"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
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
you, if not a CORGI, to prove you were "competent" (even if competent and
IF
anyone asked of course!), which would involve showing you had lots of
experience, satisfied customers, years in trade etc.,

I don't think they would be quite so strict.

The fact that the law only defines "competent" to mean "CORGI" for paid
work
means that you can infer that the intent was not to define "competent" to
mean "CORGI" for own house DIY work. Otherwise, they would have simply
defined "competent" to mean "CORGI" for all work.

That is not to say that they would expect the highest levels of
workmanship
and skill etc. You'd have to do the job just as well as a registered
fitter.
No skimping on the leak testings, or not wrapping buried pipes or leaving
flux all over the place.


But what you (and Chris Bacon) are implying is a Darwinian system which
encourages all to "have a go" because the only judgment on competency is
done AFTER the job (and, of course, most would imagine themselves to be
competent). The intent of the law is absolutely the opposite - to prevent
all from having a go so there are fewer accidents. This can only be achieved
by some system of ensuring competency is demonstrated a priori.

No, one cannot be certain of the meaning of the words yet but:

I am 100% certain the meaning of competenet person will, eventually, be
decided in court

I am 90% certain the reason for the court hearing will be because of
incompetency (biassing the judge against DIY)

I am 70% certain the judge (taking the above and the intent of the law into
account) will come down against DIY and pro CORGI, making competency almost
impossible to demonstrate outside CORGI.

Of course, that leaves a 30% chance he won't. We will, I am sure, all found
out some time!

Bob Mannix