have any questions [email protected] .

Take Care

 

[emsiee]

Thank you nortti [emoji3]

 

[Hmama]

Hi, did anyone have to make a 1:50 scale drawing and and send it in with the licence application form, as this is what my council is asking for.
I have no idea how to get one for them, any clues.

 

[BannerPenguin]

Hi, did anyone have to make a 1:50 scale drawing and and send it in with the licence application form, as this is what my council is asking for.
I have no idea how to get one for them, any clues.

I guess you'd need to hire an architect? That would be my first thought.

 

[TheDuchess]

I trade in Bath (Uk) and there are no licensing requirements unless we are offering electrolysis or tattooing. We registered for electrolysis and paid a premises fee of £75 and a responsible person fee of £75. For that we had a very thorough inspection. Everything was checked for expiry dates etc. Our hygienic protocols were checked and we received a written report. It was completely useless because they had no understanding of normal hygienic practises in the industry for electrolysis - for example we were advised to use a bleach solution not surgical spirit for wipe down sanitation. (Poor clients!) of course we ignored the advice - I know when to use bleach or barbicide or surgical spirit and I have a very poor opinion of anyone who "hasn't come across surgical spirit before".

I completely accept that if we were tattooing we would need to change our set-up and it was good to be aware of this. It means that if I consider offering semi-permanent brows etc. I will need to provide a more clinical treatment room not work from boho chic. I don't resent the fee because clearly my local council are trying to do the right thing even though My clients havent shown any interest in my registration.

Bath has had its fair share of brothels and trafficked sex workers but I've only once had an enquiry for sex services (over the phone - I was asked what girls I had in that were new. Yeuch!) I guess if my business was asked to pay a levy to fund the cost of monitoring sexual exploitation I would expect that levy to be applied fairly, I can trade from A3 (retail shop use) and D1 (consulting rooms) permitted use which are not suitable for brothel type businesses which operate different hours and usually offer alcohol - so I would object to a levy which specifically targeted my business and not say a marriage guidance sex therapist or a hair salon.

 

[PamieD]

Hi, did anyone have to make a 1:50 scale drawing and and send it in with the licence application form, as this is what my council is asking for.
I have no idea how to get one for them, any clues.

Yes I did, I drew it myself!

 

[PamieD]

Oh and if you are in Wales, your government is about to inflict the very same failed, abnormal, vile licensing special treatment license for you later this year! I wrote a detailed explanation about why it doesn't work, and they completely ignored it. You have a few weeks left to contact your MP if you disagree (and you should, it's exactly what London has and I had several meetings with environmental health officers and one chief exec who all said it didn't work). http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=12763

 

[willowrose]

I get an architect to do them because I like a simple life.

With regards to wales... The attached document is about invasive treatments - electrolysis etc?

"Failed, abnormal, vile". That's quite strong language. What is the focus of your displeasure?

 

[PamieD]

Because it doesn't improve consumer safety and lowers standards. And it's not just those treatments, they are leaving it open to add anything they want.

 

[willowrose]

Because it doesn't improve consumer safety and lowers standards

Could you maybe expand on this?

From a business perspective it's low cost in the scheme of things, sometimes can be a bit invasive, nothing terrible from my experience.

I am also a consumer. I do think making sure people are adequately qualified is pretty important. It's not a foolproof system but it's relatively effective. I am reassured by the safeguard of a licence. I feel safer in the knowledge that no one treating me has studied for one day or only been internally assessed before being let loose on the public.

Are you suggesting an alternative system or no system?

 

[PamieD]

What do you mean by 'system' though? The original licensing for needles was brought in because it's was still common to re-use needles at the time. Because of the AIDS epidemic it was brought in, and still kept even when reusable needles were withdrawn from the market because it's still needed to ensure safe disposal. But that intention for the license was completely subverted by the London special treatment one which was intended as a form of regulation of the therapist/salon. It was a blunt instrument to try and shut down adult massage parlours and money laundering fronts, but was so poorly worded and implemented that it is toothless against those very people. I don't know why you think it stops people who take 1 day courses from setting up in business, on the contrary that's exactly what it does - it does not discriminate between someone who took a 1 year course and a 1 day course as it's based on the certification.

And despite the name it can be adopted and edited by any council in the UK, which is why one salon only has to fill in a form and another down the road has to spend huge amounts of money simply because they are in a different borough. It the wrong answer to the right question, and it diverts money from trading standards and health and safety to create a holey 'system' that is laughably easy to get around. If you don't let in your environmental officer and don't respond to their letters they can't do anything about it. It doesn't protect any of us who behave ourselves.

 

[willowrose]

Whether your borough bothers you for endless certificates/meetings/inspections or simply rubber stamps the form you submit they all without exception check qualifications.

You can do an intensive nvq. But there is no one who offers a day nvq & ultimately to follow the framework you have to do a certain number of hours & assessments. People do fail nvqs. I have never ever heard of someone failing a privately assessed course.

I also note that from my time on sg the most terribly uneducated appallingly shocking questions are asked 99% of the time by people who have gained qualifications privately. There is a certain safeguard in place by assuring a minimum level of competency. This is achieved by confirming people's qualifications follow a national framework.

On top of this most boroughs do require liaison with fire services & up to date safety practices, proof of insurance, proof of pat testing, proof of consultations yada yada. It's hard to argue that forcing people to conform to a certain standard when conducting treatments is not beneficial to the public.

With regards to different costs & requirements for different boroughs. That's what local government is all about. Our council tax rates & all sorts of other local costs/services are administered differently. We voted differently!

It's a stretch to suggest a smaller licencing budget would result in a greater budget for any other specific department. It could just as easily result in a fatter bonus or newer car for a local councillor. From what I know of the costs of administering they seem relatively proportionate to the energy exerted to issue licences meaning it pretty much funds itself without any significant profit.