Mr Patterson is the Ombudsman.......I sent this years ago......Dear Mr Patterson,
1. I am in receipt of your two letters dated 30 May and 13 June 2014. I also thank you for extending my time of reply.
2. I fear that I may not have made myself clear to you and your office. My complaint is not about the outcome of the biased and flawed hearing, although the outcome does warrant a complaint as it is un-founded and my advocates questioning of the investigator was halted by the conflicted Chair of the hearing when the Chair closed the hearing down, just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the regulatory criteria relevant this very charge. And also in light of recent actions by the Board where there is a dubious double standard being applied by the Board in relation to clearances of califonts to openable windows, which I will go into further later on in this reply.
3. My complaint is about the flawed process and investigation I was subjected to by the Board and it’s so called “impartial” investigator. This same Board who are willing to ignore blatant conflicts of interest and the withholding and misrepresentation of evidence by their appointed so called “impartial” investigator. This is my complaint.
4. It concerns me greatly that it appears your office is blindly relying on spin, excuses and a 33 page report written by this Board and members of its Secretariat. It concerns me because these are the very people I have complained about, who have written a report to excuse themselves, is it confusing to say the least? It is a kin to they themselves judging themselves impartial, (an oxy-moron or very bad grammar to say the least), which apparently your office also has no problems with either.
5. In point 1 of your letter dated 30th May, it appears there is some confusion over my situation, I did not under any circumstances sit a prescribed course of “INSTRUCTION”, which implies, even demands the learning of new skills and knowledge, skills and knowledge that I was deemed by the Board to have lacked.
6. I was in fact ASSESSED…. learning nothing new (I am sure I could have learned from the assessor as he was very knowledgeable), but the “course” prescribed by the Board wasn’t available, and so I was assessed.
7. Of note I was told by this assessor that I would be within the top 10% of people he had ever assessed, this he discovered after my assessment, when I had not been taught anything new, but was being assessed on my already attained knowledge and skills (I did this assessment with my arm in a full plaster cast, perhaps this is where I dropped 10%). This is the same knowledge that I had used to position the califont. Your office is charged with seeing fair play served; do you think this is fair?
8. Of note, and this is the double standard that I mention above, the Board has recently told an elderly couple who complained about a similar installation of a califont, but their califont was positioned much nearer than the one mentioned above in my case, by some 6 inches. The Board told them to “close the window when you use it”.
9. This elderly couple have since withdrawn their complaint and are on anti stress medication due to this situation. I have promised to leave them out of this until it is vitally necessary because of this stress that they have been subjected to. This double standard shown by the Board, do you think it is fair?
10. This goes toward showing that the Board haven’t changed since my hearing and are still using one rule for one, and ignoring other rules for others; this double standard has only just came to light in recent weeks. Do you think this fair?
11. Of note the customer involved in my case, the customer subject of charges laid for a califont installation at Malvern Pl, had laid no complaint and had never in 6 years smelt any fumes, this is because the position of his califont was more open and had a better clearance to the floor, backing on to a very large open plan room and with its powered flue issuing into a much larger clear and open garden, this was all taken into account when I positioned it. But the califont where the Board has told the people to “close the window when you use it”, these poor people who have actually complained about fumes entering their home, their califont is positioned in a more enclosed area and is nearer the floor, backing on to much smaller rooms, which is a concern due to the availability of free air for the dilution of these flue gases, and the elderly couples califonts power flue is issuing into a more enclosed and partially covered area with a deck and railings to one side. Is this Fair Mr Patterson? Is the Board’s blasé flippant hypocrisy fair? This attitude of the Board is where my complaint lies, right here.
12. In point 2 of your letter of 30th May, you speak of my lack of attempts in airing my concerns and the use of a “British Standard” at the High Court Appeal. I ask you to look at the recent reply I have received from the High Court, a reply to my request for a transcript of this appeal.
13. Please also see my extensive written submission to the High Court, already supplied to your office.
14. This recent application for a transcript for my appeal was made to enable me to show you that I was told categorically to talk only about the distance from the window to the califont by Justice Kos and had actually tried to air my concerns. The reply to my recent transcript application is below.
From: Stack, Michaela
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12:09
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: hearing transcrpit.
Mr Gee
Thank you for your email. As you are aware this matter was an "Appeal" hearing before the High Court. No witnesses were called to give evidence at the High Court hearing and the parties relied on written submissions to present their arguments to the Court. Therefore no transcript would have been made. It is usual procedure that no transcripts are taken for civil appeal hearings.
Therefore I am unable to provide any transcript.
Kind Regards
Michaela Stack
Deputy Registrar
Wellington High Court
email : michaela.stack@justice.govt.nz
15. My high lights in red above. As you know, I did make an extensive written submission for my appeal, which I have provided to your office, detailing my concerns that you say I did not submit. So in effect I did address this and other issues, and as I can take it is was read by Justice Kos, I do not know why it isn’t in his summing up.
16. All the testimony, evidence and opinions issuing from my impartiality hearing and my actual hearing. All given so much credence by the Board and by Justice Kos appear to be based solely on the foundation of the integrity and reliability of the Board’s appointed so called “impartial” investigator and his opinion, even down to the strict enforcement of an acceptable solution, a NON COMPULSORY acceptable solution.
17. I was told at my impartiality hearing that as Mr Hammond hadn’t been shown to have acted egregiously, that he was deemed to be suitable and the right person for the job, even in light of all the conflicts of interest I had raised.
18. I ask you Mr Patterson, is this investigator, who withheld forensic photos which proved my point that I had maintained for two years…. the same investigator who misrepresented evidence and was prepared to ignore his own huge conflicts of interest, is he suitable? Has he acted egregiously? Has he any integrity? Do you value his opinion? This where my complaint lies.
19. Is it fair that Mr Hammond’s colleague of many years, a Stephen Parker who was chair of my hearing, the same Chair who closed down this very hearing….. just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the califont measurement from an openable window? This is the basis for my complaint.
20. It is the reliance on this one mans “opinion” by the involved authorities’, to base the whole ruination of my life, business and reputation, that I base my complaint.
21. I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. well, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who lobbied for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system, the same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.
22. And so for your office to blindly rely on the Board’s excuses while they are ignoring the unsuitability of Mr Hammond is reason for concern. You are relying on the Board’s own spin for your reasons to not investigate, I believe this is unfounded and I will ask the human rights commission and perhaps even the leaders of our Commonwealth if they think this is reasonable. This same Board who have miss quoted me, told untruths about me and sent vile perverted case notes to my home. I will never let this lie and am in communication with a law firm to pursue this further if you decide to go on the path you appear to be following.
23. Is this conflicted and biased man, Mr Hammond, a reliable person for both the Board and Justice Kos, even the Ombudsman, to totally base their judgment on, up holding this last and final charge out of 44 trumped up charges? Is it fair for your office to listen to this man, to give him credibility? He has acted egregiously. This is my complaint.
24. Think on this, I feel it is relevant to you in a previous chapter in your life……As you are aware, I had spent 6 years warning about my old boss, about him altering my certs after I had signed them (not forging my signature as one of your letters has claimed).
25. As you know at one point I had a letter sent on my behalf in 2006 by Nick Smith MP, amongst many other attempts by myself to highlight the short comings of my old boss. Ironic, because I also have a photo of several Board members and the “later to be appointed” investigator pictured in 2006 along with my old boss at a NZIGE meeting, all of them paid up long serving members of the same club, and other clubs.
26. Basically I was, in 2006, complaining about my old boss, to the very Board members pictured with him in the very same year, all members of the same club, also present in this photo is the man later appointed to investigate the explosion AND who had awarded my old boss his full licence…along with the chair of my hearing Stephen Parker…..all in the same picture, all paid up members of the same group.
27. All of this contrary to Mr Hammonds own affidavit, an affidavit written about how well he knew my old boss and how many times he had met him, is Mr Hammond the right person for the job? Is it fair? This is where my complaint lies.
28. Nick Smith MP stated in a letter that if the Board had heeded my warnings then the explosion “could have been averted”, written two years after the explosion. Is it fair that I lost so much?
29. This is why I believe it may be relevant to you as I think you said it best in these comments attributable to a Prof Ron Patterson, I take it this is you…
Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it.
* My additions in blue and highlights in red and bold.
30. How about adding to this statement above, attributable to you…..These “raisers of concern” being set up and made a scapegoat when all that they had warned about comes to pass, nearly killing someone.
31. I ask you Mr Patterson. What is the difference between a patient’s health and safety to that of paying customer? Or are the rights of a gasfitter and his customer to be deemed less than that of a health professional and his patient? I did not get a fair hearing, this is my complaint.
32. Doesn’t a patient pay for a service from a health professional and in doing so should be able to expect to be kept safe and healthy after procuring these services, please explain to me the difference? I say this because a man nearly died in an explosion and NO ONE has been held accountable but I have been made the scapegoat.
33. Here’s an analogy for you. How does it sit with you if…….. a “health professional” was to be gifted his full practicing licence because he was a pharmaceutical salesman?........Then a well meaning, fully qualified health practitioner had aired concerns about the obvious lack of ability of this “gifted licence” holder for 6 years, and was later proven right in his concerns when a patient nearly died………but as the well meaning, fully qualified person had signed a prescription (which was manipulated after signing) and was made the scapegoat, by the very person who gifted the licence to the pharmaceutical salesman. Now apply this rational to mine and Mr Darnley’s situation. Is this fair? How would the author of the above excerpt, attributable to you, feel about this state of affairs?
