Hopefully they would never need to.
However small the chances of getting caught would be, I do believe that the prospect of financial ruin, and many years in prison, would be an extremely effective deterrent.
However small the chances of getting caught would be, I do believe that the prospect of financial ruin, and many years in prison, would be an extremely effective deterrent.
Sponsored Links
But, assuming that we're not talking about the work itself being in any way dangerous, would that not be completely disproportionate for something which amounts to being no more than a "paperwork offense" with no injured party?
No.
So would you also like to see somebody suffer financial ruin and the prospect of years in prison for driving without a current MoT certificate, even though the car is perfectly roadworthy? It's the same principle.
Sponsored Links
Don't be ridiculous you two - it's not the same thing at all.
There is a very simple principle at stake here:
If you pay someone to provide a service, then you ought to be assured that they know how to do it.
The need for "controls" is not only to do with dangers, it is also to do with people not being allowed to take money from other people for providing a service which they don't know how to do.
So if it's been decided that the way to ensure that customers get the assurance, and the way to only allow people who do know what they are doing to trade is to make registration a legal requirement to trade, and the registration system has been created and enshrined in law, then it's not a "paperwork offence", it is illegal trading, so if it is illegal then what's wrong with penalising people who do it? And to tip the balance away from a costly and heavily bureaucratic detection process, what's wrong with making the penalties so terrible that nobody would risk it?
Trading without the proper registration would not be an accident, it would not be born out of desperation, or temporary loss of control, or sexual urges, or learning difficulties or any of the other reasons that some people commit some crimes - it would be a calculated decision by the perpetrator.
So let's have that calculation include the factor that "although the risk of me getting caught is pretty low, if I did I'd be banged up for years and years and years and all my assets would be taken".
There is a very simple principle at stake here:
If you pay someone to provide a service, then you ought to be assured that they know how to do it.
The need for "controls" is not only to do with dangers, it is also to do with people not being allowed to take money from other people for providing a service which they don't know how to do.
So if it's been decided that the way to ensure that customers get the assurance, and the way to only allow people who do know what they are doing to trade is to make registration a legal requirement to trade, and the registration system has been created and enshrined in law, then it's not a "paperwork offence", it is illegal trading, so if it is illegal then what's wrong with penalising people who do it? And to tip the balance away from a costly and heavily bureaucratic detection process, what's wrong with making the penalties so terrible that nobody would risk it?
Trading without the proper registration would not be an accident, it would not be born out of desperation, or temporary loss of control, or sexual urges, or learning difficulties or any of the other reasons that some people commit some crimes - it would be a calculated decision by the perpetrator.
So let's have that calculation include the factor that "although the risk of me getting caught is pretty low, if I did I'd be banged up for years and years and years and all my assets would be taken".
If I'm meant to be one of those "two", I really don't understand .....
Indeed so, and that is precisely what (despite dissenters) I have been saying, and also that the most obvious 'starting point' for trying to give customers that assurance is to have some sort of mandatory registration/licensing (with appreciable penalties for those who provide the service (for payment) without having the required licence).
Kind Regards, John
No, you aren't - SimonH2 is the other.
Ah - thanks for clarifying!
I do agree with them that penalties cannot really be 'disproportionate' (lets face it, one doesn't necessarily stay locked up for too long even for murder, these days). However, I'm not sure that's a problem, since I don't think that "financial ruin and years in prison" would be necessary. For most people, the threat of any custodial sentence (even if only days or weeks) would probably be a major deterrent.
Kind Regards, John
Why ?
I haven't argued against the principle that someone should be selling services that they aren't competent to do. In my line of work I see it all the time and it's "irritating" to say the least.
I disagree that asking HMRC if it's taxable is any good - they are quite clearly happy to take the default position of you owe them money until you demonstrate otherwise (and even then they sometimes still won't accept it). But that's not really relevant to wether someone is competent for electrical work or not.
And while I am not afraid to express a certain amount of negativity about the current system which does apparently allow people to present "qualifications" while still being of questionable competence - I'm not sure that adding more bureaucracy will necessarily improve matters. We (collectively) have had this discussion many times before - and I don't think many were prepared to argue that "Part P" as the 2005(?) BRs were commonly referred to had some negative aspects which to a certain extent negated the benefits. This latter point seems to have been recognised by the authorities since the restrictions in the BRs were significantly relaxed in the 2013 version. There are already sufficient regulations to deal with dodgy traders - the biggest problem is one of enforcement. Trading standards don't have the resources to follow up every report, and that is realistically the main reason people can get away with selling services they aren't competent to do - legislating to make something illegal because the current laws making it illegal aren't being enforced will not help (sadly Tony B Liar and his gang didn't get that since it was a cornerstone of a lot of their output
).And right now, with my other business hat on, I'm getting lumbered with more "red tape" for little reason other than existing rules and regulations aren't being enforced against the dodgier (well, in many cases, very dodgy) end of the industry. Comments to the government that the new rules and regulations simply make it easier for the dodgier end (by way of making it more cost effective for them to cut corners) fall on deaf ears.
IMO the main issue is that in any area where the public do not have at least a basic grasp of the principles, there will always be charlatans prepared to take advantage of them. I don't think there is any way you can legislate that away.
It's obviously true that one cannot (totally) "legislate away" anything. However, legislation (or even just Common Law) can certainly improve the situation. Imagine a world in which it was not unlawful to commit burglary, robbery, assault, murder, rape, fraud, deceipt etc. etc. etc.
Kind Regards, John
Because you gave a thumbs-up to this:
Well- my suggestion (off the cuff) was all about how to answer "Am I actually trading?", nothing to do with competence.
And I fully accept that it would not in practice be a good way to find out.
Of course. Enforcement costs money. Which is why I like the lower-cost (if assets are seized to fund prisons) approach of making the price of being caught so hideous that nobody would dare, even if the odds of getting caught were very small.
Well - I wasn't aware of the generic law mentioned earlier, but I believe that there is a very good chance that enforcement would help, no matter how sporadic, if the cnsequences for the miscreant were the total, and long-term, destruction of life as they know it.
We live in a democracy. The reason we have a Government which behaves like that is because that's what the majority of people want.
You can go an awfully long way by making independently verified competence mandatory, and destroying the lives of people who decide to ignore the law.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
There are some murderers wrt whom I have not the slightest interest in rehabilitation, forgiveness, their contrition etc etc. There are some who, no matter how much, and how genuinely, they may later come to regret and repent, I think have for ever forfeited their right to live in society again.
Perhaps you should just reinstate the death penalty - For anyone trading without an appropriate license.
OK, so you have never broken the law, not even once ? You've never done 30.1MPH in a 30mph zone, you've never parked for 61 minutes having paid only for one hour, never ever been a day late paying a bill, ...
Think carefully before you answer. Think very carefully indeed.
If you genuinely believe that the cost of breaking the law should be a completely ruined life, then as PBC was getting at - you should believe that it should apply to breaking the law<period> As you are so fond of pointing out, we can't pick and choose what rules & regulations we want to obey.
Or is it a case of breaking the law should result in having your life ruined - as long as it only applies to activities you don't like ? I see plenty of that around.
You see, I believe that the law should set out expectations, and if you break it then there should be penalties but those penalties should be proportionate - and relate to both the actual harm caused and the potential harm. Lets take a hypothetical case of an electrician who is fully qualified, experienced, does great work, tidy CUs - the model of a brilliant sparky. He's let his registration lapse, perhaps through oversight, and a week later is pulled up for doing work while not registered. According to your model of justice, he gets locked up for 6 months and can never work in the sparky business again - all for what is really nothing but the absence of a bit of paper and no harm was even potentially caused to anyone. In my model of justice, he gets a stern telling off, renews his registration, and carries on providing a good and safe service to the public.
The charlatan who calls himself a sparky because he knows which wire goes where in a 13A plug, has no training, does shoddy and dangerous work, and never had any intention of registering - well he deserves a stiff sentence, one that will set an example, but not one that will prevent him paying his way in the future.
Either way, I'm not joining in.
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
