Chris Bacon wrote:
Christian McArdle wrote:

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.


But being a CORGI does *not* mean you are immune from
prosecution! You have to take tests to be a CORGI -
which lets you in to that organisation. If you at
ant time make a mistake, you were not competent by
definition, and can be prosecuted, not just be
expelled from CORGI. People are making a mountain
out of a molehill here.

But I assume the CORGI or their employer would have indemnity insurance
which would cover them to a point.