Dear Mr Patterson,

 

Ref 310809.

 

 

1. I am in receipt of your two letters dated 30 May and 13 June 2014. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank you for extending my date of reply.

 

2. I fear that I may not have made myself clear to you and your office. My complaint is not about the outcome of the biased and flawed hearing and slanted investigation.

 

3. My complaint is about the flawed and biased investigation and the subsequent stacked hearing that I was subjected to by the Board and it’s so called “impartial” investigator, the Board’s words not mine. This same Board who are willing to ignore blatant conflicts of interest and firm evidence that points to my old boss and are quite happy with the withholding and misrepresentation of evidence by their appointed so called “impartial” investigator. This is my complaint.

 

4. It concerns me greatly that your office appears to be putting so much emphasis and weight on the 33 page report written by the Board and Secretariat, who of course will have put a great deal of effort into excusing themselves. This is confusing to say the least. It is a kin to they themselves judging themselves impartial, (an oxy-moron and very bad grammar to say the least), which apparently no one has any concerns with either.

 

5. In point 1 of your letter dated 30^th May, it appears there is some confusion over my situation, I did not sit a prescribed course of “INSTRUCTION”, which implies, even demands, the learning of new skills and knowledge, skills and knowledge that I was deemed by the Board to have lacked.

 

6. I was in fact ASSESSED…. learning nothing new. I am sure I could have learned a lot from the assessor as he was very knowledgeable, but the “course” prescribed by the Board wasn’t available, and so I was assessed. As this "punishment" imposed by the Board did not exist, I was forced to pay someone to assess me and this then imposed yet further additional costs.

 

7. Of note I was told by this assessor that I would be within the top 10% of people he had ever assessed, this he discovered after my assessment, when I had not been taught anything new. I was assessed on my already attained knowledge and skills (I did this assessment with my arm in a full plaster cast; perhaps this is where I dropped 10%). This is the same knowledge that I had used to position the califont. Your office is charged with seeing fair play served; do you think this is fair?

 

8. Are double standards fair? Is it fair to have been financially forced to sell my home, to have lost my business and reputation and been subjected to a witch-hunt when it appears that there is no consistency in the actions and findings of the Board? They appear to apply certain rules for some and ignore the same rules for others.

 

9. Of note, and this is why I requested an extension in my time of reply, I have recently been made aware that the Board has received a complaint from an elderly couple who complained about an installation of a califont, this califont was positioned much nearer than the califont in my one and only standing charge, by some 6 inches to two openable windows.

 

10. I have been told that the Board’s advice to them was to “close the windows when you use it” and did not pursue it any further. I have requested a clarification of this to the Board in the form of an OIA request, Doc 1 in attachments. I have copied your office in to this OIA request, as well as another OIA request to see if they have taken any action in the case which involved the very sad situation of a young lady losing her life; her horrific situation is to be found on this link, http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/native-affairs-lesleys-legacy. Doc 2 in attachments.

 

11. I ask you Mr Patterson is this Board effective? Which way do you think the Board will lead our industry and protect our public with these mixed and conflicting messages? What messages are they sending the people of this country when in one explosion they are willing to let it go with no one held accountable, even though there is evidence that indicates someone? And in another explosion, that actually took the life of an innocent, as far as I am aware, do nothing.

 

12. I am told that this distraught elderly couple, mentioned above, have since withdrawn their complaint and are on anti stress medication due to this terrible situation. Do these people in their twilight years deserve this? I have promised to leave them out of this until it is vitally necessary because of this stress that they have been subjected to. This double standard shown by the Board, do you think it is fair?

 

13. This goes toward showing that the Board haven’t changed since my hearing and are still using one rule for one, and ignoring other rules for others; this double standard has only just come to light in recent weeks. Do you think this fair?

 

14. Of note the customer involved in my case, the customer who owned the dwelling that was subject to charges laid for a califont installation at Malvern Av, had laid no complaint and had never in 6 years smelt any fumes, this is because the position of his califont was more open to a cross air supply and had a greater clearance to the floor, their califont was placed under one restrained opening window (only opening to 100mm as it was restrained by safety chains). This window opening into a very large open plan room and with its powered flue issuing into a much larger, clear and open garden, this was all taken into account when I positioned it. Fitted 40 mm over the 500mm minimum from the window, as per the tech note I had.

 

15. But the califont where the Board has apparently told the people to “close the window when you use it”, these poor people who have actually complained about fumes entering their home, their califont is positioned in a more enclosed area and is much nearer the floor, fitted under two windows that open, unrestrained, to much smaller rooms, (which is a concern due to the availability of free air, i.e. volume, for the dilution of these flue gases), and the elderly couple’s califonts power flue is issuing into a more enclosed and partially covered area with a deck and railings to one side. Is this Fair Mr Patterson? Is the Board’s apparent blasé flippant hypocrisy fair? This apparent attitude of the Board is where my complaint lies, right here. Doc 3 in attachments for photos of the califonts positioning.

