Corgi
- Thread starter allgoom
- Start date
Sponsored Links
C
confidentincompetent
Softus said:
At 1.08 am morning I had no pants on.ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Nice one!
Sponsored Links
C
confidentincompetent
Softus said:
Nah, Already said dont do gas work anymore, I need sleep after a days work. unlike you who seems from the timing of your postings will be on here past 2.00 am. I see you have'nt replied to bans questions on how you get away with disregarding Buildings Control. Perhaps you can't so will try to distract from the issue by picking on my admittedly inept grammer and p/c skills. We know you'r preeti slik with your long words but most of what you say is diatribe riposte which does'nt explain how to do gas work on a diy basis without involving building control and keeping it legal.
No doubt there will follow a riposte which has no bearing on the question. merry christmas.
If you would be kind enough to tell me on what page of this topic ban-all-sheds asked that question, then I will be be happy to reply to it. I should warn you that you may have to return to this planet first.confidentincompetent said:
Regarding this:
And what excellent ripostes they are, if I may say so myselfconfidentincompetent said:
However, although your postings are entirely lacking in verity and finesse, you've made clear your assertion that I haven't told you how to do something that I happen to believe is not possible, viz:
Softus said:
You appear to think that I'm an authority on gas work, despite a complete absence of my claiming such a thing. My only claim is to be able to find the relevant statutes, read them, interpret them, and apply them. I admit that it startles me to find that you seem, repeatedly, to fall at one of more of these very low hurdles, so, for your benefit only (since everyone else has long since understood and died of boredom), I will make it very clear for you:
There is no legal way for a DIY person to install a gas boiler, in the UK, without first notifying the LABC.
If you want to know what gas work a DIY person is allowed to do without a duty of notification, then download the Building Regulations, point your face towards the words, read them with your eyes, and digest them with your brain.
If, for some reason, you can't do all of that, then just say so and I'll happily cut and paste the relevant parts on this topic so that you can read them here instead.
If there is any better way to answer your question, then by all means please feel free to say so, but don't be an idiot, and don't be disingenuous with your seasonal greetings.
Since you've raised the subject of questions not being answered, could you address this one, if you have the time?
Softus said:
confidentincompetent said:
I think the person who used the phrase "get away with" was me - regarding DIYers doing gas work. I will try to explain. I believe it is a grey area in the law that DIYers are allowed to do gas work. The word used is competent. The law (I think, but someone may correct me) says you have to be competent. It also says that the only current acceptable measure of competence is membership of CORGI. But it only requires you to show you are competent (i.e. become a member of CORGI) when you are working on gas as part of a business or trade. Therefore, if you are not working with gas as part of a business or trade, there is no measure of competence that has to be proved before a DIYer works with gas. Consequently, if you do work on gas and no obvious problems arise, you can claim competence. If something does go wrong, and the authorities are involved, then the measure of competence that will be applied, will be competence equal to that of a CORGI registered gas plumber. Claiming competence because nothing has gone wrong is not the same, in my opinion, as having been assessed and tested as competent by some governing body. But claiming competence to this level is what DIYers are doing.
(That was heavy going trying to word that
) To return to the driving analysis - you can drive a car because you have the ability but you do not have a license. You may "get away with" driving on public roads. But only when something goes wrong or looks wrong will you be pulled up and questioned about your competence. Until then (and with some people even after then) you appear to be competent and may well consider yourself competent. If it turns out that you have done something wrong, society, by its laws, will deem you incompetent until you prove otherwise.
And for Softus http://www.rla.org.uk/rla.exe?input=../rla/scrp/rpi/rpi_02fm_yourself.htm
Landlord fitted gas fire which leaked. It was 2002 or earlier and unfortunately doesn't give details of the offence(s) he was charged with.
Although I still don't think this was the case I had in mind.
Landlord fitted gas fire which leaked. It was 2002 or earlier and unfortunately doesn't give details of the offence(s) he was charged with.
Although I still don't think this was the case I had in mind.
BobProperty, thanks for the URL - I'll follow that later on.
Regarding gas and the law, I agree with nearly all of what you've written, so rather than quote bits of it I'll write down where I disagree.
The law doesn't say that the only current acceptable measure of competence is membership of CORGI. I can understand why you might think it does, but it doesn't. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but to be persuaded of that I'd need someone to refer me to a specific regulation so that I can read the relevant text.
Regarding the sentence including the words "you can claim competence", I agree that what you've written is common sense, but the basis of your assertion is shaky because it's either a prediction of what would/will happen, or is based on some precedent in law that you haven't stated.
Next, whilst I certainly agree that de facto competence (i.e. a fault- and hazard-free outcome of some work) is not as impressive as a nationally accredited assessment scheme, and subsequent acceptance of a CORGI membership application, IMHO it's stretching the point to say that an act of DIY gas work is an inherent claim of competence.
Lastly, the driving analysis - this is a tenuous analogy. You might well "get away with" driving on public roads without a license, but to do so is an offence, irrespective of anything bad happening, so society, by its laws, will deem you incompetent before something bad happens. A subtle point perhaps, maybe even splitting hairs, but this is a thorny subject and one, I think, that justifies pedantry in spades.
Cutting to the chase, there are three sorts of gas DIYers. In the following, for "he" please read "he or she".
1. A heating engineer. Has knowledge of, and aware of the hazards of, heating systems. Perhaps not a DIYer in the view of many people, but certainly not a CORGI member, therefore a DIYer in the context of this topic, albeit a skilled one. However, if this type works on gas as part of his business, never mind how skillfull he is and impeccable his work might be, he is breaking the law.
2. An engineer, or of an engineering disposition, and thereby able to exercise skill, judgment, and, most importantly, caution. In most scenarios, will research the subject (like what the punters on this forum do), do some reading, much thinking, and thereby "get away with" a limited amount of gas work. He will call an expert when he feels out of his depth.
3. Completely untrained layman. Courageous and inept. Not an engineer, let alone a heating engineer. Will work in the mistaken belief that they know enough, and will not be able to analyse the problem or their actions, nor be able to properly test the outcome.
Note that I've omitted people who wouldn't dream of working on gas.
In case you're in any doubt about my opinion, type 3 is the equivalent of the driver of a leaking fuel tanker, parked next to a naked flame, in Buncefield, on a mild and dry day, in panic mode.
This is not a black and white matter. Despite the parts of the law that are unambiguous, the deployment of it remains grey, despite best efforts, and the Courts recognise this. If anyone wants certainty, then simply be certain of this: a trained and registered gas engineer is safer than an untrained and unregistered one.
Regarding gas and the law, I agree with nearly all of what you've written, so rather than quote bits of it I'll write down where I disagree.
The law doesn't say that the only current acceptable measure of competence is membership of CORGI. I can understand why you might think it does, but it doesn't. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but to be persuaded of that I'd need someone to refer me to a specific regulation so that I can read the relevant text.
Regarding the sentence including the words "you can claim competence", I agree that what you've written is common sense, but the basis of your assertion is shaky because it's either a prediction of what would/will happen, or is based on some precedent in law that you haven't stated.
Next, whilst I certainly agree that de facto competence (i.e. a fault- and hazard-free outcome of some work) is not as impressive as a nationally accredited assessment scheme, and subsequent acceptance of a CORGI membership application, IMHO it's stretching the point to say that an act of DIY gas work is an inherent claim of competence.
Lastly, the driving analysis - this is a tenuous analogy. You might well "get away with" driving on public roads without a license, but to do so is an offence, irrespective of anything bad happening, so society, by its laws, will deem you incompetent before something bad happens. A subtle point perhaps, maybe even splitting hairs, but this is a thorny subject and one, I think, that justifies pedantry in spades.
Cutting to the chase, there are three sorts of gas DIYers. In the following, for "he" please read "he or she".
1. A heating engineer. Has knowledge of, and aware of the hazards of, heating systems. Perhaps not a DIYer in the view of many people, but certainly not a CORGI member, therefore a DIYer in the context of this topic, albeit a skilled one. However, if this type works on gas as part of his business, never mind how skillfull he is and impeccable his work might be, he is breaking the law.
2. An engineer, or of an engineering disposition, and thereby able to exercise skill, judgment, and, most importantly, caution. In most scenarios, will research the subject (like what the punters on this forum do), do some reading, much thinking, and thereby "get away with" a limited amount of gas work. He will call an expert when he feels out of his depth.
3. Completely untrained layman. Courageous and inept. Not an engineer, let alone a heating engineer. Will work in the mistaken belief that they know enough, and will not be able to analyse the problem or their actions, nor be able to properly test the outcome.
Note that I've omitted people who wouldn't dream of working on gas.
In case you're in any doubt about my opinion, type 3 is the equivalent of the driver of a leaking fuel tanker, parked next to a naked flame, in Buncefield, on a mild and dry day, in panic mode.
This is not a black and white matter. Despite the parts of the law that are unambiguous, the deployment of it remains grey, despite best efforts, and the Courts recognise this. If anyone wants certainty, then simply be certain of this: a trained and registered gas engineer is safer than an untrained and unregistered one.
Er, I should add a caveat - all of what I've just written might be completely out of date, because I'm told that there some new "Gas regs" in "Jan 2005". When I get to see a copy of these, I may have to revisit the entire subject.
We're all in the hands of a 'confidentincompetent'. Type 3 anyone?
We're all in the hands of a 'confidentincompetent'. Type 3 anyone?
Softus said:
I don't know the details of the law (please be careful what you say if you want to quote me on that - not you Softus, but a few other readers) but I believe that the law requires you to be competent and the only body currently appointed / allowed / directed ( and I don't know what the exact word used there is either ) to test competence is CORGI. I am making a logical extrapolation (if that's possible). The law requires competence. Something like the ODPM directs that CORGI can test competence. But the only organisation that has ever been directed to test competence is CORGI, therefore CORGI membership becomes competence. I'll see if I can find the details but I may be gone for sometime...
Softus said:
It's not easy this is it? Those sentences were from the point of view of a DIYer who believes he is competent to do gas work. That is not my opinion. Does that make more sense to you now?
Softus said:
I don't believe it is that bad an analogy. Society has clear rules as to competence to drive on public roads, i.e. the requirement to obtain a driving license by passing a driving test. Working with gas is less clearly defined and not done in a manner where the action is in view of members of the public and law enforcement agents, unlike driving on a public road.
Society "will deem you incompetent before something bad happens" but does not act until this is drawn to its attention.
Softus said:
I'm going to try this one again, because I am now coming to the conclusion that the laws in this area are worse (badly written) than I suspected in terms of protecting the public (in some cases from themselves).
Do we have the following situation?:
1. To work with gas you need to be competent.
2. To prove that you are competent to work with gas in the course of a trade or business, you have to pass a requirement set out by an approved body (in this case there is only one approved body CORGI).
3. There isn't a 3 and therein lies the problem.
I take your point, but be careful in making logical extrapolations. A Court will make its own extrapolation, using its own logic, and the conclusion may be different to what you expect. If I may be pedantic once again, I can massage your paragraph into a more accurate reflection of the status quo, as follows:BobProperty said:
The law requires competence. The Health and Safety Executive deploys its power to define those organisations that will act as registers of competent engineers. CORGI is currently the only such organisation - it does not measure competence, it merely keeps records of those businesses who provide evidence of measured competence gained by completion of assessment at an accredited educational establishment.
Um, not yet. Which surprises me, because everything else you've written does make sense to me.BobProperty said:
Yup, OK, I take your point. The part of the analogy that doesn't fit is irrelevant, given that the important part does fit. To clarify, the important part is that incompetent people must make their dangerous mistakes in order to be found out and discouraged/stopped/punished.BobProperty said:
Dangnabbit - you got in there while I was typing!
Yes; you're required to, by law.BobProperty said:
Nearly. I would say to demonstrate competence, rather than to "prove" it. For example, a CORGI business may make an incompetent mistake. In such a scenario it might face prosecution for its negligence, or worse, but not for failing to demonstrate competence. BTW, I believe that it's significant that CORGI requires regular affirmation of competence, using the method of inspection of real-life installations.BobProperty said:
I agree - there's no 3. But why is that a problem?BobProperty said:
Softus said:
The problem is that we (society, law-makers) have only agreed a method for the demonstration of competence for the tradesperson.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- just-thinking
- Plumbing and Central Heating
