On 08/05/2015 13:43, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 8 May 2015 12:19:01 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/05/15 11:40, whisky-dave wrote:

The only people who need to be members of GasSafe are people
doing gas work for hire or reward.

Where does it say that ?


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...ulation/3/made

3.(1) to 3.(3)

There, I've cited.

If you wish to contest, please do me the same courtesy.

That is linking to it. 3.--(1) No person shall carry out any work in
relation to a gas fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is
competent to do so. As I said and asked "he" means a women can not do
the job, and there's no indication of how a person is deemed to be
"competent to do so".

In uk legislation if it does not call out and define a term earlier in
the document, then its assumed to have the normal English meaning. The
courts can if required pass a ruling on the interpretation should it be
necessary. That can then establish "case law" which will can attach
additional nuance to the meaning (unless overturned by a higher court).

How would an employer know whether an individual can do the specific
task ?

Typically by inspecting their exam passes, or by training them to an
adequate level. This is the approach that gas safe would take - they
would want to see relevant exam passes, and see examples of work carried
out (under supervision) to an adequate standard.

And this individual refered to as a person, it mentions
nothing about whether you pay them or whether they are your a brother
or uncle or friend.

Indeed. The requirement for competency applies to any and all people
working on gas regardless of who they are or who they are working for.

(2) The employer of any person carrying out such work for that
employer, every other employer and self-employed person who has
control to any extent of such work and every employer and
self-employed person who has required such work to be carried out at
any place of work under his control shall ensure that paragraph (1)
above is complied with in relation to such work.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (1) and (2)
above and subject to paragraph (4) below, no employer shall allow any
of his employees to carry out any work in relation to a gas fitting
or service pipework and no self-employed person shall carry out any
such work, unless the employer or self-employed person, as the case
may be, is a member of a class of persons approved for the time being
by the Health and Safety Executive for the purposes of this
paragraph.

Of course if you believe that the word employ means you have to pay
someone then maybe yuor right but in English Employ doesn't just mean
that.

Again, unless explicitly defined, it has the normal English usage. In
the above section its very clearly used in the traditional context of
employee / employer. Also note that "work" *is* called out and defined
in the preface, to mean:

'“work” in relation to a gas fitting includes any of the following
activities carried out by any person, whether an employee or not'

If what you say is true then why would there be any legislation on
this you can just say, anyone that thinks they can do the work is
allowed to do so.

"Claiming" competence alone does not meet the requirement, you must also
actually *be* competent.

Say for example you have a fully trained and qualified fitter, who works
for a gas safe registered firm fitting brand "x" boilers day in and out.
He then goes home and fits his own brand "x" boiler. Since in this case
he is not working through his employer he would not be covered by their
GS registration. However it would be absurd to claim that he is not
competent and hence working illegally.

Take the counter position. A registered fitter who behaves negligently
(through carelessness or ignorance), and as a result of their work an
accident occurs. It would be equally absurd to claim they can't be
prosecuted because they are members of gas safe even though they were
clearly not competent.

Or anytone can do gas work provided they don;t
charge you fro doing it and you don't reward them in any other way.

If they are are competent.

This would enable charities to take on such work.

A charity is not an individual - i.e. they would need to employ an
individual fitter or firm of them - hence GS registration and competency
are requirements.


The reality of much of this is a moot point anyway. The vast majority of
people will be unaware of the nuances of wording in the legislation
anyway, and hence simply make the assumption they are not allowed to
work on gas. (needless to say CORGI/GS will be in no hurry to change
this assumption). Also GS are likely to be *correct* as well, since
there are only really two groups of people who are likely to actually be
competent - ex professional fitters (who will know the true legal score
anyway), and a very small handful of skilled amateurs, who have spent
enough time learning reading the relevant legislation, British
standards, textbooks etc and also have the required practical skills and
equipment.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/