Gas prosecution last week.....but it has a bizarre twist. Your thoughts!

[old duffer]

Last week, a young lad from Portsmouth was handed a 12 month sentence and £5000 fine for claiming to be on the gas safe register.
The alleged offences occurred a few years ago but like all private prosecutions (HSE are not Gov) it takes time and lots of money to get to court.
HSE employed a barrister for the case and the barrister described the young lad as "a convicted fraudster and rogue gas fitter who had dishonestly and intentionally breached the law with no regard for the safety of his customers or their families"
The lad is qualified and had been on the register and is now back on the register having paid the fees.
Does this mean that if he had no regard for safety when he had not paid his fee that he can now not be regarded as having regard because he has paid the fee?
Very confusing for the consumer I think

 

[CBW]

Is there confirmation that he’s definitely back on? How it was explained to me; When you 1st go on the register as self employed (if he is) the they tend to have a traffic light system, he will be red and gas safe will inspect jobs, possibly all of them. He then works towards amber then green.

 

[old duffer]

Is there confirmation that he’s definitely back on? How it was explained to me; When you 1st go on the register as self employed (if he is) the they tend to have a traffic light system, he will be red and gas safe will inspect jobs, possibly all of them. He then works towards amber then green.

gas safe are capita plc..BBC licencing, student loans etc. They can't stop someone paying to be on the register regardless of previous history. They don't have "inspectors" as they are a register only. 99.9999% of those who paid the fee for the register are "self employed". The point here is that they (HSE) said he was unfit whilst actually being on the register due to the timing of taking the private prosecution. What message does that give the public was my point...on the register but they say he's a fraudster and rouge...meaning they allow fraudsters and rouges to be on the register.
I do know from the old corgi company contract that they spent their time educating the alleged "wrong doers" rather than trying to get people into court. Capita have more private court cases to protect their brand than coca cola do protecting theirs.

 

[ianmcd]

They don't have "inspectors" as they are a register only.

Are you sure about that ? I personally know many Gas Safe Inspectors

 

[RandomGrinch]

They don't have "inspectors" as they are a register only.

I'm sure they would be interested in your application, given the abilities you have demonstrated on this forum...

Gas Inspector (Nottingham)

Gas Safe Register are currently recruiting for safety focused, gas qualified individual to join the field force as a Gas Inspector in the Nottingham geographical area. As a Gas Inspector, you'll be responsible for inspecting, reporting and feeding back on the gas safety standards registered...

capita.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com

 

[CBW]

They don't have "inspectors" as they are a register only.

How do they carry out inspections of installations/work then?

99.9999% of those who paid the fee for the register are "self employed".

How do you know this? I’d say the figure is lower for self employed with the amount of businesses that are registered

The point here is that they (HSE) said he was unfit whilst actually being on the register due to the timing of taking the private prosecution. What message does that give the public was my point...on the register but they say he's a fraudster and rouge...meaning they allow fraudsters and rouges to be on the register.

I don’t know the story or what’s been agreed, so can’t really comment, but if it’s a bad as you say, then I can’t see why they’d let him back on.

 

[fixitflav]

Does this mean that if he had no regard for safety when he had not paid his fee that he can now not be regarded as having regard because he has paid the fee?
Very confusing for the consumer I think

That sentence confuses me!

 

[Old Salt]

The article I read made no mention of having been registered or rejoined but it did explain about the unsafe conditions he had left in his wake.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/self-employed-plumber-from-waterlooville-given-suspended-sentence-for-pretending-to-be-gas-safe-registered-4224476

“At one property on East Cosham Road, Portsmouth, the boiler and flue Mr Siddle installed were deemed immediately dangerous. A boiler Mr Siddle installed at another property on Howard Road, Portsmouth, was classed as at risk.
HSE enforcement lawyer Jon Mack said: "Mr Siddle was a convicted fraudster and rogue gas fitter who had dishonestly and intentionally breached the law with no regard for the safety of his customers or their families. When challenged by one of his customers, a childminder, Mr Siddle had shown her a photoshopped Gas Safe Register entry which he had stolen from an unconnected company, BCS Plumbing & Heating. He repeatedly lied in WhatsApp messages to another customer."

