They doubled up the charges at each address to make all up 44 charges, these were laid and I answered 42 charges. Being found 95% innocent of any wrong doing is a very good result, but if this other 5% of charges were “up-held” (and were aided to be up-held by the investigators mate chairing the hearing, who then stopped the hearing just as we were questioning the investigator specifically about this very 5% of the charges). And it was all done as a last grasp at keeping a 100% conviction rate (openly boasted about), and done to save face and justify a $220 000.00 price tag, with still no one held accountable for a near fatal explosion….. Well it is reprehensible and a true reflection of the arrogance and the lows these people will stoop to protect their ego's, positions, salaries and reputations.
Please before you read this summary of charges below, please read and bear in mind these points and then the 3 documents listed below and attached.
• Nearly 50% of the charges were amended at the last minute, application for amendments made on 1/2/11, the hearing on the 3/5/11, after over 2 years of investigation.
• Evidence, photos and notes were withheld and misrepresented.
• Huge conflicts of interest ignored and witnesses added just days out from hearing.
• Mr Bickers, the soon to be Board Chair (now left) was on the panel for my hearing and he witnessed what I am about to tell you about in these charges first hand. Of note Mr Bickers runs a course called the “Role of the Processional Witness”, specifically about a hearings procedure and its goal of achieving a proper and fair outcome.
Doc 1. Mr Bickers further sullying of my reputation in my local news paper, just days after the hearing. See attachment B1, (B1).
Doc 2. The so called “apology” from the Board, signed by Mr Bickers. This letter referred to in the apology, in my opinion, prejudiced all additional sites prior to my hearing, all sites other than the site of the explosion, with a very “un”- truth, implying that I was capable of acting in an unlawful manner. It was sent to areas spanning my whole business history, with the Mot high school, right in the middle, which I believe was no mistake.(B2).
Doc 3. All or at the very least 3 years of my work was audited, this is evidenced by the time gap in the investigation and also a letter from a Board lawyer and a comment on an MPs letter, but the investigator states only 10 % was audited. (B3 & 4)
See below for the Charges and how they were dis-proven. I ask you will this “justice” help our country, industry or protect the public. I kept my licenses, but lost my reputation, home and business, and now nearly 50% of licences are being uplifted for this year, almost half tradesman not bothering.
Please note, it is not an exhaustive list of proof and concerns, and I have tried to be brief.........
Milton Street chipshop.
1. This is the site of the explosion that started this whole affair. I proved that the initial install of pipe work had in all probability been altered along its entire length from how I had originally installed it. I installed a “pre-pipe” under instruction from my then boss John Darnley. All evidence for the person responsible for these alterations I believe pointing to Darnley or someone under his direction, but he was never asked about it.
2. The bayonets were lowered, as evidenced by the withheld photos showing screw holes of previous position and the pipe falling from the corner of the room to the position of the Bayonets which is contrary to all the other “audit” photos of my work. These withheld photos were taken by the forensic expert, these photos only became apparent to me at the hearing, but were available to the investigator very early on and reaffirmed what I had maintained for two years. Over 120 photos were taken with only about 11 made available.
3. I had completed my involvement with the installation on the 15th, as evidenced by the date of the leak test date (of note the 15 of this test date being in a different colour ink to the rest of the cert, and not in my hand), but the offending fryers were delivered on 24th . (B5 & 6)
4. There was a pizza oven installed half way along, one year later. The cert for the pizza oven being the one that wasn't registered by Darnley, as per the Board. This “pizza” cert lacked any information entered into the gas leak test field on all available copies (all copies available are totally in Darnley’s name). The Board were aware of this “non” registration, just 9 days after the explosion. Of note there appears a copy of this cert on the PG&DB electronic register, a total impossibility if not registered. (B7 &
5. Three hoses were sold for two fryers, the offending hose had split so near to completion of the job that it was part of the original invoicing. But when the owner told the investigator, he told him it didn't interest him, Mr Clark told me this. (B9)
6. The cylinder station/bottle bank had been altered to feed off both gas cylinders simultaneously, in all probability to accommodate the added extra load of the pizza oven. This is evidenced by the fittings sold and invoiced for in the initial billing and the different fittings present in the photo's taken just after the explosion.(B10 & 11)
7. Not one part of my initial install went unaltered, from the start at the cylinder station, the middle where the pizza oven was installed, to the end where the bayonets were lowered (not by me) with the fryers added (not by me) after my initial “pre pipe” job.
8. It appears to me that the bayonets were lowered to allow the fryers to sit further back to the wall, as the fryers have a cavity underneath, and this lowering and turning of the fitting was why the hoses failed after pinching against the floor. And probably would have been done when the fryers were installed, not by me. My involvement is also evidenced by the job card, showing no fryers, and with the words “install bayonets and test”, in my hand. (B12). The entry for the fryers on the front of this Job card, not in my hand, but same as the hand writing on the certificate . All this known to the investigator very early on when I told him in my voluntary interviews, in all probability when he had the withheld photos.
