Plumbers NZ is New Zealand's largest online plumbing, gas and drainage resource. Plumbing exam help, plumbing news, directory and free quotes.

Author Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014  (Read 232151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #60 on: January 21, 2015, 05:50:00 PM »
And some more, now add to the fact that they loose convenient paper originals....how safe do you all feel relying on this bullshit????



I got heaps of these, perhaps this is what Routhan took with him as insurance? and probably why they took the system off the Board, now pick a side you can have the truth and integrity or a cover up and incompetent ineptitude with a dash of corruption....

Oh and by the way the certs that have my name on below are from the four books of certs ordered in my name when I told him to shove his job, been complaining about this since 2002.....do they really think I am going to give up after 13 years and what I been through.....cocks.
You can't choose who you are.....but you are the sum of your choices.......

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #61 on: January 21, 2015, 05:52:19 PM »
Now how do you see the missing cert for the explosion people? with no test results?

How would these goons look to the lawyer for the chipshop owner when he asked for ALL copies of certs for the site where some one nearly died?

Now how do you feel about the reasons for the government taking the cert system off these dicks?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #62 on: January 21, 2015, 06:20:29 PM »
Now bearing in mind that they have ignored an elderly couples complaint about a califont fitted nearer than the one they did me for (which I contest and believe I can disprove, using evidence from hearing) and the shambles of their administering the cert system, (see below for a tiny fraction of the evidence that I have to show the shambles).....


Here's a comment from the Board in my local newspaper, released before I could appeal, (the investigators lawyer tried to block that appeal too), they still can't show me where I said I was a "mere plumber"

PRESS RELEASE | 12 July 2011
A Nelson gasfitter has been found guilty of professional shortcomings and unacceptable conduct. The Board has found that Paul Gee breached the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act when he carried out gasfitting work on a house in Malvern Avenue, Nelson.Mr Gee incorrectly installed a gas water heater by not allowing sufficient clearance between it and an openable window. It was installed by Mr Gee too close to an openable window, which created a risk that products of combustion and carbon monoxide could have entered into the house.
The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board decided the case against Mr Gee in relation to work carried out on six other properties in the Tasman Bay and Westport areas including the Milton Street takeaways shop in Nelson was not established. The takeaways was the scene of an explosion in April 2009.The cause was found to be a gas leak, which developed at the rear of two gas fires.
The case against Mr Gee was not established at properties at Main Road, Havelock, Greenwood Street, Motueka, Pah Street at Motueka High School, Dommett Street, Westport and Powick Street, Westport.
For the charge Mr Gee was found guilty of, the tribunal said: “Mr Gee is not a mere plumber as he referred to himself, but an experienced gasfitter. For a practitioner of Mr Gee’s status, these applied professional shortcomings are seen as being very serious and his conduct unacceptable.”
In considering the charge, the Board noted Mr Gee’s lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when signing gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.
The Board also said there was a demonstrated lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.
The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the PGDB about the Milton Street matter and the PGDB undertook its own investigation. As a consequence, a further six properties were also identified as potentially posing a risk to the health and safety of the public.
The Board deals with the competency of gasfitters and any disciplinary actions that arise from that. For compensation, any affected parties need to lodge a civil claim with the courts.

The Board will now arrange a meeting between the parties to decide on penalties, after which time Mr Gee will have the right of appeal.



Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2015, 06:25:49 PM »
They are delusional....look at the hypocrisy......from below.....

In considering the charge, the Board noted Mr Gee’s lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when signing gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.
The Board also said there was a demonstrated lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.


LOL they couldn't even do data entry right......and I have professional short comings........good luck guys in relying on this system if any of your previous work has an incident or kills someone (even if it is not your fault)......

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2015, 08:58:17 PM »
Hi guys, mate I have fixed a window shut only to discover that a painter had removed the fixing so as to paint then not refined it shut. I discovered this while at the property doing something else, this could easily have happened to you did you chech it.? cheers

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2015, 09:02:35 PM »
I've done a revised press release for a laugh.....this is a joke (based on the bullshit below)....


PRESS RELEASE | 21 Jan 2015

The Board has been found guilty of professional shortcomings and unacceptable conduct. Paul Gee found the Board had breached the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act when they ignored gasfitting work on a house of an elderly couple, They ignored an incorrectly installed a gas water heater ignoring insufficient clearance between it and an openable window. It was ignored yet it was too close to an openable window, which created a risk that products of combustion and carbon monoxide could have entered into the house.

