You are a lawyer Mr Sawyers....

Point me in the direction of the law statue that lists the corrupt behaviour below as proper and lawful...

Then you can explain to me how the corrupt behaviour listed below is fair and proportionate.....


"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"


You see if you can't do that, then I find it hard to give you any credibility or integrity....


A fair minded lay person could be forgiven for thinking you were just say things to carry out a cover up......do your self a favour Martin.....go look at the state of the fox-pro system, how badly run it was, then look at my warnings for 6 years, then go look at the cert for the pizza oven, then the DOL complaint that mentions that cert by number......then look at my kangaroo court.....


Tell me Martin which part is proper and lawful......it ain't mate.....

"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate".......This is what Mr Sawyers claims to uphold.....


But this is what I experienced below......





This is a select committee submission I made below in blue, I have since found out that they spent under 30k going after my old boss (when they spent over 220k persecuting me).....also I paid for the only qualified handwriting expert in NZ, that points to my old boss denying his own handwriting when questioned by the investigator about the handwriting on a job card for the exploding gas fryers.....you know the same investigator who gave my old boss his full certifying license, with no apprenticeship served.

My old boss faced a charge for the exploding chipshop.....but this charge never made his hearing.....how can a charge disappear with no trial?


Attached is the DOL  complaint that started this all off.....you'll notice there is a cert number 345138 mentioned on it....this is the "pizza oven" cert.....the one missing the gas leak tests info and the one that is claimed by the Board " that is was never received by the Board".....even though there is a copy on the Board's website (check it out if you like).......FFS really?

Oh and I had complained about my old boss for 6 years before the explosion....regarding dodgy work covered by dodgy certs....exactly like the one mentioned by number above....cert 345138, if you could sum up my fears.....then cert 345138 has it all......

But the Board ignored this and went after me......I lost everything....and the Board terrorised my family.....

There is another job where the water for the central heating comes out of the owner's shower.....all done and signed off by my old boss.

"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate".......I do not think you can make this statement and not address my case Mr Sawyers......



Dear Select Committee,
 
1.   Introduction

2.   My name is Paul Gee, a certifying gasfitter and plumber from the Tasman/Nelson area. I am in full agreement with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Federation’s submission, and only offer this personal submission under my own steam and banner to go toward showing how the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) have spent the illegally gained funds,  needlessly savaging my life and terrorising my wife in doing so.

3.   I have lost my business and reputation, my home and time with my young family, all for a situation that I had tried to warn about for 6 years previously, before an explosion nearly killed someone, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy work. With no one held accountable for this. As this situation spans almost 10 years of my life and is hugely personal to me I am truly thankful for all understanding and consideration shown for this lengthy submission and I thank you in advance for this.

4.   I believe the Board have made a scapegoat of me to hide their own short comings and in-action.

5.   Concerns

6.   My concerns are centred on the illegally funded past and current prosecution and discipline systems of the PGDB within the gasfitting industry and the apparent covering up by the PGDB of either a badly designed gas safety certification system and/or incompetence/malpractice administering this system. 

7.   I believe that the Board ignored conflicts of interest and acted in bad faith, with out duty of care and against natural justice; leading to an unfair and needless investigation and the resulting decision by the Board in respect to me. Please note that I strongly believe in industry regulation and the holding of “cowboys” to account within the industry, which was why I had tried to warn about all of this from the outset.

8.   I believe they undertook a needless disciplinary action against me, utilising these illegally gained funds spending over $200,000.00 on my case. What has occurred to me has since been made available to the Building and Housing Minister.

9.   In particular, my concerns are not just about the afore mentioned conflicts of interests that were ignored, but also the misrepresentation and withholding of evidence and the resulting decision of the Board, and in particular the way the investigation was carried out.




10.   Background

11.   I am a qualified gas service engineer in the United Kingdom, trained by British Gas in 1989. I was registered by the PGDB as a craftsman gasfitter on 15 February 1999.

12.   I began working for a gas company in late February 2003 in Nelson. At the beginning of this employment, I was instructed by the manager to fill out the work sheets only and the office staff would fill out the gas certification certificate and I only had to sign them, then the office staff would file them. Note: The manger and office staff was a family and related, i.e. a husband (manager), wife (office manager), daughter (office girl) and son in law (limited licence gasfitter, who worked unsupervised most of the time).

13.   After approximately five months of employment with this gas company, I became very concerned about how gasfitting work was being carried out and the possible safety implications of this apparent malpractice. I attempted to raise this concern verbally with the manager; however it was dismissed by him. Toward the end of the period of this employment I handed back certificates to the manager, refusing to sign them as they were unfinished or unsafe.

14.   On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with the Manager. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board and appears in my Hearing’s Bundle (HB).

15.   On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law, (HB). In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable.

16.   On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge, (HB).

17.   On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company, (HB).

18.   I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on, (HB).

19.   I then began work as a subcontractor for a different gas company in December 2003 where I immediately became aware of improper use of gas certificates that were in my name, actually one of the certificates I had refused to sign because the job was unsafe/unfinished, (HB).

20.   In response, I contacted the PGDB by telephone, which was when I became aware of the 4 books ordered in my name, and again in writing on 6 January 2004. In response, the PGDB replied to me, dismissing my complaint and providing what I believe are inconsistencies and incorrect facts. (HB)

21.   A year later I came across yet another irregular certificate in my name, covering unsafe work. I contacted a lawyer, as the Board refused to talk to me without one, on 13 January 2005. (HB)

22.   I also contacted my former employer, the gas company mentioned above, which had a new manager, on the 24 January 2005.

23.   The outcome of my lawyer’s inquiry to the PGDB was there were over a 1000 certificates in my name and it would cost $25 per certificate to check. I could not afford this potential sum of $25,000 and told them so by phone. The letter from the Board’s lawyer had inconsistencies and incorrect facts. I had only worked at this gas company for some 10 months.

24.   I approached a Member of Parliament on 24 May 2006 after hearing no further from the PGDB. A letter was written to the PGDB on 6 June 2006. No response was made to me. I followed up this letter by sending a fax to a member of the PGDB on 21 August 2006. Again, I had no response. I later contacted another Member of Parliament by email, outlining my concerns for health and safety. This was passed on to the Minister for Safety and Health at the time. This Minister replied indicating he would look into the matter; however I received no further contact. Most, if not all, of the proof of this correspondence is in the possession of the PGDB, (HB).

25.   On 8 July 2009, the Board received a complaint from the Department of Labour, regarding a gas explosion at 136 Milton Street, Nelson. An “impartial” investigator was appointed according to section 40 of the Act.

26.   I requested an impartiality hearing with PGDB, it was held on 22 February 2011 where I raised concerns about conflicts of interest. They were dismissed.

27.   Disciplinary action was taken against me under section 42 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976 (“the Act”) as a result of the investigation. The matter was heard between 3 and 5 May 2011 by the Board. The decision was given in July 2011 where I was found guilty under section 42(1)(c) of the Act in relation to only one of the seven properties that were investigated by the “impartial” investigator.

28.   Out of 44 charges laid by the Board, I was found guilty of only two, neither of which was at the site of the explosion that initiated the complaint by the Department of Labour. No one else as far as I am aware was questioned about the site of the explosion, whether as part of the initial investigation or since.

29.   The Board required I undertake a course of instruction as an extra condition of re-licensing as a certified gasfitter for the 2013/2014 licensing year.

30.   This “course of instruction” had to be custom made for me at my expense. I have recently carried out an “assessment”, rather than course of instruction. I passed with a 90% mark and was told by the assessor that I would be in the top 10% of the people he had ever assessed.

31.   Of the “impartial” investigators initial audits of my work, none of his initial concerns made it to charges that later surfaced in a second audit. This second audit was ordered by him on the basis of these initial audits and “concerns”. A letter from the Board’s lawyer states that three years worth of my work was audited, but the “impartial” investigator only claims to have audited 10% of my work for that period.

32.   On 2 October 2009, the then Acting Registrar of The Board sent letters to the owners of six properties where the PGDB alleged I had carried out gasfitting work and that were identified by the “impartial” investigator’s investigation as having compliance issues.

33.   These letters, which covered each and every area that I had ever worked in for my own business, from the West Coast to Havelock of the top of the south island, with Nelson and Motueka in between, one or two letters per area. By far the most damaging was the one to Motueka High school, the only high school in what WAS my main centre of business, and my business disappeared not long after these letters. I wasn’t made aware of these letters until the Motueka High school contacted me.

34.    These letters noted there was an issue with a number of gas certificates illegally sold affecting a number of homes from Northland to Waikato and the Bay of Plenty, and that the certificate pertaining to their address was one of these. I have never carried out work in these North Island areas and these letters caused me the loss of my business, distress and loss of reputation.

35.   By far the worst event on a personal level was during the build up and preparation for my Hearing, the “impartial” investigator’s lawyer sent to my home, unmarked child sexual abuse case notes to prove his point on probabilities. As they were unmarked of their vile content, my long suffering wife read them and I came home to find her hysterical. At this time she was facing living in a caravan for the winter with her husband working away, minding our two young sons, as we were financially forced to sell our home. This situation that my wife faced later happened and I have had to work away for nearly two years since. I have told the present CEO of the Board about this, he has no problem with it and another PGDB member’s solution that he offered to me was “…had I thought of returning to the UK or going to Aussie”.

36.   I filed a notice of appeal to the decision of the Board on 16 November 2011. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 5 March 2012 and the decision given on 14 March 2012. The focus of this appeal was on the finding I was guilty of an act or omission contrary to the integrity of the gasfitting trade. The appeal was dismissed.

37.   On 22 June 2012, the Boards external assessor and QC released an opinion on eight complaints I raised. She concluded that under the Board’s Historical Complaints Resolution Policy, only one of my complaints fell within the scope of the Policy: that the letters sent by the Board’s Acting Registrar on 2 October 2009 did cause me a disadvantage. I have heard nothing since.


38.   Impartiality

39.   My claim is that the “impartial” investigator was not an impartial investigator as is required for natural justice. He is a member and fellow of the NZIGE and a member of IPENZ, GANZ and the Kennedy Trust and at the time my old boss was also a member of NZIGE and other gas groups.

40.   In addition, I believe that the “impartial” investigator was the person who granted my old boss his full craftsman status, after just one oral exam and with no apprenticeship served.

41.    The “impartial” investigator also was nominated by GANZ to co-author the NZ 5261, the standard that I had offered an alternative to in defending against my two founded charges. This is a conflict of interest that should not have been ignored. I tried to raise the issue at the impartiality hearing in February 2011, where my concerns were dismissed.   

42.   I believe that the table 16 of NZ 5261, which he refers to within this Standard and is particular to my charges, is contradictory and confusing. Table 16 had also been amended which gives the tradesman the impression that the table is not strict in its application, not to mention it is in the non-mandatory part two of the standard.

43.   The present Chairman of the PGDB and a panel member of my hearing is also a member of IPENZ, of which NZIGE is an arm of that according to a press release from IPENZ – “NZIGE collaborates closely with IPENZ”. This same person released a press release just after my Hearing stating I lacked fundamental knowledge of my trade, this appeared in my local newspaper.

44.   I also believe there was a conflict of interest between the “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member at the disciplinary hearing. The “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member have served together in numerous organisations, NZIGE, GANZ, and the Kennedy Trust, and have made numerous presentations together as a duo to the gas industry.

45.    The Presiding Board Member was on the executive of GANZ, the nominating organisation for the “impartial” investigator to co-author the referenced standard NZ 5261.



46.   The “impartial” investigator was the technical adviser to the Presiding Board Member at GANZ. I believe this would lead to the Presiding Board Member to put more weight in the “impartial” investigator’s opinion because of their personal relationship and their work on NZ 5261. They would both, in all probability, want the integrity of NZ 5261 to remain intact because of their involvement in developing it.

47.   The “impartial” investigator was also heavily involved with the deregulation of the gas industry and a driving force behind self certification for gasfitting. In light of this I believe he would also have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of this certification system he had helped create, which has some apparent serious flaws in its application and the PGDB’s administration of it, most if not all of this was raised at the impartiality hearing I had requested, but was dismissed.

48.   Further, at the site of this explosion no one has been held accountable, although all copies of the last certificate issued for work carried out at this site of an explosion; lack any gas leak test entry which is a compulsory field on the now electronic website. This certificate is totally in my old manager’s name and was signed for a year after the initial installation and at least a year after my leaving the employment of the gas company mentioned above. The PGDB claim never to have received or registered this certificate, but an electronic version appears on the electronic register on their website. This electronic register also carries a disclaimer stating the inaccuracy of the register.

49.   Unfair Investigation

50.   I believe I was unfairly investigated, as were the charges brought against me regarding seven properties. Only two, out of 44 charges, regarding one property were upheld, which would be dismissed by a well used British Standard, if it was allowed.

51.   As a result my business and reputation was damaged and my ability to earn an income suffered. I believe that the PGDB appointed investigator was not an impartial investigator and that serious evidence was misrepresented or ignored at the Hearing. I was presumed guilty, having to prove innocence and disadvantaged by not allowing me to submit further evidence, which would clear me of all wrong doing, for a situation I had tried to warn about for 6 years.

52.   My appeal was dismissed because I could not, due to limiting PGDB policy, give any further evidence. The evidence I tried to adduce was a British Standard that would show what I had done was safe and a relevant alternative to the non-mandatory part two of the NZ 5261 standard that I was found guilty of contravening. Of note, the only other certifying gasfitter in the room at the hearing was on the panel for the PGDB, and he was British.

53.   I also tried to adduce an email from another, co-author of NZ5261. This email said I could use a British Standard if it was relevant, and I believe it is. This would have left me completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

54.   At the actual hearing I had offered other information and illustrated how I knew the fumes would behave on the appliance I had been later found guilty for installing and certifying. The owner of the same dwelling said he had no problems with it in the previous six years since installation, and it was the only obvious place to put the appliance in question. Even the “impartial” investigator also commented that if the fumes were not entering the building then I would have complied with Part one of NZ5261 which is mandatory, and so I would have done nothing wrong. All of this evidence was apparently ignored, with no further evidence put forward by the PGDB, other than the above mentioned “Table 16”, to go to show what I had done was dangerous, which I still believe it was not.

55.   In light of this treatment, and it is very brief and incomplete and a pick of the worst, I would like to ask a question and make a suggestion to the Select Committee

56.   My question is-

•   Is the Committee comfortable for the PGDB to enforce over a 1000% increase in discipline levies in under a decade and then claim it illegally from tradesman, BUT THEN (and this is my main point and reason for my submission) to use this ill gotten money as a fund to persecute and disadvantage innocent, well meaning, registered trades-people, using this illegal discipline levy as a war chest to bring down any opponents within the industry, or anyone they have a grudge with? As is evidenced by my treatment. They openly boast of a 100% conviction rate.

57.   My suggestion is-

•   While you are being asked to amend this Act, please consider changing the Act so that the Board is a liable entity or at least open to more than just recommendations, which they routinely ignore. As it is now the Board is non-liable under the Act, and accordingly the PGDB apparently acts with scant regard and impunity The PGDB have done this even while hiding behind, and trying to maintain, the façade of a registered charity, spending as far as I am aware over $46,000.00 in appealing their de-registration as a charity, apparently using the same clause** that is limited to $500.00 when used in making a compensation payment to me because of the letters sent to my customers.
**The Part 148 of the 2006 Act enables the Board in any financial year, to expend for purposes not authorised by any act, a sum not amounting to more than $500.



58.   I thank the Committee for your time. And ask with all due respect and humility are these the actions and the behaviour of an organisation that are moral or ethical? Are they the people best suited to lead our industry? Can you trust these people to have a blank cheque as it were, which is what will happen if this is bill is validated and acting with impunity as they are non liable for their actions.

59.   There is a huge decline in the industry and training sector, of which I fear we are just seeing the tip of this huge iceberg, the future is bleak. The PGDB is still apparently acting in a corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent manner, continually acting against the best recommendations of the damming OAG report and in the face of the best practice recommendations of the NZ Law Commission, acting apparently in bad faith.


60.   If you were in a position to, and are able to appoint a public enquiry, I will provide proof and substance to back my claims.
 
 
 
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Santanaya

come on pgdb , time to be humble , put ya hand up because you f****ed up . paul rightfully is not just going to go away! get your cap in hand & say sorry .we are watching all of you , until you put this right we can only dismiss you & as a industry this only prevents us moving forward .
to say this man & his family are : after the money : is just stupid , of course he should be compensated , he lost everything . $500 come on $500,000 wouldn't come close. I have been part of this industry since 1987 & I have never seen our license money used properly , so that's it , so simple . one hand up & one hand in your pocket , while on knees ,asking for forgiveness & hope he sees it to do so because you all deserve a lot more . do it , do it now !!!!

I sent this yesterday to the Ombudsman.....who is using his powers of discretion not to look at this......

You think you live in a free and fair democracy.....think again......"Fairness for All".....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 5:42 p.m.
To: 'Info'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Jude Hutton'; 'Andrew.McCaw@ombudsmen.parliament.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; 'paul@paulhenry.co.nz'; 'john.key@national.org.nz'; 'Andrew Little'
Subject: COVER UP

 

20/10/2015 sent to the Ombudsman’s Office

 

Dear Mr Patterson,

 

 

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by your four replies, see attached.
 

I am also confused because you have publically talked of fairness and accountability and the protection of whistle blowers; you have even produced papers on such matters, but now it seems after all this time since my original complaint instead of looking at my situation you appear to want to make it all about OIA requests. Which even these you have “provisionally” ignored?
 

My original complaint is still to be answered and these OIA requests are but side issues that actually add to my claims of a cover up and directed persecution of myself and my family by the PGDB.
 

My original complaint was a cry for fairness and accountability. It seems that the very people I am complaining about are given your full belief and you then use your powers of discretion to ignore me and refuse to look at my case.
 

I will address each reply from the perspective of a fair minded lay person; I am a practical man and can only deal and comment in what I can observe with my senses and that which seems right and fair to my conscience.
 

In light of my recent experience, it appears to me that the “law” is a rule book, only available to a select few, to be manipulated by lawyers for a substantial fee in order to control the situations and the lives of others, while ignoring truth, blatant evidence, common sense and ethics.
 

I have no legal training, and from what I have seen and experienced, this is of great relief to my conscience and my sense of ethics.
 

Remember the holocaust, slave trade and apartheid were “legal” to the institutions that it best suited and was convenient for, but it totally ignored common sense, ethics and was most definitely morally repugnant.
 

For me, someone who once held the law in high esteem, with deep regard. I now see the law as selective and flawed and I do not use the term “legal” as a metric for ethics, nor for common good. It is sold to the highest bidder or to those with most influence; I hope you prove me wrong in this, you have not to date.
 

Of other things deemed “legal” by the “law”….was my lawyer who (after charging me many thousands of dollars), told me to plead guilty to 44 trumped up charges, of which I blew 42 out of the water at slanted and corrupt hearing.
 

The one last “relevant” remaining charge out of the 44, was for the very same situation that the Board has recently ignored, and apparently now even the Ombudsman is happy to ignore. I am referring to the installation of a califont, installed contrary to the non mandatory NZ 5261 regs.   
 

This ignoring of the complaint made by the “ Highgate’s ”. An elderly couple who I have been told have resorted to taking anti stress medication because of their situation.
 

In another “legal” move by the Board-appointed, “impartial” investigator’s lawyer, it was deemed legal to send several sexually deviant past case notes to my home, under a blank package, to prove a point on probabilities. Done to prove a point in a plumbing context. It was read by my wife, whilst home on her own, which she found deeply, deeply disturbing. Do you think this is “Fairness for All”?
 

Attached is the very worst of these past precedents under “sick twisted past precedent”. Please don’t open this attachment if child sexual abuse offends you, as it does both my wife and I.
 

All of this is above is “legal”, but totally lacking in common sense and decency.
 

 

The Ombudsman’s Reply  1  Cert 345138 see attached 

 

 

This is the cert actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint for the explosion at the chipshop; please see attachment titled “DOL Complaint pg 1 &2 ”.
 

The Ombudsman shouldn’t be so much concerned with the fact the Board can’t provide an original copy of cert 345138 but why they can’t provide a copy, it is a nonsense to do so. I totally believe the original copy is beyond being produced by the Board, as are most shredded documents.
 

It is plainly obvious that if someone at the Board “lost” the cert or even put the original copy of cert 345138 through a shredder (perhaps after being asked for a copy of cert 345138 by the lawyer acting for the chipshop owner, a request made after the explosion at the said chipshop)….then it wouldn’t be available.
 

Of note, all the available carbon copies for cert 345138 show a complete lack of gas test results….that’s for leaks, yes gas leaks, the same type of gas leak that caused the explosion.
 

But the Ombudsman doesn’t feel the need to look at this?….. because it was “properly investigated by the Board”….is this the same investigation that ignored/withheld damning evidence and ignored huge conflicts of interest…….For example ignoring the sale of a third gas hose, the very hose that actually caused the explosion, sold long after I left the employ of Darnley….or was there another investigation that you are aware of  ?
 

This original copy of cert 345138, is for the very last work at the site of a near fatal explosion, and it goes missing?..... And is then denied as having been ever received by the Board, by one of the Boards lawyers.
 

The Board made this statement when an electrical copy appears on the fox pro system….this is where your concern should lay. I ask you in all fairness what would be the legal ramification s for the Board if they accepted an incomplete legal document, a “gas safety cert” that lacked a record for a test for leaks….but it then exploded?
 

I know of many more of these certs missing important information, the Board claimed that these too were missing, but then miraculously found them when I went to the gas suppliers and obtained photos of the carbon copies of these “missing” certs. How can you put your name to cock up of a situation of this magnitude, using your power of discretion to ignore it is beyond me?
 

It is a cover up….what more evidence other than the cert appearing on the FoxPro system do you need? For anyone to say it is the “only” evidence is….. (and I apologise for my use of a crude layman’s term, but I can think of no other phrase that grasps this situation with enough emphasis) …..Well it is nothing more than utter and total bollox. You need no other evidence, it was definitely received and it was conveniently “lost”.
 

What I am saying is, yes it is a good enough excuse not to produce the cert, but why is it missing, how did it go missing?…. after it appears on the fox pro system? Same number, address, appliances, everything the same…what would the odds be of this happening?....this isn’t the Bible Code.
 

Your office is charged with “Fairness for All”….Am I part of that “All”.
 

Was it fair for the Board to persecute me…after the Board (by their own written admission) receive a request for a dodgy, incomplete, unregistered cert 345138, which is missing the legal recording of a test for leaks, i.e. cert 345138 which was accepted by the Board…..this cert issued for the site of an explosion…… but then the Board reply to the blast victims lawyer that it was never registered 8 days after the explosion.
 

This denial was made when the owner was recovering in an intensive burns unit in Wellington, half way through his intensive care visit of two whole weeks.
 

 But then the Board ignore Darnley’s involvement in the build up to the explosion at his hearing, this is the very guy who filled out cert 345138, even the carbon copies show his signature on cert 345138. Is this fair?
 

Tell me Mr Patterson….I was told before the hearing/investigation that John Darnley faced a charge for the explosion, but this charge didn’t make his hearing….your a legal expert…..how on earth does that happen?
 

Perhaps it was useful to the Board because this “duel suspect” charge FOR THE EXPLOSION was their reasoning on splitting our cases into two different hearings/investigations. So they could investigate us separately….think on that.
 

Of note I have good evidence, in letters from the Board….that they spent in excess of 220k chasing after me and less than 30k chasing Darnley, is that fair? Especially in light of the cert 345138 being signed by Darnley? Not to mention all the other ignored evidence.
 

All of cert 345138 is filled out in the name of John Darnley, who I had complained about for the 6 years previous to the explosion. I had complained about dodgy certs coving dodgy work. Was it fair to go after me in light of this cert 345138, mentioned in the very DOL complaint that sparked this mess off ?
 

If you could totally sum up my fears and reasons for my previous complaints, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy/dangerous work, this situation is it in a nut shell, but it was I that was pursued by a conflicted and biased Board appointed investigator….I ask you is this fair?
 

It appears the Ombudsman Office wants to make my issue concerning cert 345138, all about the Board’s inability to be able to produce an unobtainable cert, this is a given and not my complaint. I actually believe them in this.
 

My original complaint is for fairness, in that the Board persecuted me in the face of this admitted to evidence, admitted to in writing by the Board.
 

Is it fair that the NZ Public are put at risk in the knowledge of this badly administered FoxPro system? 
 

I bring your attention to a press release by Phil Routhan, the ex Board member and CEO of the Board. See attached titled “A former chief exec”.
 

I admit it does appear that Mr Routhan’s comments made on the state and mismanagement of the PGDB’s FoxPro cert system is a manipulation of a situation for his own ends, in trying to keep/reclaim his job. But please remember he was very, very informed and had a huge amount of access to the FoxPro system and had a lot of experience in the trades. It is reprehensible that it happened under his watch and even worse that he held on to it for his own ends, but that does not make it untrue, I believe he would not have made these claims if they were unsubstantiated.
 

I agree with Mr Routhan’s comments about the danger, and have been trying air these concerns for well over a decade, BEFORE the explosion.
 

I think the Ombudsman and copied in ministers owe it to the NZ public to push to have this looked in to, this would be fair.
 

 

 

Ombudsman Reply 2  Highgate complaint see attached

 

These people actually complained about fumes entering their home, but the Board has, to the best of my knowledge, refused to act.
 

The Highgate’s complaint was made after a califont was fitted closer than advised by the measurements in the non mandatory table in NZ 5261, table 16. Their califont is much closer than the califont which is the sole basis for my last but one charge, with the last and final charge disappearing for signing this job off, is this fair? It is inconsistent.
 

Of note, I do not believe this is the reason for the fumes entering the Highgate’s home. I believe it is because the flue issues into a more enclosed area, with a lack of cross ventilation.
 

But this very situation with the Highgate’s is the very reasoning the Board went in my local paper and slated me after my hearing and made the comments in the attachment above “califont shortcomings”. Which point of view is relevant; both views can not be applicable.
 

This one and only charge that the Board found me “guilty” of, stating in that press release I didn’t have a comprehension of fumes entering the building….but after making this press release they ignore another much closer install of a similar califont, that the owners actually complained about. Is this fair?
 

Of Note,  the owner of the califont in my situation never in six years had a problem, never complained nor smelt fumes, but when someone does complain, i.e. the Highgate’s, the Board ignore it. Does this seem fair to you?
 

This “califont” charge is the ONLY charge left out of the 44 charges, which lost me my business and reputation and was the only charge that “stuck” as a result of terrorising me and my wife….is this fair?
 

Again it appears that the Ombudsman’s office is ignoring my real complaints and trying to “edit” it down to a point in law for an OIA request. I came to your office for fairness.
 

 

 

Ombudsman Reply 3 legionnaires’ risk see attached

 

This is probably the reply that disturbs me the most.
 

The Board do have powers to enter a property if it is deemed unsafe, this statement by the Board simply isn’t true, it may be difficult but not impossible. It is in the Act for those who would want to look for it, I have seen it.
 

I saw this system started in this dangerous manner (which is first hand), and I have a collaborating witness that this is how this lethal system was finished, so the way I see it is you have a first hand witness (me) backed up with an independent secondary witness (my old apprentice), this should be enough to at least go look at it. You have a schematic, the cert and one of my other correspondence see attached. I have even told the coroner and now the Ombudsman, and the Prime Minister and other Ministers.
 

To check if this C/H system is life threatening, is as easy as going to the address, looking at how many water heaters are on site, then turning off the water supply to each of the appliances, one at a time. If, when the central heating unit is isolated….the hot water goes off…..then you have cross contamination, this is a huge legionnaires’ risk, and potentially deadly. I am happy to do this check and go with a Board member, we can take water samples too if needed. I want to be wrong, but I have seen nothing to show me I am wrong.
 

To ignore this on a point of law is ludicrous and shameful. If anyone is hurt by this dangerous system my conscience is clear and anyone I warned will have blood on their hands. I have attached a lot of info for your office on this, you are informed.
 

Is it fair for the next occupiers to shower their kids or elderly in this stagnant shower? These new people would think it is signed off by a certifying gasfitter endorsed by the PGDB…how could they know how dangerous it is?
 

 

Ombudsman Reply 4  570 blank certs see attached

 

Again it appears that the Ombudsman is missing the direction of my real complaint and trying to make it a loosely involved point of law on an OIA request.
 

According to Mr Pedersen “This matter is still before the Board”…. doesn’t that sound odd to you. Some 4 years later, it’s still before the Board?
 

This signing of these 570 blank certs is the situation that led to all the sites of all my charges, excluding the exploding chipshop, being sent letters that gave people the impression that I was issuing illegal certs in Northland. A place I have never even visited.
 

These letters were so badly conceived that they were apologised for by the Board, see attached “Apology for Kern’s letters”, and “Mot High PGDB letter”, for an example of just one of the letters, sent to the local high school….this is the letter that finally killed my business….. is this fair?
 

These insipid, untrue and inaccurate letters gave all the sites of my “extra” charges, the impression that I was capable of issuing illegal documents, prejudicing all these sites. Is this fair? 
 

Is this the level of investigation to which you refer to as “proper” in using your discretion in ignoring my complaints? Because if it is… I would question your take on “fairness” and “proper”. Please provide me with any other investigations which you use to base this use of “discretion” on.
 

Is it fair that I had this happen to me, but the person who is in all probability is responsible for this OTHER dangerous situation, potentially has his case still before the Board?
 

This signing of 570 blank certs was a very dangerous and irresponsible way to act, but the Board are so “not” concerned that it takes them over 4 years to tackle this (if they have acted at all), un-yet the Board, when it comes to me, were so concerned and so quick to act that they “added” it to my situation…with an untrue inaccurate letter…..straight away….. is this fair?
 

Your motto is “Fairness for All”…..I am just not seeing any fairness and believe I have not received any.
 

In three of these instances mentioned above in your replies,  I have been the person singled out for a witch-hunt mentality while the guilty go free, the other one of the four …. I can’t even get someone to go check at the legionaries risk dwelling.
 

I feel that each of these instances above actually go toward proving I was persecuted unfairly and targeted, while the dangerous, uncaring incompetents’ go unhindered and un-investigated. This is forgetting all the evidence of the persecution that was unearthed at my hearing and ignoring the fraud that was also unearthed with yet another manipulation of certs.
 

The people who you are relying on at the Board, telling you it would “not be useful” to get to the bottom of this, have everything to hide, and to not look into this is to be party to them and their cover up.
 

 

I ask you in all fairness…

 

 

 

Who was ultimately responsible for the person who entered and accepted the incomplete cert 345138 into the fox pro system? Using this part of the same Board system, utilising the FoxPro and data management systems, this would show if someone went looking for this cert 345138, perhaps when the lawyer for the exploding chipshop requested all copies of certs for the exploding chipshop….who pulled the original copy of 345138 from the records? Who might have put it through the shredder? It is a misnomer to make this all about whether the Board can produce a potentially destroyed legal document. I actually believe them when they say they can’t produce it. Is it fair or even legal to shred a legal document?
 

Why is it that the califont involved in my situation deserves a public press release/warning, made after my persecution (not a typo), where the occupier had never complained? All done while ignoring the blatant evidence and the reality of how the fumes actually act….but then a califont installed nearer, with an actual compliant made by the occupiers of fumes entering….how can the “Highgate’s ” califont be ignored while “mine” was acted upon? Is this fair?
 

Why not go look at the potentially lethal central heating system legionnaire risk? Actually in reality make sure it’s safe? Why not check and double check that the system is safe? It is a roll of the dice not to, gambling with the lives of anyone who uses the shower at that address. All you have to loose is having to live with saving someone’s life or proving me wrong. Is it because Darnley installed and certified this system?
 

How can someone who issued 570 certs, which were signed and blank with no idea what was to be installed…..which were (according to the Board’s own press release) 90% non compliant with 16 very dangerous sites….this same person also apparently said he checked them all too to boot…..but someone involved in this case….still have his case before the Board? How does that happen?
 

To make this a legal point of law on OIA releases is to miss the whole point of my complaints and my request for fairness.
 

The Board have ignored blatant evidence and ruined my business and reputation, done at a risk to the public. The situations mentioned in your four letters of reply actually add to backing this claim and do not detract anything from this claim.
 

At no point has anyone proved my claims incorrect or to be untrue, but have only clouded the issue with the “law”, while ignoring the real facts.
 

You may want to look at the handwriting samples that I have had checked over. Please see “Handwriting expert opinion” and “In my unprofessional opinion” in attachments. These samples are taken from the actual job card for the fryers that caused the explosion and a signed sample of Darnley’s hand from a gas cert, made available to the Board but not acted on. How fair is that?
 

Darnley appears on the face of it to have denied his own handwriting to the so called “impartial” investigator….is this the same “proper” investigation that you rely on in your use of discretion in not addressing my case? The only investigation I am aware of was biased, flawed and slanted. The investigator granted Darnley his full certifying license with no apprenticeship served….is this the “proper” investigation to which you refer?
 

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.

 

Think about it, most of us took no photos when this very badly run cert system was set up....and then driven like a drunken monkey in a circus.

So some guy decides to move the free standing fire from one side of his living room to the other....does all the gas work with the tools lent from some supplier, because he bought all the fittings there.....

Blows his own house up, or gases his family......how do you prove that he moved the fire....please don't say the change in pipe...the Board dismissed a whole different colour pipe in my case!

What if your old boss was doctoring your certs, like mine....and it kills someone? I could very easily be facing a manslaughter charge....think on it. Who is going to come to your aid.....if you don't get behind Wal and the Feds NOW, then you will have lost the best chance we have ever had.

And now they are going to do this to builders.......FFS really?

hi guys, totally agree Badger and where can any tom,dick or harry a get cert form from then fill it in and maybe find a licenced guys name?  from the boards own web site how stupid is that to let anyone download cert forms?  beats me, cheers 

You'll see attached the letter that told all the sites of my additional charges I was issuing illegal certs in Northland....

this is the letter that finally killed my business....

this site was proven at the hearing that what I was saying for two years was true....their "star" witness from the school said if she had seen the photo that I provided "she would never had signed the statement" which was written for her...like all the other witness's....

oh and they changed the charges just weeks out so they could better fit me up.....




Now never mind that it wasn't enough to send this letter....but they were trying to get me to pay for the "defects" to be repaired.....never mind it was probably my old boss was the one who was responsible for it.....as it was his firm who installed the cyl cage after I did the initial install

But I show you this, because...under the customer guarantee's act we are liable to fix any defects....according to the Board....

Now who pays for the defective cert system? and the defective investigation and witch-hunt I endured?