9. The comment that the sheath had been cut away from the hoses, again not by me.(B13)
10. Still to this day one has been held accountable for this explosion, with all, if not most, of this referenced evidence available to the investigator. (B14)
Main Rd, Havelock
1. Even though the investigator had said to me at interview that the site had been unaltered since my initial install of a fryer in 15th Jul 03,(the appliance at the focus of the charge), there were a further two certs issued for this site. Both these certs 629404 and 623527 were for work in the kitchen, with one dated 4th Sept and 29th Jan both in 09.
2. The audit being done on 3rd Sept 09 (C1). The cert date for 629404 was the day after the audit. The work signed off in this cert 629404 for 4th Sept is considerable and would not be done in a day and would involve moving all my work.
3. Of note the hand writing of the word “fryer” on this Allgas job sheet is identical to the word “fryer” on the Milton Allgas Job sheet and the appliance is drawn in, which isn’t drawn in the Milton St job sheet. Of note this would probably have been written by an office worker who passed out the work, but no one from the office was interviewed. (C 2, 3 &4)
4. The work in these certs, in all probability, would have involved moving my original install, but I was unable to check because all work had been removed when I had the gone there to check after I had the charges laid.
5. All this information of certified work would have been available to the investigator if he had done a cert check on the address, which I think he should have before making any comments about it being unchanged or pressing any charges. In all probability the work was either still in progress or very recently completed.
Greenwood St Motueka
1. I had installed the water heater and gas cylinder station, but the cooker was installed at a later date and added to the certificate, not by me. But in saying this, the kitchen wasn't there when the cooker was installed and the customer stated his friend had removed the restraining chain on the cooker (the basis for the original charges), when this was pointed out to the inspector he requested and was granted for the charges to be amended to focus on the pipe in the wall and not the clearances to the worktop and the absence of a restraining chain. (D1)
2. Then at the hearing the owner said on testifying, he remembered someone else coming back to fit the cooker. (D2)
3. The blue carbon copy shows a differing of pressure on the carbon sheet for the line written for the cooker and when taken into account the other certs with writing present on the pink master copy, but absent on the carbon copies and other alteration (all available to the Board prior and dismissed as vexatious by Kern Uren (D 3 & 4, also see H.B. 9), I believe the cooker was added after my initial install to both the site and the certificate.
4. Someone else at Allgas had no problem acting in my name, as evidenced in the letter issued in my name to alter a cert, 3 months after I had left (H.B.5), ironically this letter has “never seen this or authorised it”, written across the top of it in my hand writing, done when I became aware of it.
5. Basically if I was found not guilty of installing the cooker, who did? The Board did not pursue this either.
6. I was told, by Darnley, from day one to fill out a job sheet, the office staff would then take the info from the job sheet to fill out the certs, for me to then sign.
7. I was told by Darnley that they would file the copies and register with the Board. It was the biggest mistake of my career, if not my life. I trusted them to do what they had said. When I handed back the certs signed and with all 4 copies still together, the 3 carbon copies still attached to the master copy, with no handwriting of my own, only my signature, I had made the gravest judgment and regret it to this day. I believed the company would do as they said. From my time of leaving Darnley’s employment, I spent the next 6 years trying to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work, up until the explosion nearly killed someone.
8. I know of another contractor who had a similar experience, when he notified the Board, HE was audited!!!,
8 Ball Unit Motueka High School
1. Another set of charges amended just prior to the hearing. (D1) Amended to better fit after I had told the investigator that I did not know the cage was to be fitted, the cage that was fitted not allowing enough ventilation, which was the basis for these charges.
2. When the charge was amended to “I should have known it was to be fitted” because of the exposure to cars, I showed an aerial photograph that proved the car park had been altered considerably since the original install, which led to the witness, brought in just days out from the hearing, to exclaim that had she seen this aerial photo she would never had signed the statement. (E1).
3. This photo graph was obtained by me from the Tasman District Council and proved beyond doubt what I had told the investigator.
4. Of note the witness statement was prepared by the investigators lawyer after he had in his own words, briefed the witness, also of note is some of the other witnesses refused to sign their “own” statements.
Dommett St Westport
1. The letter from the owner reflects the attitude of the investigator, and is quite damning about the investigators behaviour. (F1)
2. But regardless of the window being secured, I still believe it to have been safe even with the window being open; the charges were for the clearance to the opening window to the flue of the water heater. (F 2, 3 &4)
Powick St Westport
1. This is one of the charges that concern me the most, other than the site of the explosion, not because of the persecution of my self.....but the total inaction after the hearing. (and yet another set of charges amended to better fit just before hearing)
2. I was charged with placing cylinders on a deck, as I was the last person there, which I was not.
3. This charge is quite complex, but can be boiled down to just one set of facts and invoices. Ignoring the reasoning offered by the investigator as it is nonsensical because the unit wasn't even manufactured when he says it was installed (as evidenced by the serial number on the side of the unit) and the original cert, not issued by myself.
4. The set of facts are born out by invoicing from the local Caltex who sold all the water heaters involved.(G1) 3 units, with only 2 being accounted for in the certs.