He then goes on to make it worse….

”Having been prohibited from further gas fitting work by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in July 2021, Siddle then committed more gas installation offences at a property in Stakes Road between March 2022 to August 2022.”

 

[old duffer]

That sentence confuses me!

OK, I'll break it down. As a non member of the register, he was referred to as having no regard. The point they made to the court that he was incompetent and did not care what he did. So now he's paid the fee and back on the register (he always had the qualifications) they (HSE via their donation friendly friends at Capita plc) say that only people on the register are competent and have regard for safety.
So in court they say one thing but in business (gathering fees) they say another and these are directly conflicting and contradictory statements.
Does that make it easier to understand my point?

 

[old duffer]

The article I read made no mention of having been registered or rejoined but it did explain about the unsafe conditions he had left in his wake.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/self-employed-plumber-from-waterlooville-given-suspended-sentence-for-pretending-to-be-gas-safe-registered-4224476

“At one property on East Cosham Road, Portsmouth, the boiler and flue Mr Siddle installed were deemed immediately dangerous. A boiler Mr Siddle installed at another property on Howard Road, Portsmouth, was classed as at risk.
HSE enforcement lawyer Jon Mack said: "Mr Siddle was a convicted fraudster and rogue gas fitter who had dishonestly and intentionally breached the law with no regard for the safety of his customers or their families. When challenged by one of his customers, a childminder, Mr Siddle had shown her a photoshopped Gas Safe Register entry which he had stolen from an unconnected company, BCS Plumbing & Heating. He repeatedly lied in WhatsApp messages to another customer."

He then goes on to make it worse….

”Having been prohibited from further gas fitting work by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in July 2021, Siddle then committed more gas installation offences at a property in Stakes Road between March 2022 to August 2022.”

yet we have no idea what "unsafe is" as this become subjective. He left joints leaking or the flue was venting into a room...you know, say what was unsafe..or would that be dangerous...so I do wonder what is "unsafe" as anything can be "unsafe"
Just do a search..that's what the register is for..right!

 

[denso13]

Does that make it easier to understand my point?

He can be managed when on the register to ensure compliance. If not on the register he can do as he pleases, illegally.

 

[old duffer]

How do they carry out inspections of installations/work then?

How do you know this? I’d say the figure is lower for self employed with the amount of businesses that are registered

I don’t know the story or what’s been agreed, so can’t really comment, but if it’s a bad as you say, then I can’t see why they’d let him back on.

You need to read the terms and conditions of capita. Its on the website.
So they can only ARRANGE for inspection of a REGISTERED person provided that they REGISTERED persona agrees AND the home owner agrees. They do not directly employ "inspectors" as they are a private company with zero statutory powers. Bit the the RSPCA who have "inspectors" which are actually a "rank" within the organisation (the way they have Sturmabteilung styled uniforms) Play on words to confuse the plebs...it is deliberate...

The figures are collated and published if you can be bothered to search for them. Having a Ltd company and being the sole director (an employee) whilst it makes you an employee, you are the sold shareholder and owner but still legally an employee

 

[CBW]

You need to read the terms and conditions of capita. Its on the website.
So they can only ARRANGE for inspection of a REGISTERED person provided that they REGISTERED persona agrees AND the home owner agrees. They do not directly employ "inspectors" as they are a private company with zero statutory powers. Bit the the RSPCA who have "inspectors" which are actually a "rank" within the organisation (the way they have Sturmabteilung styled uniforms) Play on words to confuse the plebs...it is deliberate...

The figures are collated and published if you can be bothered to search for them. Having a Ltd company and being the sole director (an employee) whilst it makes you an employee, you are the sold shareholder and owner but still legally an employee

Yes I’ve seen the figures, but like a lot of accounting/maths they don’t interest me. What terms and conditions are you on about? Only ones I can see is arranging for a gas safe inspector to visit.

 

[denso13]

You need to read the terms and conditions of capita. Its on the website.

Do you have a link to the relevant part? I think you are confused about inspections and mandatory training while on the register.

 

[denso13]

They do not directly employ "inspectors" as they are a private company

Private companies don't employ people?