Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

steve

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

Competent CORGI installers yes

In message , Séan
Connolly writes
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

Competent CORGI installers yes


Beeep! Wrong!

For doing your own gas work, indeed all that the law requires is that
the person be competent, as the OP says (though many people, including
my local plumbers merchant who I had an argument about with about it)

Quite what competent means in that situation is of course moot point,
much discussed here before.

However Corgi registration is required for doing paid for work.

--
Chris French

In message , Séan
Connolly wrote
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

Competent CORGI installers yes


The incompetent gas fitter on that program was CORGI registered!

The program also implied that no-one unless they were CORGI registered
could turn the gas off - presumably even if there were a gas leak.


--
Alan

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:31:15 +0100, "r.p.mcmurphy"
wrote:

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

steve



The first requirement is that somebody doing gas fitting must be
competent.

The second requirement is that somebody doing so *for reward* must be
CORGI registered.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?


If you are paid to do it, then you have to be CORGI registered. If you do it
yourself, or someone does it for free, then you/they have to be competent.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:31:15 +0100, "r.p.mcmurphy"
wrote:

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

steve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corgi

http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html

Mr F.

Alan wrote:
In message , Séan
Connolly wrote

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?


Competent CORGI installers yes


The incompetent gas fitter on that program was CORGI registered!

The program also implied that no-one unless they were CORGI registered
could turn the gas off - presumably even if there were a gas leak.

Well, presumably if you weren't CORGI registered you wouldn't be
qualified to spot a gas leak anyway.

Competent CORGI installers yes


Beeep! Wrong!


Thats interesting, as its not how British Gas (or B&Q) would explain it to
you at all. (I'm not saying your wrong as you're clearly not!)

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Séan
Connolly writes
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

Competent CORGI installers yes


Beeep! Wrong!

For doing your own gas work, indeed all that the law requires is that the
person be competent, as the OP says (though many people, including my
local plumbers merchant who I had an argument about with about it)

Quite what competent means in that situation is of course moot point,
much discussed here before.

However Corgi registration is required for doing paid for work.

--
Chris French


Competent is easy - if you have done it correctly then you are competent, if
it's incorrect then you are incompetent. .and that also applies if you are
CORGI registered!!

Kevin Brady wrote:
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i
thought competent people could install gas too?


If you are paid to do it, then you have to be CORGI registered. If
you do it yourself, or someone does it for free, then you/they have
to be competent.

If you do it FOR YOURSELF you need to be competant, but do not need to be
CORGI registered, if you do it 'for free' for someone else it is my
understanding that you are deemed to be working for reward - if your mate
buys you a pint for your trouble that's a reward... so you need to be CORGI
registered.

Comments?

Dave

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Richard Conway wrote:


Well, presumably if you weren't CORGI registered you wouldn't be
qualified to spot a gas leak anyway.

I guess that most people - CORGI registered or not - could tell the
difference between a house and a pile of rubble where the house *used* to
be! g
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Set Square wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Richard Conway wrote:


Well, presumably if you weren't CORGI registered you wouldn't be
qualified to spot a gas leak anyway.


I guess that most people - CORGI registered or not - could tell the
difference between a house and a pile of rubble where the house *used* to
be! g
Ah yes, but only the CORGI chap could put it down to a gas leak - to the
average man in the street it could have just fallen down (or would he
have to be a qualified builder to work that one out?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:18:49 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Brady"
wrote:


Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?


If you are paid to do it, then you have to be CORGI registered. If you do it
yourself, or someone does it for free, then you/they have to be competent.

Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by
a CORGI-registered person.

--
Frank Erskine

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brady wrote:
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i
thought competent people could install gas too?


If you are paid to do it, then you have to be CORGI registered. If
you do it yourself, or someone does it for free, then you/they have
to be competent.

If you do it FOR YOURSELF you need to be competant, but do not need to be
CORGI registered, if you do it 'for free' for someone else it is my
understanding that you are deemed to be working for reward - if your mate
buys you a pint for your trouble that's a reward... so you need to be
CORGI
registered.

Comments?

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 suspect. No-one
would probably ask unless there was a problem. If there was a problem you
couldn't really say "I must have been competant as it's OK" IYSWIM.

Lets call a spade a spad - the intent of the law is to stop DIY gas work
(under the pretence this makes the world safer and to safeguard the
professional bodies). The interpretation of any grey areas in law would be
bound to have this slant.

If you are merely competent, do the job, and there are no problems and
no-one asks, then it's *probably* illegal (even if perfectly OK) but what
the eye doesn't see....

Bob Mannix

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:18:49 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Brady"
wrote:


Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?


If you are paid to do it, then you have to be CORGI registered. If you do
it
yourself, or someone does it for free, then you/they have to be competent.

Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by
a CORGI-registered person.

But they don't ask to see your certification, even if you're an old woman
buying stuff.

Mary

--
Frank Erskine

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.

Currently the Health and Safety Executive explicitly acknowledge that
DIY gas work is legal.

See http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/change.pdf page 50 :

One of the consultation questions they asked was :

"Should DIY work be legally prohibited, eg by restricting the sale of
gas equipment to registered gas installers?"

Part of the conclusion was:

"We understand concern about the possible risks posed by incompetent DIY
gas work, but believe at present there is insufficient hard evidence of
incidents to support the introduction of a legal ban."

Even if you look at the more public facing
http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/domestic/faqownerocc.htm#5

You get the evasive non answer:

"Q. Is it legal to do DIY on appliances and/or flues ?

A. A competent person must carry out all work on gas appliances. It is
always safer to use CORGI registered gas installers to carry out any gas
work. Any employer or self-employed person, for example, a landlord, who
carries out gas work must be CORGI registered."

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 suspect. No-one
would probably ask unless there was a problem. If there was a problem you
couldn't really say "I must have been competant as it's OK" IYSWIM.

Depends on why it went wrong I expect. However if you actually *are*
competent then it ought not go wrong as a result of any acton under your
control.

Lets call a spade a spad - the intent of the law is to stop DIY gas work
(under the pretence this makes the world safer and to safeguard the
professional bodies). The interpretation of any grey areas in law would be
bound to have this slant.

If you are merely competent, do the job, and there are no problems and
no-one asks, then it's *probably* illegal (even if perfectly OK) but
what the eye doesn't see....

I would say the law is clear that it is *not* illegal, so that can not
be the intent of the law. The HSE also make it clear that they do not
currently support the idea of making it illegal. However, there is
obviously a strong desire to discourage DIY gas work. One way that this
is done is by allowing many to believe that it is illegal.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brady wrote:
Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i
thought competent people could install gas too?


If you are paid to do it, then you have to be CORGI registered. If
you do it yourself, or someone does it for free, then you/they have
to be competent.

If you do it FOR YOURSELF you need to be competant, but do not need to be
CORGI registered, if you do it 'for free' for someone else it is my
understanding that you are deemed to be working for reward - if your mate
buys you a pint for your trouble that's a reward... so you need to be
CORGI
registered.

Not forgetting the case where, like my mates, the kitchen extension builders
fitted all the cooker gas pipes back to meter cupboard, BUT the system was
tested and commisioned by a Corgi registered fitter.

"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

John Rumm wrote:
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.

It was mentioned earlier. If you do the work, and it's fine,
you're competent. If it is not OK, you are by definition
not competent. This (competency) id referred to in all sorts
of regulations, not just for gas work.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:
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.

It was mentioned earlier. If you do the work, and it's fine,
you're competent.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg the
intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of opinion)
and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the event) )it's
quite possible for someone who is not competent to get it right
occasionally. This would not mean they should do such work again.

If it is not OK, you are by definition
not competent

Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent" One thing that
is NOT in doubt is that the law regards CORGI's as "competent persons" (it
says so). If they turn out to be incompetent, then their CORGI registration
might be revoked, at which point they cease to be a "competent person" (but
only then) .

It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense meaning
of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a particular
purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).

Bob Mannix

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.

I regard myself as competent at most things, but I still wouldn't do gas
work myself (beyond connecting a bayonet), as I don't think I know about it
in enough detail.

Christian.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:31:15 +0100, "r.p.mcmurphy"
wrote:

Is it really true that no one except a corgi can touch gas? i thought
competent people could install gas too?

Competent non corgi people *can* install gas but not for reward.

sponix

Frank Erskine wrote:

|| Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by
|| a CORGI-registered person.

It's actually worse than that Frank. I bought a quick release cooker hose
and a roll of gas tape in B&Q. Both of the packages clearly stated that it
was "illegal to fit or use the product unless CORGI registered, therefore no
instructions are given".

So even if you are competant, any instructions that might make you even more
competant have been removed.

So how come they are still selling them then?

Dave

"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

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
John Rumm wrote:

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.

It was mentioned earlier. If you do the work, and it's fine,
you're competent.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true

Well, it is.


Aside from anything else (eg the
intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of opinion)
and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the event) )it's
quite possible for someone who is not competent to get it right
occasionally. This would not mean they should do such work again.

It's also possible for a trained person to do something wrong,
in which case for that job they were not competent, e.g. your
referenced CORGI, who can be prosecuted.


Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent"

I'm not confusing anything.

It's actually worse than that Frank. I bought a quick release cooker hose
and a roll of gas tape in B&Q. Both of the packages clearly stated that
it
was "illegal to fit or use the product unless CORGI registered, therefore
no
instructions are given".

They're just covering their arses in case you mess up.

Christian.

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...


definition of competent

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

So am I. It will be the only definition which will count but I don't think
it's been tested yet.

I am 90% certain the reason for the court hearing will be because of
incompetency

Yes.

(biassing the judge against DIY)

Not necessarily.


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!

Yes. I hope it's later rather than sooner. I know that there are
incompetent installers (of everything) but I don't think that there are
accidents in 30% of installations.

That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.

Mary

Bob Mannix

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

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.

It was mentioned earlier. If you do the work, and it's fine,
you're competent.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true

Well, it is.

I would qaulify and say not necessarily true (with knobs on ) ) - what
about the next job?


Aside from anything else (eg the intent of the law, the difference
between "competent" (a matter of opinion) and a "competent person"
(demonstrably competent BEFORE the event) )it's quite possible for
someone who is not competent to get it right occasionally. This would not
mean they should do such work again.

It's also possible for a trained person to do something wrong,
in which case for that job they were not competent, e.g. your
referenced CORGI, who can be prosecuted.


Yes, true but, in the eyes of the law, when they did the job they were doing
it as a "competent person" and the person who hired them (if they did) did
the correct thing and hired a "competent person".


Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent"

I'm not confusing anything.

Of all right, refusing to accept my distinction - fair enough.

(see other post replying to Christian)

Don't get me wrong, I deplore the whole CORGI/Part P fiasco but that
shouldn't blind one to how things are (or are likely to be), just because we
don't like them.

Bob Mannix

Mary Fisher wrote:
That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.

Not in any official capacity anyway

"Richard Conway" wrote in message
news
Mary Fisher wrote:
That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.

Not in any official capacity anyway

Hey, if we start having a go at people for being judgemental on ng's, there
would be no-one left ;o)

Bob Mannix

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.

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.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
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.

Well I agree with that. I don't think there's much to be gained from arguing
about CORGI's who have a well defined place in the scheme of things (and are
not immune to prosecution as you say). The argument is over the meaning of
"competent person" (in the not-a-CORGI sense to do with gas work), who would
define this term, and when, and what the definition will be. It's not an
exact science but the definition will come eventually.

Bob Mannix

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Richard Conway" wrote in message
news
Mary Fisher wrote:

That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.

Not in any official capacity anyway


Hey, if we start having a go at people for being judgemental on ng's, there
would be no-one left ;o)

Bob Mannix


Surely having a go at someone for being judgmental would be a bit
hypocritical anyway

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

The meaning is that the person is competent. If they do a bad
job, they were not competent. That's all there is to it! That
is *why* the term is not spelt out in black and white, so that
the accused can't just say "Well I passed all the tests, so
it was not my fault".


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

It makes no difference. Why did the job blow up? If it's because
of an installation fault, it is because the installer was not
competent. If it's because of something else (someone drilled
into the gas pipe) then it's nothing to do with whether the
installer was competent.


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.

The *only* reason that something should "go to court" is because
the installer was perhaps not competent. The standard of work
decides that.

Richard Conway wrote:
I assume the CORGI or their employer would have indemnity
insurance which would cover them to a point.

It won't cover the osds from going to prison!

"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Set Square wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Richard Conway wrote:


Well, presumably if you weren't CORGI registered you wouldn't be
qualified to spot a gas leak anyway.


I guess that most people - CORGI registered or not - could tell the
difference between a house and a pile of rubble where the house *used* to
be! g
Ah yes, but only the CORGI chap could put it down to a gas leak - to the
average man in the street it could have just fallen down (or would he have
to be a qualified builder to work that one out?)

Nowadays it could as easily be down to a bomb factory going off

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:
I am 100% certain the meaning of competenet person will, eventually, be
decided in court

The meaning is that the person is competent. If they do a bad
job, they were not competent. That's all there is to it! That
is *why* the term is not spelt out in black and white, so that
the accused can't just say "Well I passed all the tests, so
it was not my fault".

Clearly, if you were the judge, that would be true! )



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

It makes no difference. Why did the job blow up? If it's because
of an installation fault, it is because the installer was not
competent. If it's because of something else (someone drilled
into the gas pipe) then it's nothing to do with whether the
installer was competent.

I meant the court hearing mentioned in the first para., which will be the
one where the precise meaning of the act is defined - there may be other
reasons for a court case as you say.


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.

The *only* reason that something should "go to court" is because
the installer was perhaps not competent. The standard of work
decides that

Indeed but I believe you are missing the point. The gas installation
regulations and the requirement for CORGI registration or a "competent
person" were NOT brought into being to allow only the successful prosecution
of incompetent people AFTER the event. They were put in place to prevent
accidents by trying to ensure that work was done in the first place by
competent people (the issue of whether they will be successful in this is a
different topic!). To do this you cannot rely on "if the work was done OK
the installer was competent" approach. There has to be some demonstration of
competence before the job is done. If a person really is competent then
ther's clearly no problem. The problems start when they are not and think
they are.

We shall see the truth eventually, whatever is said here.

Bob Mannix

"Richard Conway" wrote in message
news
Mary Fisher wrote:
That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.

Not in any official capacity anyway

I'm no more a judge than anyone else in any capacity.

Mary