5. This invoicing shows that, initially, a 24 ltr model was sold and fitted on the 26/7/2001 as collaborated by the cert 207367 issued at that time (not by me) and this Caltex invoicing (G1 & 2)
6. But then 9/10/2001, some two months later, the 24ltr was returned and a 32 ltr sold, replacing the unit insitu, but with no other cert issued for this new 32 ltr unit.(G2)
7. Then further 24ltr unit sold 14/1/05, 6 months after my visit mentioned below, which corresponds to the serial number on the unit on site, but makes the first original cert for a 24ltr unit redundant, I believe this was when the gas cylinders were placed on the deck. (G1)
8. Now bear in mind that I was brought in only to relocate the 32ltr unit and not move any cylinders, on the 20/7/04 (6 months before the second unit was sold, mentioned in point 7 above), as is backed by my invoice, job sheet and cert 319000, marked as alteration only.(G3 & 4)
9. My concern is that, as with the explosion at Milton Street and the adding of a cooker at Greenwood St, no one has thought to pursue this potential fraud and find anyone accountable for this substandard work and manipulation of certs.
Malvern Ave, Nelson
1. This is the one and only site where charges were found to be substantiated; of note it is also the only site to where I freely admitted to all work and certification. The charges were for clearance to an opening window from a power flued water heater.
2. I believe this was the charge that they held on to just to keep their 100% conviction rate boasting rights and their attempt of justifying a $220 000.00 prosecution cost.
3. I drew a diagram of how I knew the fumes to act, blown away from the building some 3 metres before rising (H 1)
4. Please see also available at the hearing –
• My 2 x diagrams from the Hearing (H 1).
• Photo of the “offending” heater (H 2)
• Rinnai Doc (H3)
• Statement of owner, saying no fumes entering the building (H4)
• Hammonds comment if the fumes were not entering it was safe(H5)
• Contradictory nature of table 16, with amendments. (H6)
• Numerous statements from NZ 5261, stating the use of overseas regs and the non mandatory and mandatory sections.(H7)
Of Note this is the charge that the Chair (Mr Hammond’s long time colleague) stepped in and called the hearing to a close, it is the one last remaining charge and the sole reason for further sullying my name and still to this day with the Board’s website inferring that it is me that is incompetent.
And since the hearing….. None of which was allowed to be adduced at high court (although the Investigator applied and was allowed to adduce a document giving weight to the Board’s “expertise”), I was restricted by Board policy, but this below further proves it was safe-
• British Standard, known to me but not mentioned at my hearing (H8)
• Hardy’s British history, being the only certifying gasfitter at my hearing and on the panel for the Board at my hearing (H9)
• Email from co-author of NZ 5261 (H10)
• Emails of explanation of other gasfitters. (H11)
• Email from the owner, after my hearing. (H12)
1. If it is safe, it is safe and I still, to this day, believe this job was safe, I offered far more proof of this safe operation at the hearing, the only evidence offered by the investigator was the amended table 16 from NZ5261, which is contradictory in application, re- spa blowers and amendments.
2. NZ5261 was co-authored by the investigator, and he would in all probability, not want it to fail.
3. If this charge had not been held to have substance then I would have been 100% innocent. I think it wrong that you are guilty until proven innocent.
As well as the 3 points I asked you to read above before reading the charges, points 3.1 to 3.3 under heading “Summary of Charges”, please also bear in mind-
• I did an “assessment” and not the, proscribed by the Board, “course of instruction” as my punishment and I was found to be in the top 10% ever assessed by the Board appointed assessor. Out of principle I did this with no preparation, revision or study.
• I had also for 6 years before the explosion warned about dodgy work being covered by dodgy certs.....warning against none other than Darnley, the man who was empowered by the “impartial” investigator, Tony Hammond, after just one oral exam.
• It was Hammond who was appointed impartial investigator to attend a hearing overseen by his very well known colleague Stephen Parker Executive Director of GANZ, who he presented seminars with under the GANZ banner, as a technical adviser to GANZ and nominated by GANZ to co-author NZ5261 and organising the Kennedy Trust together with Parker.
• Hammond AND Parker being appointed AFTER my protests to Hammond’s impartiality at a stay of proceedings hearing. The old excuse, that a small plumbing community is bound to have people who know each other…..which is an insult to capabilities of the other 4 million kiwis.
• I have been told that Darnley was a member of numerous gas industry groups, as is Hammond and Parker. Darnley, Parker and Hammond are members of NZIGE, Darnley “resigning” just weeks after the explosion.
• Hammond having a very long history in NZIGE, which is an arm of IPENZ, and he also previously served on the PG&D Board for 15 years.
• Mr Bickers has a long history in IPENZ. These long histories of both men are similar in length of time and the standing/position achieved in their respective Institute in that time as members.
The worst part about this, apart from the very destructive and stressful effects on my family, it emboldens those with “contacts” to thumb their nose at the safety and responsibility entrusted them. This will not help the industry or protect the public going forward.
Share Topic
Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014 (Read 231973 times)
December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM