I had a plumbing inspection the other day and the inspector asked me if I had my current licence on me. I told him I forgot it that morning and he almost refused to sign off my job because of that and threatened a fine! (the fine being the fee to rebook the inspection) He said that it is now compulsory to carry the licence on every inspection I have. A few things in this regard... After a longer chat it turns out the guy wasn't a plumber, he used to be a builder.. and he is now doing plumbing inspections! Many plumbing inspectors are sub contrators, if self certification should ever come through these guys would be out of job. How do you feel about this? should council keep our inspectors? If yes do you think plumbing inspectors should be certifying plumbers? What do you think?

Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/councils-and-consents/79/council-plumbing-inspectors/413/

I believe that you are required to carry your licence (see www.pgdb.co.nz) - but as to the Council being able to fine you for not having it - I don't think that's acceptable.  I personally am in favour of tradesmen carrying their licence as it may get rid of the cowboys in the industry.  The one area around councils and permits that concerns me is that there is no check that the name of the plumber on the application for the consent is the guy actually doing the job.  The customer can put my name on the consent application, get my registration number off the PGDB site and then get someone else to do the job.  In 3 years time if something goes wrong I can be hauled up and have to prove my innocence when I never knew about the job in the first place.  Some Councils check with the plumber whose name is on the consent to ensure they are doing the job.  I reckon this should be compulsory.   It's a good thing to keep your licence card on you - you've worked bloody hard to get it!

I heard about the fact that plumbing inspectors are not fully employed by the government, that would explain a lot! Maybe someone can clarify this for me. Does that mean that inspectors PERPOSLY fail our inspections so that they have to be re-booked and GET PAID for it again??
That's the feeling I got when i think about the fact that the inspector just failed one of my jobs because he didn't have an as-build drawing of the plumbing installation on a residential house and missing 100mm of insulation. Now I have to explain to my costumer why its costing him "another fee" for Mr plumbing inspector to come back and nod his head a few more times to then sign it off. Back in the day our inspectors made sure we rectified the problem and didn't just fail us. I should of never done my plumbing/gasfitting trade and used my time to do hydraulics engineering. That would have taken half the amount of time to do (also easier) and I could now charge twice as much! Honestly our industry has lost the plot!

hi all
as plumbers we should always carry our cards and when asked we should be able to prove our competence i have heard that in the taupo area they now ask for the card but i have also heard of people putting other peoples details down and last year i was on a job but didn't have the right card so my  craftsman got me to use someone Else's , which propted me to advise the auditor generals dept of the need of photo cards and i also had this published in the plumbers journal and it is good to see my recommendations have taken up by the board

the other problem is that if a plumber/craftsman is that good why would he want to take a pay cut to work as a inspector its a bit like a plumber working in mitre 10 he must have been crap

Hi guys, good on ya Mike, yes I agree. Jd means well but does not choose his words well sometimes, he has had to put up with a lot from the pgdb and is a bit anti,(understandably). Not having a go at you Jd so be cool. Mike you did well to get off the tools I would encourage anyone to do the same especially in the present climate that we tradesmen are in. I have made comment previously that young guys should go to uni to become engineers so they can earn good money and be respected, unlike our trades at the moment. Actually you can see the benefit of taking a pay cut to work for Mitre 10, keep your hands clean/work in a clean and warm environment/staff discounts/free uniform/meet nice people/no more confined spaces/no speeding tickets/no licence to pay to work/no cpd courses/no stress, sounds good thanks Jd well I must fly I’m off to Mitre 10 to see if they have any vacant positions. Cheers.   

Your lucky the Inspector didn't point out what it states in the backflow prevention section of AS/NZS 3500. It states under the scope of section "This section applies to Australia only". It then goes on to point out in NZ G12 is the correct document for use in NZ.

The requirements of 3500 differ greatly to NZ's requirements hence the reason why they haven't been approved for use here. Consider yourself lucky that your inspector didn't know this 

yea i know that it the 3500 only applies to australia...thats why all plumbing inspectors need to be actual plumbers, as the inspector had no real idea and reason and the prinipals of back flow and back syphoniage which are totaly diffrent...thats why i quized him with the 3500 standards to see if he had any actual idea that this section of the codes only applies to austraila...when i first discovered the small print stating this i was dumbfounded as to why this print that has nothing to do with nz is allowed to be plublished in our set of codes as im sure many a plumber has been misled by this section of the codes...anyway  if he had a tangiable real reason for back syphion issues with the hose taps i would have been more than happy to place air break devices on the taps...BUT alas he was only trying to stamp his authority and abuse his position of power!...I strongly believe we need fully qualified inspectors to inspect work to weed out the cowboys out there NOT some glorified building inspector who has no real understanding of plumbing principales...cheers mike its good to see that there are others out there that read the fine print.   

The fact council inspectors are asking for licenses is long overdue. A few years ago in Lower Hutt all that used to happen was the owner just put a Plumbers name on the consent with his number. There was no checking mechanism for the actual inspectors. Luckily for me I had a case where an inspector went to check a S/W drain that had my name on the consent. He noticed a telecom van up the driveway and when the owner came out, with a telecom shirt on, he said I couldn't make it and to just go ahead and check it. The inspector took one look at the green pipe and, as he was a personal friend, realised I did not do the job and put two and two together. He rang me so I would be onsite. The owner got one hel of a fright and at the end of the day my consultation fee was what it would have cost for us to do it in the first instance. He paid up as he had a choice of Police involvement and reg board involvement or pay me. I am just waiting for something else to come up. As the council at that time they were not checking it will be upto me to prove I did not do the job. I managed to counter it by sending council a letter that unless I am present at an inspection where my license was used that I will not be responsible for the work.
That was about 10 to 15 years back. Now they insist on veiwing a license. It also has the benefit that the cowboys who are not licensed that we are pay huge fees cause they don't are now being caught out.
This is also my argument for self certification.