34. All the evidence points to my old boss, he actually faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared with no relevant questioning or a hearing. Is this fair?
35. I ask you, is it fair to base your opinion that my old boss was investigated thoroughly and adequately because the investigator said he did? This same investigator who was also his fellow member of NZIGE and the same person who gifted my old boss his licence…..the same investigator, who withheld forensic photos, misrepresented and ignored evidence? This same Mr Hammond who was willing to Ignore a third hose supplied to supply the two fryers, this third hose sold well after, months after, I left Allgas’s employ….this same hose being the very one that caused the explosion. Is this fair? This is where my complaint lies.
36. You mention the Board’s 33 page report. As you appear to have a copy please look at page 31, point 4.6…..I believe this double speak spin doctoring is part of the cover up and one of the root causes for making me a scapegoat, its plain to see for those willing to see. Cert 345138, a cert for the last, most recent work carried out at the site of the explosion, the same one mentioned in the Board’s 33 page report, this is also the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Dept Of Labour (DOL) original complaint.
37. The DOL author of this letter of complaint told my lawyer right at the beginning of this fiasco that, at no point, was my work of concern to DOL. I have since personally talked to Mr Windleburn; he has no problem with my work. To ignore this. This is where my complaint lies.
38. I ask you to read the DOL complaint and ask yourself who in this letter of complaint would a fair minded lay person think was more deserving of a thorough investigation.
• The fully trained Gas Service Engineer who had complained about Mr Darnley and dodgy certs covering dodgy work….for 6 years and came forward freely.
• Or the person gifted his licence with no formal training, whom the Board had received letters of concern about dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, who worked at the site of the explosion last but didn’t register the cert for this last work, i.e. a dodgy cert covering not only dodgy work…. but an explosion? I find it bizarre that a copy or cert 345138 was entered into the Board’s own website, but they claim not to have received a copy.
39. All available copies of cert 345138 lack the legal recording of a gas leak test, even the electronic version. With the only copy missing, the original. This is the only copy which was, in all probability, received by the Board.
40. I put it to you that it is possible that this original copy of 345138 was, in all probability disposed of and shredded when the Lawyers acting for the owners of the exploding chipshop asked for a copy of all gas safety certs for their gasfitting work carried out at their chipshop. Perhaps you could ask Belinda Greer, a worker for the Board.
41. Cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint. This is where my complaint lies.
42. I ask you in all fairness, if the person responsible for the last work installed at the exploding chipshop, the same person who according to the Board didn’t register this cert for this work with the Board. But he saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, and even kept a carbon copy himself as the supplier and another copy himself as the certifying gasfitter. With this same cert 345138 that appears in the complaint by DOL by actual number, the same cert mentioned in 4.6 on page 31 of the Board’s report……how can this man, the person responsible for initiating cert 345138, face a charge for the explosion, but then that charge disappears with no relevant questioning, trial or hearing? These are per the Board’s own correspondence. I am happy to provide. It is here my complaint lies, this came to light days after the explosion and before the Board appointed an investigator.
43. I ask you Mr Patterson……..how would the Board look if they had openly accepted an incomplete gas safety certificate for the last work done at a site that then later exploded…..lacking of all things a gas leak test? How would the Lawyers for the chipshop owners have acted on such findings?
44. In ever more double standards a person involved in yet another case, a situation where there was a pre-signing of some 560 blank certificates, which were on sold, including to unqualified lay persons, with 90% of the work covered by these blank certs done against regulation and non compliant…..with some 16 very dangerous, with the signatory on record as saying he signed and checked every job. What would you think if someone involved in this fiasco, probably the signatory of these blank certs…..still has charges before the Board some 5 years later? Is this fair? These double standards, this is where my complaint lies.
45. The Board are also willing to ignore a potential fraud and manipulation of gas certs to cover dangerous work, this was discovered at my hearing, the Board did nothing. Is this fair? This is yet another double standard and is where my complaint lies.
46. The list of poor performance is long and deserves a proper independent investigation. It does not deserve for the Board to be apparently protected and sheltered by those, like yourself, who would take all that the Board say on face value and fall for their spin doctoring and double speak, this is a mistake. I was told by Mr Christopher Littlewood that all you could do was make a recommendation……please recommend that a proper, fair and independent investigation is held, I will do the rest, along with the support of over 1000 members of the Plumbers Federation.
Thank you for your consideration and time. Please can you tell me when I might receive a reply, it has been nearly an year and a half since my original complaint.
Best Regards Paul Gee
Share Topic
Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014 (Read 232167 times)
December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM