Sponsored Links
CORGIMAN, are you saying all these DIYer are going to stop at their own instal? I have no problems with what they do in their own house, for their granny, lover or mammy or local tart down the street. Their actions means more work for me.
I cannot see someone grafting away for someone else for NIL payment. Even a cup of tea would be considered a payment. Payment does not have to be money
I cannot see someone grafting away for someone else for NIL payment. Even a cup of tea would be considered a payment. Payment does not have to be money
nope but the definitaion of a DIY'er is a do it yourself person, so they would not charge themselves would they
so the premise of the title of this subject is "DIY" gas work is not illegal
ie they do it themselves and as such (according to WS and others) it is not illeagal
to twwo examples you gave were unregistered/incompetent people doing gas work for payment
not the same thing
so the premise of the title of this subject is "DIY" gas work is not illegal
ie they do it themselves and as such (according to WS and others) it is not illeagal
to twwo examples you gave were unregistered/incompetent people doing gas work for payment
not the same thing
Sponsored Links
i would think diy is doing it for yourself on your property and not difse do it for someone else.so restrictions in definition are there to a degree.
What the regs [GS(IU)R, Reg 3 (3)] actually say is ".....no self-employed person shall carry out any (gas) work unless ... (Corgi registered)." (Words in brackets are no exactly as printed.)ChrisR said:
As I understand it, if the person is paid for carrying out the work then they are by definition self-employed in relation to that work and must be Corgi reg. Payment may be in cash or in kind.
I agree that's what the law perhaps should say, (and it's the title of this thread), but it doesn't. What about for your daughter in her new flat...
It would't have been difficult to use clear and simple words to say you can't work in premises which aren't yours (etc); you get the impression they just didn't bother to think about what they were writing.
So what? Law isn't defined by an opinion on the usual meaning of a word. And your individual interpretation has no more validity for being in big bold letters a foot high. Courts have to interpret - it's a mess.
Also it's very easy to circumvent that simplistic interpretation. Suppose a gas guy and a sparky do bits of work for each other without money changing hands? We can guess how a court would interpret that, but it isn't legally explicit.
There's not much point pontificating on how we think the law ought to be interpreted. Even barristers keep advising "it can be argued that...".
Clearly if he's paid he's employed, not an issue. So the final word comes in - "kind". Father working for daughter is because he's doing a "kindness". He gets a good feeling out of doing it, in return. Suppose he gets a smile, or a meal, too?
Oh dear - back into interpretations again.
All I'm saying is that the line isn't clear, and going further than the lawyer's "it could be argued" can be difficult.
I agree entirely about that. That's why we endlessly have this debate on this forum.ChrisR said:
It might be simplest for the Regs just to say that only the Corgi registered or their employees can do gas work. Undoubtedly illegal gas work would continue to be carried out, but at least we'd all know what was or wasn't illegal.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
