Gas, have the rules changed?

[GavThePlumber]

It might feel like to you that I am shifting the goalposts, in fact I have just shuffled you in to a corner where you have absolutely no argument, which is quite funny seeing how confident you were of being right in this thread.

I also have not said or hold the belief that competent equals to being on the Gas Safe Register. I said, being considered competent to work on gas, is only legally demonstrated by being qualified to work on gas. This is a fact and one you appear incapable of understanding.

You have also shown your complete incompetence in regards gas works, by automatically assuming taking a cover off is always considered non gas works, some covers form the combustion seal.

So you read regulations and interpret them to your liking and know nothing about gas works, but claim you do and try arguing the point regardless, very dangerous combination. To top it off, you post this to an open forum, which brings with it a culpability factor, one that can have you thrown in front of a magistrate.

The court scenario I raised for a reason, although this is a moot point now that your argument has fallen through the floor, a qualified person would, most likely, be convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence. An unqualified person would, most likely, be convicted of criminally negligent manslaughter. One will serve a couple of years, the other could be looking at a life sentence.

 

[SimonH2]

It might feel like to you that I am shifting the goalposts, in fact I have just shuffled you in to a corner where you have absolutely no argument, which is quite funny seeing how confident you were of being right in this thread.

No, you have not in any way shuffled me into a corner … read on ...

You have also shown your complete incompetence in regards gas works, by automatically assuming taking a cover off is always considered non gas works, some covers form the combustion seal.

Quite the reverse if you read what I wrote rather than what you want mer to have written. I specifically raised the case of removing a cover (gas works as many boilers don't, as you point out, have a separate cover to the combustion chamber) - and I'm specifically thinking about one of my boilers.
Replacing the pump would not be gas works, but to get to it requires removal of the front cover. Perhaps you'd care to explain how long the course component is for examining the seal and replacing two screws ? I'll point out that my experience is that qualifications and scheme membership quite clearly do not demonstrate competence - and yes I have noted your distinction - as I've lost count of the number of times I've had to put right work done by supposedly "competent" people.

I know what my limits are, and I'd be happy to stand up in court and justify my decisions - and I'd be confident of being able to do so. You show the sort of arrogance some of us are used to from certain elements of the trade in believing (and stating) that a) only Gas Safe registered people can legally do any gas work, and b) that it's only possible for you to do the work safely.
YES you did write that, or at least that is the only reasonable interpretation of your comment that starts with "You are most definitely wrong …" Right there you go off on "you might want to go check recent court cases in regards illegal gas works" with the implication that anything not done by a qualified and registered person is automatically illegal. You have failed to back this up, only relying on cases where we have no idea of the situation as you have failed to provide any references.
As I point out, you cannot assume that because something went wrong, the person doing the work was automatically not competent. If that were the case, then a great many GS registered people would be considered not competent. Without knowing some details, I cannot possibly comment on the cases you refer to - I have no knowledge of who did what, what their claim to competence may be, and whether that was a factor.

Now, I'm prepared to let this drop on the basis that we respectfully disagree. You clearly have a different interpretation of the law to mine - and I am confident that yours is not the better one. I'll not get started on my opinion of professional trade bodies (GS is not the only one by a long way) who deliberately make misleading statements about the state of the law.

 

[ekmdgrf]

Right, before we move on, answer the question. How does someone not qualified to work on gas, demonstrate competence in a court of law? You suggested there is another way, what is it?

It might be a slightly loaded question, as if one ends up in the dock one has to wonder why and presumably it's because their work set fire to something, burned something down or poisoned someone. Let's assume then that that wasn't the case and one had simply been accused of carrying out gas work whist not being competent.

So the case hangs on a single point of law: was the person competent or not competent and it's down to a court to decide what is an acceptable measure of competence. "The court" of course really means the judge making a decision after listening to the prosecution and defence lawyers arguing the toss for five days.

So, how would one convince the judge? Personally I'd call an expert witness to inspect the installation in question, interview the defendant and report back to the court.

Did you inspect the gas installation at 29 Acacia Road? Yes
Do you believe the work carried out was done in a safe and proper way? Yes
Do you have any concerns about the work? No
Have you spoken to the installer? Yes
Do you believe that he has the required knowledge of gas work to carry out fit and proper installations in a safe manner? Yes
Would you let the defendant fit a boiler in your family home? Only if he didn't ask for payment
Is, in your opinion, the defendant competent to carry out gas work? Yes
---
Anything from the prosecution?
But he didn't have a little piece of paper with the Gas Safe logo on, your honour!
---

 

[bernardgreen]

Some "competent" people are in reality far from competent.

When installing a new boiler in a friend's utility room a gas safe plumber failed to notice the feed to the gas hobs in the kitchen. He left with the T junction that fed the hobs laying on the ground under the new gas pipe to the new boiler. He has yet to explain why he left the hobs without gas.

It will be interesting if he claims the pipe to the hobs is non compliant as that was connected and tested by a gas safe registered person.

 

[hazetimesfive]

don't think the prosecution would be that weak

lmfao

 

[slippyr4]

So if any neighbour diy's their own gas fire with one of these kits and blows the street sky-high (I live in a terrace) can I sue B&Q?

No, but you can sue your neighbour.

 

[slippyr4]

I said, being considered competent to work on gas, is only legally demonstrated by being qualified to work on gas. This is a fact and one you appear incapable of understanding.

But it's not a fact at all.

The law (statute) states that one must be competent. But it does not define that competence means at all.

Or perhaps you can point us to the piece of enacted legislation that defines competance in the context of gas work as doing an ACS and passing?

 

[GavThePlumber]

I said, being considered competent to work on gas, is only legally demonstrated by being qualified to work on gas. This is a fact and one you appear incapable of understanding.

But it's not a fact at all.

The law (statute) states that one must be competent. But it does not define that competence means at all.

Or perhaps you can point us to the piece of enacted legislation that defines competance in the context of gas work as doing an ACS and passing?

To be considered competent you need to have passed your ACS which gets you your certificates of competence, that is what it is referring to, their is no other way to demonstrate competence in a court of law, this is the same in all professions, doctors, teachers, lawyers, accountants etc

You don't have to believe me, i assume you are not a legal professional, so go speak to one about this very matter and see what reply you get, equally, if you want to masquerade as someone you are not, then crack on.

Go spend some time over at Legislation.gov and pretend your a solicitor

 

[slippyr4]

Perhaps you misread my post.

The law does NOT define what competent is.

Yes, ACS would be a great way to show competence but not the only way.

Until you produce the piece of legislation that proves your point (which you can't since it doesn't exist), then you point of view is merely incorrect.

 

[SimonH2]

But it's not a fact at all.

The law (statute) states that one must be competent. But it does not define that competence means at all.

You know that, I know that, we'll just have to respectfully disagree with GavThePlumber who is not for having his opinion changed by any logical reasoning. I gave my reasoning back on page one, and I've seen nothing that makes me change my mind.

My guess is that GavThePlumber is Gas Safe registered, and has swallowed the propaganda they (and their predecessor, Corgi) have been happy to trot out.

 

[slippyr4]

We'll just have to respectfully disagree with GavThePlumber who is not for having his opinion changed by any logical reasoning

Indeed.

I would in no way advocate anyone doing any DIY gas, nor having anyway other than a Gas Safe registered engineer do it, it's common sense.

 

[GavThePlumber]

Perhaps you misread my post.
The law does NOT define what competent is...

... then you point of view is merely incorrect...

All UK law is ambiguous, but the people who interpret this law are legally trained professionals, not some bloke on the internet reading legalese, vastly unqualified to do so. My opinion is correct, because it is based on independent legal advice and as advised, you can not prove a negative.

So, on the contrary, i am of the opinion that you are incorrect and would appreciate you to prove me wrong, this does not mean your conjecture.

You know that, I know that, we'll just have to respectfully disagree with GavThePlumber who is not for having his opinion changed by any logical reasoning. I gave my reasoning back on page one, and I've seen nothing that makes me change my mind.

My guess is that GavThePlumber is Gas Safe registered, and has swallowed the propaganda they (and their predecessor, Corgi) have been happy to trot out.

The GSR are a parasite to me actually and i am not going around in circles with you again, but i disagree that i have seen any logical reasoning by any of you internet lawyers.

May i ask what you both do for a living?

 

[SimonH2]

All UK law is ambiguous, but the people who interpret this law are legally trained professionals

Yes, and who will be able to understand that the law does not in fact say what you think it should say. Yes, having some piece of paper saying you've had training and passed some test would in fact be a very good way of proving competence. But not having a specific bit of paper does not prove lack of competence.

because it is based on independent legal advice

If you are going to criticise people for not understanding the law, then you would be well advices to understand it yourself. Independent legal advice can only be someone's opinion of what the law means. It is not, and cannot be, the law.

May i ask what you both do for a living?

Now - I work in IT. But I haven't always done so. But that's irrelevant anyway.
Like I posted on page one, even the HSE has a different opinion to you.


Anyway, as I said, you've come up with nothing (apart from "because I say so") to back up your interpretation, and I am not swayed by that. It's clear you aren't likely to be swayed either. So best to agree to disagree or the thread will just go on ad infinitum.

 

[slippyr4]

All UK law is ambiguous, but the people who interpret this law are legally trained professionals

It's really not, in this instance. Either statute defines competent as ACS qualified, or it doesn't. Black and white.

I keep asking you to show me the statute that defines competent as ACS qualified.

You can't, because there is none.

If you had any modicum of understanding of law then you'd understand that your "independent legal advice" is not worth squat (and is most likely fabricated, because it's wrong). The law says what the law says, and what it says is nothing to do with ACS.

You're the one with the unevidenced bold opinions. Come up with a shred of evidence to support your claims. Until you do you don't have any credibility.

 

[SimonH2]

There is probably plenty of case lore to support "trained and qualified = competent". There is probably also a reasonable amount of case lore where unqualified people have made a pigs ear and the court decided they weren't competent.

My guess is that Gav has put together what Corgi/Gas Safe have told him, with a few newspaper/tv/internet reports of people in court having (for example) blown up a street of houses through dodgy DIY work, and come up with what he believes the law to say.

I'd hazard a guess that there are very, very few prosecutions for not being competent. It would be hard for a court to prove lack of competence because, as Gav himself pointed out, it's hard to prove a negative. Mostly I expect the charges will relate to doing chargeable work while not registered (easy to prove), or various H&S breaches. If there is a "lack of competence" elements, then I'd expect that to be thrown in as a "bingo" charge.


Lest make up a hypothetical scenario. Here I am, Mr "IT Bloke on internet" and I decide to move my boiler (or install a new one in a different location) - that bit isn't so hypothetical.
So I core out a hole for the flue, glue a few copper pipes together, and hey presto - boiler is moved.
Assuming I don't blow the house up, I can't think why it should come to the attention of the authorities, but suppose I'm in court on a charge of doing gas work while not competent.

So how does the prosecution go ? Over to you Gav. You must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" (as it's a criminal charge) that I am not competent.
Your argument that I don't have an ACS ticket will be thrown out unless you can find a statute making it mandatory - which there isn't. I would also ask the prosecution about statistics on faulty work done by trained and registered fitters - like the trained and registered fitter from a large well known company that left my mates gas fire in an ID situation, or the one that left the combustion chamber seal out from the boiler in my flat, or the one that fitted a gas fire where the flue wasn't suitable in my house, or …
The point ? Demonstrating that having the right paperwork is neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate competence.

My defence will be along the lines of :
My dad taught me to solder pipes when I was barely big enough to lift them. I've been doing plumbing on a DIY basis for over 4 decades, and I know how to make a good joint. I've brought along a demonstration so you can see for yourself. Proceeds to make several perfect joints and test for leaks.

"But, your honour", shouts Gav, "he also did the flue - that's different".
At which point, I open up the manufacturers instructions and ask the judge if he considers the instruction provided to be so complicated that it needs a special qualification to read them.

And finally, just to settle the matter once and for all, I'd hold up the piece of paper where a registered gas fitter has done a safety inspection/test and found nothing wrong.
In fact, because I could show that, the case would never reach court. The CPS would tell the police (or whoever was pushing for it) where to go with it. I wonder how many cases there are like that - I bet there's quite a few but probably no stats.