My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Cheers,

JD

"Jo" wrote in message
om...
My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Cheers,

JD

Powerflushes must be as big a scam as damp proofing.
I bet he doesn't need a new boiler or the flush either.

On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Cheers,

JD



He's being conned. Basically they are putting all the risk onto
him. It is possible that during the powerflushing that the heat
exchanger reveals some leak etc. that would necessitate a replacement.
On an older boiler, this may not be economic.

However a powerflush at £400 is an outrageous price - you can rent the
equipment and DIY it or even take the radiators off and outside and
clean them with a pressure washer.

The best advice is not to do business with BG


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Cheers,

JD
Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI
engineer/company?

In article , Jo
writes
My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

To answer this, ask yourself another question: do British Gas
"engineers" get a commission of at least 5% when they con a customer
into getting a new boiler? (Answer: yes, they do.)

Or, to put it another way: would you *really* trust an outfit advertised
by Ricky Tomlinson, an actor who is type-cast at playing somewhat shonky
scousers?

(NB: This does not imply -- and should not be taken to infer -- that no
Liverpudlian is honest. I'm sure there's an honest scouser, somewhere.)

--
Paul

"Jo" wrote in message
om...
My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

I didn't even need to open this posting to be able to give you the answer -
"yes"

David

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:30:47 +0100, "Paul C. Dickie"
wrote:

Or, to put it another way: would you *really* trust an outfit advertised
by Ricky Tomlinson, an actor who is type-cast at playing somewhat shonky
scousers?

I was doorstepped by BG lately. I took _great_ pleasure in explaining
that I didn't trust their company, and the reason I didn't trust it
was because of their use of a scouse fascist to advertise them.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:46:19 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:30:47 +0100, "Paul C. Dickie"
wrote:

Or, to put it another way: would you *really* trust an outfit advertised
by Ricky Tomlinson, an actor who is type-cast at playing somewhat shonky
scousers?

I was doorstepped by BG lately. I took _great_ pleasure in explaining
that I didn't trust their company, and the reason I didn't trust it
was because of their use of a scouse fascist to advertise them.


and they said?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:08:44 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

and they said?

Nothing at all of course. Big faceless corporate - the guy on my
doorstep was just working from a script. Still, made me feel better,
which is more than BG are usually good for.



--
Smert' spamionam

In message , Paul C. Dickie
writes
In article , Jo
writes
My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

To answer this, ask yourself another question: do British Gas
"engineers" get a commission of at least 5% when they con a customer
into getting a new boiler? (Answer: yes, they do.)

Or, to put it another way: would you *really* trust an outfit advertised
by Ricky Tomlinson, an actor who is type-cast at playing somewhat shonky
scousers?

(NB: This does not imply -- and should not be taken to infer -- that no
Liverpudlian is honest. I'm sure there's an honest scouser, somewhere.)

You'd better ask Boris Johnson about that

--
geoff

In message , Andy Dingley
writes
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:30:47 +0100, "Paul C. Dickie"
wrote:

Or, to put it another way: would you *really* trust an outfit advertised
by Ricky Tomlinson, an actor who is type-cast at playing somewhat shonky
scousers?

I was doorstepped by BG lately. I took _great_ pleasure in explaining
that I didn't trust their company, and the reason I didn't trust it
was because of their use of a scouse fascist to advertise them.

You should have invited them in and wasted a couple of hours being
entertained ... and then said that

--
geoff (who still hasn't got around to doing so)

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...
On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI
engineer/company?

Sort of implies that BG staff have CORGI licences :-)
Did they all actually bother to do so after privatisation ?

In message , G&M
writes

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI
engineer/company?

Sort of implies that BG staff have CORGI licences :-)
Did they all actually bother to do so after privatisation ?

BG actually stuck two fingers up and said - we're not going to play,
what are you going to do about it.



The information contained in this post
may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diyprojects.info

--
geoff

In message , G&M
writes

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI
engineer/company?

Sort of implies that BG staff have CORGI licences :-)
Did they all actually bother to do so after privatisation ?

They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , G&M
writes

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI
engineer/company?

Sort of implies that BG staff have CORGI licences :-)
Did they all actually bother to do so after privatisation ?

They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been working in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"raden" wrote in message





They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been working in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.


At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening,
then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying
on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that
exempts BG. At the least it gives them an unfair commercial advantage
if they don't have to do the same as everybody else.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:28:11 +0000, raden wrote:

In message , G&M
writes

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
. ..
On 15 Oct 2004 02:35:20 -0700, (Jo) wrote:

My mate's central heating system needs to be flushed to get rid of a
build-up of sludge. British Gas came round and told him that although
his boiler is working fine, it is a bit on the old side and it might
be badly damaged when the system is flushed so it would make sense for
him to buy a new boiler. (If he buys the new boiler they will flush
his system for free, if he doesn't, it will cost £400 PLUS the cost of
a new boiler if it breaks during the operation.)

I guess my question is - is he being conned or is there a real chance
of this happening?

