So on the 17th April they confirm to the lawyer that they have never received a copy of 345138, the complaint from DOL comes in on the 8th of July, and specifically mentions this cert, and concerns over my complaints made previously....

Is it reasonable to persecute me?

Anyway back to the one charge that they went in my local paper and said that I didn't know what I was doing, which wasn't when my business collapsed, that happened when the Board sent out letters to all the sites "of concern", the one letter I believe that nailed my business was the one to the one and only high school in Motueka.

These are the letters that they had to apologise for because they gave the impression that I could act outside of the law..... in Northland, a place I have never even visited, let alone worked there.

So, I am found not guilty on 95% of the charges, and just as we are going to go for the full 100%, Stephen Parker shuts down the hearing. Just as Hammond says.......

The "Q" is Wal, my advocate and the "A" is the inquisitor,


Q. That's fine. Now, the second thing I have just to clarify and you're talking about Part 1 and Part 2 of the Act. Now Part 1 is what must be done, what you must comply with?

A. Part 1 is the mandatory requirement.

Q. Mandatory requirement, yes, and Part 2 is a way of compliance?

A. That's correct.
________________________________________________________________________
433
Q. Now, the reason I was asking about that, because on page 35 of the edition I have here, 1.5.7, it meanings about flue terminals and in the second paragraph of that section it reads: "Flue terminals shall be located to minimise entry of combustion products into any building and to minimise the effects of adverse draft on the performance of the gas appliances". So in reading that, if there's no gas entering into a building, then it complies with Part 1?

A. Yes, the aim of that is to make sure that gas does not enter into the building.

Q. So that's the aim of it, so if there is no gas, say in this case we've got two situations where people are saying there's no gas entering, then according to that paragraph then it complies with Part 1 of the Act?

A. No, I don't rely on consumers whether the gas was entering or not, it is the gas fitter's job to locate it in such a way that gas does not enter the building.

Q. But that's what it's saying here though isn't it, it's saying that if the flues aren't entering the building then it complies with Part 1?

A. Yes, but -

Q. And if the customers are saying fumes aren't entering the building then it's compliant with Part 1?

A. But in order to ensure that under all conditions products of combustion do not enter into the premises, then one way of complying is to ensure that the clearances are in accordance with Part 2. If you are putting in an appliance with clearances other than those in Part 2, then you need to demonstrate how the - how you have ensured that under all conditions the products of combustion can't enter the property.

Q. That doesn't say "in all conditions" there. Does it say in here "all conditions"?

A. No it doesn't say all conditions, but that's surely a general inference from the requirements of the standard to meet all conditions.

Q. Well an inference is fine, but as per it says here the - that's located to minimise entry of combustion products and to minimise the effects of adverse draft et cetera. So those - if there's no fumes entering those two
________________________________________________________________________
434
locations that we've been talking about, then they're actually compliant with the mandatory part of the NSZ 5261?

A. I don't have any knowledge of whether products of combustion are in fact entering or not. I have not carried out any tests to demonstrate. I am unaware of any tests that have been carried out to demonstrate that.



MR PARKER: Well I think we have reached the point where we are having submissions, so I think we can adjourn now.

From my high court appeal.....


86.   Table 16 of NZS5261:2003 is in its self proof the table is only a recommended solution in that reference k the distance of a flue terminal from a mechanical air inlet, including a spa blower, is 1500mm for a natural draft flue and 1000mm for a fan assisted flue.  A mechanical inlet basically operates by mechanically sucking air in to the building.
87.   This is 500mm closer than the distance recommended by the same table for the distance from an openable window. Effectively a mechanical inlet sucking like a vacuum cleaner can be closer than an opening window.
88.   Note the two Investigators, Mr Hammond and Mr De Bernardo, were both on the Committee that was responsible for the preparation of NZS5261:2003 so would have an interest to ensure the standard did not fail.


So a fan, sucking from outside to blow inside, because the bubbles are in the spa.....I got the spec for these fans, your talking cubic meters a minuet , being sucked from out side to inside......so this can be 500mm nearer than a passive window.......is this reasonable?

Q. You'd have to agree wouldn't you that there is a real risk that if the window is open products of combustion from the heater will go in the window?

A. I would argue the point, no I don't think that would be the case. As I drew in my drawing earlier, the gasses act - it's hot air, it gets ejected from the water heater probably to about I'd say about four metres, under force, and then it rises. Now if a window is higher probably say two or three metres higher, it's going to eject out four metres and have more of a chance of drifting up isn't it? In my opinion, this is just my opinion, I would never do it because I've got to literature to back it up, but if that window was directly above that flue it would probably be safer, because the fumes would be ejected out no into the atmosphere and they would drift off. And I just must add, this window that was above it, according to the statement and according to what I remember, had a six inch gap. You'd have to have a hell of a prevailing wind to shove it up that window.

Q. Now, at 37 Dommett Street, or avenue, as a precaution you arranged you say, for the customer to screw the window shut?

A. As it was a bedroom.

Q. Surely if it's - if you need to do that when it's a distance of 1340 millimetres, you'd also want to do that when there's only 500 mm metres?

A. Did you listen to what I just said? Did you comprehend what I was just saying? I believe that a heater - a window higher - you've got more room for that forced out air to return back. In a smaller distance and I believe that I was complying with the tech note I have, which wasn't for a Bosch, but if I took the guts out of that unit and put it in a Rinnai unit, you wouldn't know. The - I made a judgment call, I believe borne out by it - I've been borne out by it. The customer said it's never been a problem. I distinctly remember ringing Colleen Singleton and I asked her for advice where to turn for any information, advice. She told me to refer to industry providers and industry member. I can only do what I'm told. I can only follow instruction. If my boss gives me something from a reputable firm I can ________________________________________________________________________ 392
only - why would I have kept that original fax? Because I thought it was relevant to my job and I thought it helped me perform my job better. I could have said to this guy "oh that unit mate got to go about 20 metres up the wall, it will cost you a bit extra in the plumbing and gas and all this", I tried to put if as near as I could to his bathroom, he's happy, there's no problem with fumes coming in. I made the call, my call and the tech note have been borne out to comply with Part 1 of the regular which is mandatory. Part of the 2 of the regs, is according to the regs, I'll have a look here, at the beginning - I can't be bothered looking it up, I know what it says, it says Part 1 is mandatory; Part 2 is a way - an acceptable solution for it to conform, it also mentions in there to reference of the regs, it tells you to - I've never seen a document so hard to understand and contradictory, what would you say if I could say I could point out what I think is an error in that document? Would you be interested in any of that? No? Won't bother.

Q. Okay now we'll move on to 5 Powick Street.

A. Yeah.
Q. And could you please go to paragraph 105 in your statement at tab 15. Tab 15, your statement, 105. Now you said that all you did there was to re-run the pipe to the califont that is from an existing supply to an already installed unit, not units?

A. Yep. That's singular.

Q. Yes. Now it's my understanding then that what you are saying that was to re-run the pipework from the existing Rinnai 32 upstairs?

A. No not from it, to it.

Q. Okay to it, from the existing bottles?

A. Yeah. Yep, that's what I'm saying.

Q. And do you say that at that stage the other Rinnai that was getting installed - or has been installed as we see in the photos wasn't there?

A. Has been since installed there. It was still in bits on a Japanese production line when I did the job.

Now the Board where they ignored the poorly old couple.....well theirs was closer than mine, but I don't think that was the issue.....

The one where I was publically admonished and ridiculed for......well that issued into a large open garden.

The poorly elder couple who were told to "just close the window when you use it"....well theirs was more enclosed with no cross wind.

Basically I got done for the Board enforcing a non mandatory part of the NZ5261.....why have we got two sections? Why not just make them all mandatory?......I asked this at a standards roadshow.......its because "some times the install falls out side of the normal application"......you mean just like at the job where I installed the califont???

Have a look at the photos.....

It is reasonable to ruin me for just one install that no one had a problem with, just on the say so of the investigator, who wrote the book of regs (and would be very protective of this document failing) and lobbied for deregulation and self certification and gave Darnley his full ticket? Same guy had never actually installed anything, as he was a chemical engineer,......but he was gifted his craftsman licence just like Darnley

The Board based their whole decision on the testament of one totally conflicted individual (Hammond), an individual who had plenty of reason to want to go after me and protect Darnley.

..........is this reasonable???


The only other gasfitter in the room was British.....Mr Hardy...have a look a the British Standard, hmmm reasonable or unreasonable ......they stated that they were a professional board who should be given more weight in their opinions.....so I guess they think they know more, but the only craftsman gasfitter, who was British......didn't know about the British Standard.


The same guy sat in on my "impartiality" hearing......the make up of the impartiality hearing....

Mr Mark Whitehead - Chair
Mr Peter Jackson
Mr Stephen Parker
Mr William Irvine
Mr Graham Hardie

So Mr Parker sat on a impartiality hearing, then later chaired my hearing......I complained about Mr Parkers conflicts of interest, his statement contradicts all the evidence below.....


Now.....is that Mr Jackson in the Photo with Darnley?

So how do you feel about financing this charade, 

.....paying hundreds of dollars to practice a craft that you have learnt and earnt by sitting an apprenticeship,

.....while others get given their tickets after a chat,

......told to do CPD because your incompetent if you don't, while they make such a mess of the cert system (with a disclaimer reflecting the unreliability of the system they managed) well.... it gets taken off them,

......act illegally for years giving the finger to the industry and recommendations of the government, illegally taking 2 million buck off us all....so they change the law to suit,

....they pontificate about safety when they screw a guy over for not putting a strap on a cylinder, at an unfinished job, but then tell an elderly customer to shut their window when they use a califont fitted too close to their window,


I don't know how you all feel about financing this train wreck......but I am a bit over it