 

16. In point 2 of your letter of 30^th May, you speak of my lack of attempts in airing my concerns and the use of a “British Standard” at the High Court Appeal. I ask you to look at the recent reply I have received from the High Court, a reply to my request for a transcript of this appeal.

 

17. Please also see my extensive written submission to the High Court, already supplied to your office.

 

18. This recent application for a transcript for my appeal was made to enable me to show you that I was told categorically to talk only about the distance from the window to the califont by Justice Kos and had actually tried to air my concerns. The reply to my recent transcript application is below.

 

 

 

From: Stack, Michaela
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12:09
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: hearing transcrpit.

 

Mr Gee

Thank you for your email.  As you are aware this matter was an "Appeal" hearing before the High Court.  No witnesses were called to give evidence at the High Court hearing and the parties relied on written submissions to present their arguments to the Court.   Therefore no transcript would have been made. It is usual procedure that no transcripts are taken for civil  appeal hearings.

Therefore I am unable to provide any transcript.

 

Kind Regards

 

Michaela Stack

Deputy Registrar

Wellington High Court

email : michaela.stack@justice.govt.nz

 

 

19. My highlights in red above. As you know, I did make an extensive written submission for my appeal, which I have provided to your office, detailing my concerns that you say I did not try to submit. So in effect I did make a valid attempt to address this and other issues, and as I can take it was read by Justice Kos I do not know why it isn’t in his summing up.

 

20. All the testimony, evidence and opinions issuing from my impartiality hearing and my actual hearing. All given so much credence by the Board and by Justice Kos appear to be based solely on the foundation of the integrity and reliability of the Board’s appointed so called “impartial” investigator and his opinion, even down to the strict enforcement of an acceptable solution, a NON COMPULSORY acceptable solution, the investigator offered no physical evidence to make his point, it was based solely on his opinion and translation of the NZ 5261 and a contradictory table that he helped write.

 

21. I was told at my impartiality hearing that as Mr Hammond hadn’t been shown to have acted egregiously, that he was deemed to be suitable and the right person for the job, even in light of all the conflicts of interest I had raised.

 

22. I ask you Mr Patterson, is this investigator, who withheld forensic photos which proved my point that I had maintained for two years, these same forensic photos taken before he was appointed as the investigator, the same photos which were in all probability in his possession as and when I told him at interview that it was my opinion that the pipe work had been altered after my initial pipe installation…. the same investigator who misrepresented evidence and was prepared to ignore his own huge conflicts of interest, is he suitable? Has he acted egregiously? Has he any integrity? Do you value his opinion? This where my complaint lies.

 

23. Is it fair that Mr Hammond’s colleague of many years, a Stephen Parker who was chair of my hearing, the same Chair who closed down this very hearing, just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the califont measurement from an openable window and trying to get the investigator to clarify and give his reasons for his “opinion” on the clearance of the califont? This is the basis for my complaint.

 

24. It is the reliance on this one mans “opinion” by the involved authorities’, to base the whole ruination of my life, business and reputation, that I base my complaint.

 

25. I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. which I suppose is understandable, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who had lobbied extensively for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system to be introduced, this same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley who was gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and why these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.

 

26. For your office to apparently be so willing to rely on the Board’s own excuses while they are ignoring the unsuitability of Mr Hammond is reason for concern. You are relying on the Board’s own spin for your reasons to not investigate, I believe this is unfounded and I will ask the human rights commission and perhaps even the leaders of our Commonwealth if they think this is reasonable. This same Board, who have misquoted me, prejudiced all the witness’s to all the sites of charges and told untruths about me and sent vile perverted case notes to my home. I will never let this lie and am in communication with a law firm to pursue this further if you decide to go on the path you appear to be following.

 

27. Is this conflicted and biased man, Mr Hammond, a reliable person for both the Board and Justice Kos, even the Ombudsman, to totally base their judgment on, up holding this last and final charge out of 44 trumped up charges? Is it fair for your office to listen to this man, to give him credibility? He has acted egregiously. This is my complaint.

 

28. Think on this, I feel it is relevant because of papers you have written. As you are aware, I had spent 6 years warning about my old boss, about him altering my certs after I had signed them, not forging my signature as your letter of 30^th May has said.

 

29. As you know at one point I had a letter sent on my behalf in 2006 by Nick Smith MP, amongst many other attempts by myself to highlight the short comings of my old boss. Ironic, because I also have a photo of several Board members and the “later to be appointed” investigator pictured in 2006 along with my old boss at a NZIGE meeting, all of them paid up long serving members of the same interest groups.

 

30. Basically I was, in 2006, complaining about my old boss, to the very same Board members pictured with him in the very same year, all members of the same club, also present in this photo is the man later appointed to investigate the explosion AND who had awarded my old boss his full licence…along with the chair of my hearing Stephen Parker…..all in the same picture, all paid up members of the same group, three years before the explosion. I actually have more similar photos taken at NZIGE seminars.

 

31. All of this in contradiction to Mr Hammonds own signed affidavit, an affidavit written about how well he knew my old boss and how many times he had met him, is Mr Hammond the right person for the job? Is it fair? This is where my complaint lies.

 

32. Nick Smith MP stated in a letter that if the Board had heeded my warnings then the explosion “could have been averted”, written two years after the explosion. Is it fair that I lost so much? Doc 4 in attachments. And the Labour MP, Maryan Street believes I was served an injustice Doc 5 in attachments.

 

33.  This is why I believe it may be relevant to you as I think you said it best in these comments attributable to a Prof Ron Patterson; I take it this is you.

 

34. In reading Doc 6 in attachments, please replace doctors with tradesman and the Medical Board with this Plumbers Board when rereading these notes, excerpt below:-

 

First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.

 

35. And from another paper….

 

 

Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas?) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters?) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it!

 

* My additions in black.

 

 

36. How about adding to this statement above…..That these “raisers of concern” are being set up and made a scapegoat when all that they had warned about comes to pass, nearly killing someone. Isn’t the Board denying and resisting my complaint, just as they did with my warnings, made 6 years prior to the explosion.

 

37. I ask you Mr Patterson. What is the difference between a patient’s health and safety to that of paying customer of a tradesman? Or are the rights of a gasfitter and his customer to be deemed less than that of a health professional and his patient? After all we are licence holding practitioners and have in the past been over seen by the health system. I was set up as a scape-goat, this is my complaint.

 

38. Doesn’t a patient pay for a service from a health professional and in doing so they should be able to expect to be kept safe and healthy after procuring these services, please explain to me the difference? I say this because a man nearly died in an explosion and NO ONE has been held accountable but I have been made the scapegoat. What message does this send?

 

39. Here’s an analogy for you. How does it sit with you if…….. a “health professional” was to be gifted his full practicing licence because he was a pharmaceutical salesman?........Then a well meaning, fully trained health practitioner had aired concerns about the obvious lack of ability of this untrained “gifted” licence holder for 6 years, and was later proven right in his concerns when a patient nearly died………but as the well meaning, fully trained person had signed a prescription (which was manipulated after signing) was then made the scapegoat, by the very person appointed to investigate, this same person who had also gifted the licence to the pharmaceutical salesman, and was in several interest groups with this salesman. Now apply this rational to mine and Mr Darnley’s situation, in light of your publications. Is this fair? How would the author of the above presentation feel about this state of affairs? A presentation about, of all things, “self regulation” and Board’s ignoring evidence.

 

40. All the evidence points to my old boss, he actually faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared with no relevant questioning or a hearing. Is this fair? Doc 7 in attachments. You’ll notice that this letter mentions 3.7 of the report (the 33 page report that is mentioned above and in your correspondence). Point 3.7 makes no mention of the charge at the site of the explosion. Also a list of the charges laid against Mr Darnley has no mention of the explosion at Milton Street. How can someone face a charge then have it disappear with no trial/hearing or relevant questions? Is it fair?

 

41. I ask you, is it fair to base your opinion that my old boss was investigated thoroughly and adequately just because the investigator said he did? This same investigator who was also my old boss’s fellow member of NZIGE and the same person who had gifted my old boss his licence…..the same investigator, who withheld forensic photos, misrepresented and ignored evidence?

 

42. This same Mr Hammond who was willing to ignore, amongst other ignored evidence, a third hose supplied to supply the two fryers, this third hose sold well after, months after, I had left Allgas’s employment and a long time before the secondary work covered by cert 345138 for a pizza oven….this same hose being the very one that caused the explosion, the same hose that, in the opinion of the forensic investigator, David Neale, had had its sealing outer rubber coating cut away, the same outer coating that makes the hose gas tight. Is this fair? This is where my complaint lies. Doc 8 & 9 in attachments.

 

43. You mention the Board’s 33 page report. As you appear to have a copy please look at page 31, point 4.6, Doc 10 in attachments. I believe this double speak spin doctoring is part of the cover up and one of the root causes for making me a scapegoat, its plain to see for those willing to see. Cert 345138, a cert for the last, most recent work carried out at the site of the explosion, the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Board’s 33 page report, this is also the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Dept Of Labour (DOL) original complaint. Two pages of Doc 11 in attachments.

 

44. The DOL author of this letter of complaint told my lawyer right at the beginning of this fiasco that, at no point, was my work of concern to DOL. I have since personally talked to the author Mr Windleburn; he has no problem with my work either. To ignore this. This is where my complaint lies.

 

45. I ask you to read the DOL complaint and ask yourself who in this letter of complaint would a fair minded lay person think was more deserving of a thorough investigation.

 

·         The fully trained Gas Service Engineer who had complained about Mr Darnley, specifically about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years and came forward freely.

 

·         Or the person gifted his licence with no formal training, whom the Board had received letters of concern about, specifically dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, who was the last person to have worked at the site of the explosion but didn’t register the cert for this last work, but saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, i.e. a dodgy cert covering not only dodgy work…. but an explosion? The same person who ran the company that sold the third hose and this same company also showing a willingness to act in my name when Allgas requested to alter a cert 3 months after I had left its employ? Doc 12 in attachments.

 

46. I find it bizarre that a copy or cert 345138 was entered into the Board’s own website, but they claim not to have received a copy. In the Board’s 33 page report it mentions that a “fox pro” entry is there for this cert I should imagine that this system would require a log in pass word for the person entering the certs information and this person could attest to whether the Board had in deed received a copy. How on earth does all the information on the carbon copies get on to the fox pro system, even down to the correct cert number…..without receiving a copy of the original! To deny receiving this cert alone deserves an investigation. 

 

47. All available copies of cert 345138 lack the legal recording of a gas leak test, even the electronic version. The only copy missing…. the original! This is the only copy which was, in all probability, received by the Board.

 

48. I put it to you that it is possible that this original copy of 345138 was, in all probability disposed of and shredded when the Lawyers acting for the owners of the exploding chipshop asked for a copy of all gas safety certs for their gasfitting work carried out at their chipshop. Perhaps you could ask Belinda Greer, a worker for the Board. Doc 13 in attachments. Look at Doc 13 and reread the 33 pages of excuses in their report, it is nonsense.

 

49. This Cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint. This is where my complaint lies.

 

50. I ask you in all fairness, if the person responsible for the last work installed at the exploding chipshop, the same person who according to the Board didn’t register this cert for this work with the Board. But he saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, and even kept a carbon copy himself as the supplier and another copy himself as the certifying gasfitter. With this same cert 345138 that appears in the complaint by DOL by actual number, the same cert mentioned in 4.6 on page 31 of the Board’s report……how can this man, the person responsible for initiating cert 345138, face a charge for the explosion, but then that charge disappears with no relevant questioning, trial or hearing? These are per the Board’s own correspondence. It is here my complaint lies, this “non registration” came to light 8 days after the explosion and months before the Board appointed an investigator. Is that Fair?

 

51. I ask you Mr Patterson……..how would the Board look if they had openly accepted an incomplete gas safety certificate for the last work done at a site that then later exploded…..lacking of all things a gas leak test? How would the Lawyers for the chipshop owners have acted on such findings?

 

52. In ever more double standards a person involved in yet another case, a situation where there was a pre-signing of some 560 blank certificates, which were on sold, including to unqualified lay persons, with 90% of the work covered by these blank certs done against regulation and non compliant…..with some 16 very dangerous, with the signatory on record as saying he signed and checked every job. What would you think if someone involved in this fiasco, probably the signatory of these blank certs…..still has charges before the Board some 5 years later? Is this fair? These double standards, this is where my complaint lies. Doc 14 in attachments.

 

53. The Board are also willing to ignore a potential fraud and manipulation of gas certs to cover dangerous work, this was discovered at my hearing, and the Board did nothing. Is this fair?  This is yet another double standard and is where my complaint lies. Doc 15 in attachments. The letters sent by the Board, that are mentioned in this letter of excuse in Doc 15 were issued well before the manipulation of the certs was revealed at my hearing, it is actually one of the letters that the Board had to apologise to me for, because it contained untruths about my ability to act illegally in other areas of NZ. Ironically this letter of untruths sent by the Board came about because of the situation where the man mentioned above signed 560 certs in the North Island, apparently I got lumped in with him, but he potentially still has charges before the Board, even right up to today. This farcical state of affairs is where my complaint lies.

 

54. The list of poor performance by this Board is long and deserves a proper independent investigation. It does not deserve for the Board to be apparently protected and sheltered by those, like yourself, who would take all that the Board say on face value and fall for their spin doctoring and double speak, this is a mistake.

 

55. I was told by Mr Christopher Littlewood that all you could do was make a recommendation……please recommend that a proper, fair and independent investigation is held, I will do the rest, along with the support of well over 1200 members of the Plumbers Federation, a group set up because of 15 years of mismanagement by this Board. Sadly my case is but one of many.

 

 

 

Thank you for your consideration and time. Please can you tell me when I might receive a reply, it has been nearly a year and a half since my original complaint.

 

 

Best Regards Paul Gee