Why doesnt he get a second opinion from another CORGI
engineer/company?

Sort of implies that BG staff have CORGI licences :-)
Did they all actually bother to do so after privatisation ?

They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

I thought it was the Transco guys who weren't registered.
Some jobsworth of a BG customer would soon have clocked the problem if
BG fitters weren't registered?

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"raden" wrote in message





They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been working in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.


At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening,
then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying
on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that
exempts BG.

It's called a special dispensation

not really difficult to obtain when you have someone else's dangly bits
in a firm grip

--
geoff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"raden" wrote in message





They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been working
in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.


At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening,
then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying
on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that
exempts BG. At the least it gives them an unfair commercial advantage
if they don't have to do the same as everybody else.

Either Transco or BG, have minimum recruitment standards. They don't take
on plumbers and the likes with a CORGI certificate, which heating companies
would do.

The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern equiv.
Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were returning.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:23:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"raden" wrote in message





They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said (in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been working
in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.


At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening,
then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying
on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that
exempts BG. At the least it gives them an unfair commercial advantage
if they don't have to do the same as everybody else.

Either Transco or BG, have minimum recruitment standards. They don't take
on plumbers and the likes with a CORGI certificate, which heating companies
would do.

The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern equiv.
Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were returning.




That's all fine, but my point was really about why they should be
exempted from the law.

It can be that BG have excellent training and supervision arrangements
- they probably do - and that CORGI does not do a good job of
supervision and manages by exception - i.e. acts when there are
complaints.

However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.
Either everybody should be self certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they should be regulated by an
independent body.

Having just one "independent" body like CORGI seems unsatisfactory as
it is more like a trade association than an independent regulator -
there should at least be more than one or a genuinely independent
organisation.

Equally, if BG is effectively operating a self certifying arrangement,
where are the independent controls? They are not the "old gas board"
any more but a commercial operation, and if they are self certifying
there is a potential conflict of interest.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:23:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"raden" wrote in message





They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said
(in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are
you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been
working
in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.


At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening,
then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying
on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that
exempts BG. At the least it gives them an unfair commercial advantage
if they don't have to do the same as everybody else.

Either Transco or BG, have minimum recruitment standards. They don't
take
on plumbers and the likes with a CORGI certificate, which heating
companies
would do.

The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern
equiv.
Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were
returning.

That's all fine, but my point was really about why they should be
exempted from the law.

They were there first. CORGI came about to get rid of cowboy operators. The
old gas boards were not cowboy operators. The likes of BG/Transco has a
monopoly, so they should specify a minimum training level, and quals, and
that is it. Then CORGI gives a certificate to Transco/BG men. It is
ludicrous that they should pay to sit a test if they leave.

It can be that BG have excellent
training and supervision arrangements
- they probably do - and that CORGI
does not do a good job of
supervision and manages by exception -
i.e. acts when there are
complaints.

BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.

They can, it depends on how big they are.

Either everybody should be self
certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they
should be regulated by an
independent body.

An independent body can monitor how self certification is being implemented
in organisations. SElf certification may only be to organisations of a
minimum size.

Having just one "independent" body
like CORGI seems unsatisfactory as
it is more like a trade association than
an independent regulator -
there should at least be more than one
or a genuinely independent organisation.

Equally, if BG is effectively operating a
self certifying arrangement,
where are the independent controls?
They are not the "old gas board"
any more but a commercial operation,
and if they are self certifying
there is a potential conflict of interest.

The system needs updating.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:24:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern
equiv.
Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were
returning.

That's all fine, but my point was really about why they should be
exempted from the law.

They were there first. CORGI came about to get rid of cowboy operators. The
old gas boards were not cowboy operators.

Maybe, maybe not. Again there is the point even in the old system
that there was not independent accountability.

The likes of BG/Transco has a
monopoly, so they should specify a minimum training level, and quals, and
that is it. Then CORGI gives a certificate to Transco/BG men. It is
ludicrous that they should pay to sit a test if they leave.

Presumably this is why there are arrangements for employers to be
registered and for operatives not to have their own registration. If
the employer is investing in training they should have a way to
protect that investment rather than just training for their
competitors or for people to set up on their own without cost.



It can be that BG have excellent
training and supervision arrangements
- they probably do - and that CORGI
does not do a good job of
supervision and manages by exception -
i.e. acts when there are
complaints.

BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

Fine, but if they are still within the organisation, where are the
independent checks and balances? I'm not suggesting that
skulduggery goes on but the temptation and opprotunity is there.


However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.

They can, it depends on how big they are.

Other firms of heating engineers? Outside CORGI control?



Either everybody should be self
certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they
should be regulated by an
independent body.

An independent body can monitor how self certification is being implemented
in organisations. SElf certification may only be to organisations of a
minimum size.

Although size is not a predictor of quality, the model that is being
done for other industries is fairer.



Having just one "independent" body
like CORGI seems unsatisfactory as
it is more like a trade association than
an independent regulator -
there should at least be more than one
or a genuinely independent organisation.

Equally, if BG is effectively operating a
self certifying arrangement,
where are the independent controls?
They are not the "old gas board"
any more but a commercial operation,
and if they are self certifying
there is a potential conflict of interest.

The system needs updating.

That's true.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:24:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern
equiv.
Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were
returning.

That's all fine, but my point was really about why they should be
exempted from the law.

They were there first. CORGI came about to get rid of cowboy operators.
The
old gas boards were not cowboy operators.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe yes. that was the case. Initially to join CORGI, you only needed to
provide a C&Q qualification. I think they even accepted plumbing C&G. It
was voluntary. The boards had strict tarining and qualification levels.

Again there is the point even in the old system
that there was not independent accountability.

That was so, but the safety level of the gas boards spoke for itself. CORGI
was to eliminate cowboy idepenedet ooperatiors. In the klate 1960s/early
1970s there were many explosions, none down to the gas boards, so action was
taken, and CORGI came about.

The likes of BG/Transco has a
monopoly, so they should specify a minimum training level, and quals, and
that is it. Then CORGI gives a certificate to Transco/BG men. It is
ludicrous that they should pay to sit a test if they leave.

Presumably this is why there are arrangements for employers to be
registered and for operatives not to have their own registration. If
the employer is investing in training they should have a way to
protect that investment rather than just training for their
competitors or for people to set up on their own without cost.


It can be that BG have excellent
training and supervision arrangements
- they probably do - and that CORGI
does not do a good job of
supervision and manages by exception -
i.e. acts when there are
complaints.

BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

Fine, but if they are still within the organisation, where are the
independent checks and balances? I'm not suggesting that
skulduggery goes on but the temptation and opprotunity is there.

In a privatised money grabbing world there is.

However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.

They can, it depends on how big they are.

Other firms of heating engineers? Outside CORGI control?

Don't know of any, and none are that big.

Either everybody should be self
certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they
should be regulated by an
independent body.

An independent body can monitor how self certification is being
implemented
in organisations. SElf certification may only be to organisations of a
minimum size.

Although size is not a predictor of quality, the model that is being
done for other industries is fairer.

Size means they will the resource.

Having just one "independent" body
like CORGI seems unsatisfactory as
it is more like a trade association than
an independent regulator -
there should at least be more than one
or a genuinely independent organisation.

Equally, if BG is effectively operating a
self certifying arrangement,
where are the independent controls?
They are not the "old gas board"
any more but a commercial operation,
and if they are self certifying
there is a potential conflict of interest.

The system needs updating.

That's true.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:52:45 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

Fine, but if they are still within the organisation, where are the
independent checks and balances? I'm not suggesting that
skulduggery goes on but the temptation and opprotunity is there.

In a privatised money grabbing world there is.

The temptation is there regardless. In the public sector it is lack
of control and competition resulting in complacency and laziness.



However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.

They can, it depends on how big they are.

Other firms of heating engineers? Outside CORGI control?

Don't know of any, and none are that big.


I didn't think that the legislation and HSE implementation permitted
other than one organisation - i.e. CORGI to act as "regulator".


Either everybody should be self
certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they
should be regulated by an
independent body.

An independent body can monitor how self certification is being
implemented
in organisations. SElf certification may only be to organisations of a
minimum size.

Although size is not a predictor of quality, the model that is being
done for other industries is fairer.

Size means they will the resource.

Although the various organisations involved in the Building
Regulations Part P scam are of quite varying sizes.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:52:45 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

Fine, but if they are still within the organisation, where are the
independent checks and balances? I'm not suggesting that
skulduggery goes on but the temptation and opprotunity is there.

In a privatised money grabbing world there is.

The temptation is there regardless. In the public sector it is lack
of control and competition resulting in complacency and laziness.

That is a silly comment to make.

However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run
their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.

They can, it depends on how big they are.

Other firms of heating engineers? Outside CORGI control?

Don't know of any, and none are that big.


I didn't think that the legislation and HSE implementation permitted
other than one organisation - i.e. CORGI to act as "regulator".


Either everybody should be self
certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they
should be regulated by an
independent body.

An independent body can monitor how self certification is being
implemented
in organisations. SElf certification may only be to organisations of
a
minimum size.

Although size is not a predictor of quality, the model that is being
done for other industries is fairer.

Size means they will the resource.

Although the various organisations involved in the Building
Regulations Part P scam are of quite varying sizes.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:42:03 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:52:45 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

Fine, but if they are still within the organisation, where are the
independent checks and balances? I'm not suggesting that
skulduggery goes on but the temptation and opprotunity is there.

In a privatised money grabbing world there is.

The temptation is there regardless. In the public sector it is lack
of control and competition resulting in complacency and laziness.

That is a silly comment to make.

Simply an observation of what can and does happen.
The point is really about opportunity and motivation.

You linked the terms "privatisation" and "money grabbing" together.
That is silly. There is nothing wrong with a profit motive, provided
that appropriate controls are in place.





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl