Sent just now.........Mr Pederson,
Please by way of an OIA request please may I have a copy of the “dealing with unreasonable people” policy ,and also an answer to my most recent correspondence.
I ask all those copied in why the Board would need such a policy and I ask you to read this policy…….they have ignored a fraud, a life threatening explosion and a central heating system that could potentially kill some one, their own total cock up of administering their own gas cert system…..and the blatant framing of myself for something I did not do……and now they have a policy to legitimise ignoring me.
What happens if someone gets hurt? Will they have a policy to ignore that too?
Best Regards Paul Gee
63 Takaka Valley Highway
Upper Takaka
Takaka 7183
Mobile: 0274 33 33 50
A/H: 03 525 9889
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014 9:42 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'; 'communications@pgdb.co.nz'; 'complaints@pgdb.co.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; 'campbelllive@tv3.co.nz'; 'Andrew Little'; 'jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Jude Hutton'
Subject: RE: Letter responding to 26 Nov email
Dear Janis,
Please can you pass this to Mr Ron Patterson and add it to the original complaint I made to the Ombudsman’s office, a complaint that you appear not to have any concern with, fairness for all?
Mr Pederson,
You could have given me this answer, letter attached, the same day I sent my request, but again you have managed to stall, until after Christmas this time, well done.
My OIA request is about your claim of my “varying emails” that you have alluded to in your letter 25th Nov, also attached. Please can I get all copies of these, re-my emails concerning this c/h system.
You mention in this previous letter in your own words, that you can only decline a request because it is either frivolous or vextatious, if it is neither then you must appoint an investigator. Then you go on with no mention of my request being either frivilous nor vextatious.
So, in your own words you must appoint an investigator, and should have back in 2010. You activley promote that people should let the Board know about bad work, this isn’t just bad, it is potentially life threatening.
My information is not totally second hand, some is, but this I believe just adds weight to my complaint as it means other people saw things of concern. You have made no attempts to varify?
I witnessed first hand how he started this installation and he told me what his intentions were, which I was told by the apprentice later happened. What you see as secondhand evidence, I see as a second independent witness.
Ironically, you talk about a schematic not being used, but you make no comment about his comments of “just use poker face and pretend you know what your doing”, when I requested this schematic.
The schematic, attached, is how I believe and have been later told the system has been intalled.
I also believe it is the Board’s duty to determine whether or not the system has been installed in such a dangerous manner, protecting the public is the reason for your charity status, is it not (oh and for tax reasons).
The risk of legionaires disease is very real. I ask you this Max, if this property has one gas cert for only a califont, but has central heating, with no cental heating boiler, then please explain to me how the instantly heated hot water is being heated for both the radiators and the hot water. The plain first hand evidence is there for you to see, if you would but look.
Under an OIA request please can I get a copy of the letters you apparently must have sent to Mr Darnley, re - my many compliants. This you say must be sent under section 90(3) of the act, upon receiving a complaint, from anyone, even me. You should have quite a few of these as I have complained many, many times since 2010 (this is much longer I believe, at least by phone call in any event). Just to be clear I would like a copy of all these letters and all the responces the Board have received in relation to this matter.
You mention that under section 3 of the act you will not be taking any action, especially as the owner wants nothing to do with it (apparently now you have no problem relying on second hand hearsay when it suits you), as it will make it “practically impossible”.
In light of this comment, please can you tell me why section 96 (2) of the act does not apply? This is not a reason to “not” appoint an investigator (a double negative, bad grammer which is something I have become acustomed to in dealing with the Board…. please see the Boards take on impartiallity).
It is an indication of your reluctance to investigate Mr Darnley, who you have also “overlooked” in his blatant involvment in an explosion that nearly killed some one, but you saw fit to make me the scapegoatn for this, for something that I had warned about for many years before the terrible incident……sound familiar Max?
96 Restriction on entry to dwellinghouse
· (1) Despite section 93, an investigator may not enter a dwellinghouse without—
· (a) the consent of the occupier of the dwellinghouse; or
· (b) a warrant issued under subsection (2).
(2) A District Court Judge, on the written application of the investigator, may, by warrant, authorise the investigator to enter a dwellinghouse.
(3) The District Court Judge may authorise the investigator to enter a dwellinghouse under subsection (2)—
· (a) only if the Judge is satisfied that—
· (i) the proposed entry is necessary for the purposes of section 93; and
· (ii) the investigator has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the consent of the occupier to the proposed entry; and
· (b) subject to any conditions that the Judge thinks fit.
I think for the Board to prevent any possible/potential danger to the public would be a condition any judge would think fit……What happens when someone falls ill, or worse Max, it is on your shoulders.
Perhaps Mr Campbell could send one of his reporters to this house and sample the water from the radiators and shower, and take note of how many gas water heating appliances are there at the dwelling and whether there is any central heating radiators coming from the one gas water heater, and whether the hot water is heated instantly when a hot tap is opened, an impossibility if these c/h rads and the water are separated (which they should be to prevent cross-contamination, this is basic 101 central heating).
You appear to be be prepared to gamble with peoples lives. What happens when this unconcerned owner sells this house, and someone unknowingly puts their kids in that shower to bathe?
It is reprehensable that you won’t look at this and you have offered no credable reasons not to. You have mearly used lawyers double speak and stalled, again, and refused to investigate Mr Darnley, again.