"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:

You are confusing competent (we all know what that means) and
"competent". In the eyes of the law you would have to demonstrate
"competency", which "they" generally take to mean being CORGI registered.
The onus would be on

This seems to be one of those situations where there is no logal
definition as yet. Since primary legislation has not spelt out what
competancy is, it falls to the courts to make an interpretation. They will
only do this when there is a specifuc requirement to do so (i.e. as a
result of a case. As far as I am aware this has not happened yet.

So while you are correct that we know what it mens to be competant in a
technical sense, I am not convinced that *anyone* actually knows what that
means in a legal sense.

I agree with you both here and the snipped bit further down. It is the case
(as you say) that legal precedent, which will define the law in detail, is
yet to be set. My point was that I bet (if you like) that the covert intent
is to discourage DIY and that, given that, when legal rulings are handed
down, they will slant that way. You are right that it isn't and cannot be
said to be definitely illegal to DIY gas work unless CORGI registered *yet*
as the law has not been refined. I suspect (and said) that it will
*probably* turn out to be illegal.

The unfortunate thing is that it will be (in the end) DIY work that was
neither competent or "competent" and which causes death or injury (ar, at
best, significant damage) that will trigger the legal ruling. This too will
slant the outcome. No-one is going to take a competent person to court for
doing a proper job even if they aren't "competent", I suspect!

Bob