For the charge the Board was found guilty of, the kangaroo court said: “The Board is not a mere plumber's board, as they referred to themself, but made up of an experienced gasfitter and plumbers. For these practitioner's of the Board's status, these applied professional shortcomings are seen as being very serious and his conduct unacceptable.”

In considering the charge, Mr Gee’s thought that the Board showed a lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when accepting and registering gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.

The Board also had demonstrated a lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.

The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the PGDB about the Milton Street matter and the PGDB undertook its own slanted investigation, ignoring blatant facts and evidence. As a consequence, a further six properties were also identified as potentially posing a risk to the health and safety of the public. But no one was held accountable, and still haven't.

The Board deals with the competency of gasfitters and any disciplinary actions that arise from that, when it suits them and only for those who aren't their mates. For compensation, any affected parties need to lodge a civil claim with the courts. (oh I feckin will)


The Board will now arrange a meeting between the parties, to party in Melbourne, with partners, to decide on penalties, after which time Mr Gee will have the right of appeal.
LOL


This is a joke and was written by applying their own words to themselves, (No Board's were harmed in the making of this joke)

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2015, 06:52:32 PM »
Hi Robbo, missed your post in my haste, just working on something and I will answer it all together and hopefully by then the Board might have answered who is in the photo below and my other requests, that is they don't deem me unreasonable in the mean time, hope you all have a great weekend, be happy.

We live in the best country in the world, working as a very important part of the machinery that greases the wheels of our culture, they really could not do poo's with out us, we just need to take it back and make it all make sense, openly and transparently for the greater good.....isn't that reasonable?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #67 on: January 24, 2015, 09:48:20 AM »
Here's a copy of the "impartial" investigators affidavit where he signs a legal document to say he only has limited knowledge of Mr Darnley......


The other three photos I have seem to make this legal document inaccurate, some may say that he lied? These are dated 2005 and 2006....have read of the affidavit......do you think you'll get a fair go with these goons.

I have a lot of this evidence, but no one wants to acknowledge it, even the Ombudsman, is it fairness for everyone.....?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #68 on: January 24, 2015, 10:18:36 AM »
The explosion happened in April 09, here's a copy of the NZIGE newsletter, dated May 09....where Darnley resigns.....hmmmm funny that.

I wonder if we asked Mr Darnley why he resigned.....what would be his reply?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #69 on: January 24, 2015, 10:23:27 AM »
Isn't it a worry that a person who, by Mr Hammond's own affidavit, was given his full certifying/craftsman status by means of one oral exam....was also allowed to make out he was an engineer, a member of a prestigious engineering group, as well as other gas groups, I was told by Darnley he was a member of the LPGA too.

But then Mr Hammond was given his craftsman status with no apprenticeship as well.....these people must have some contacts eh?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #70 on: January 24, 2015, 10:51:30 AM »
Now back to the horrendous administration of OUR cert system, now bear in mind the master copies were unobtainable from the Board, until I photographed these suppliers copies, then they miraculously re appeared, notice the missing test results and my favourite the twink.

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #71 on: January 24, 2015, 10:58:22 AM »
I'll give you a "for instance"....

Now you'll probably be told that the Board don't administer the system any more, but you need to understand that they still have the records and what ever was in play at the time of the install will be brought up at your hearing, down to the date of the regs in play at the time.....

Imagine, you install an appliance, and you sign it off....the customer decides he wants it on the other side of the room and moves it.....it blows up.....you got no photos and the person responsible for the moving of the appliance isn't about to own up.....but they got your name on the paper work.....can you rely on the system or the people running the system?

Assume the position.....

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #72 on: January 24, 2015, 11:15:24 AM »
Here is Max's take on pressure testing a supply and documenting it.....the WTF is my comment, please see attachment........

This is what happens when you have non tradesman, look after tradesman.....its all about the paper work to these people, they are not interested in preventing a problem, just making sure they have a name to pin it on if it goes a wry.....


it isn't an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff it is a hearse....

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #73 on: January 24, 2015, 11:24:51 AM »
Has this Board any credibility?

Now if it was just me, then ok, but look at all the things the Feds have proven them wrong, so very wrong on!, but its ok we'll change the law!

It is a joke, sadly a joke on us, that we pay for and finance, that they pay no tax on! because they are a charity.....its embarrassing.

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • Karma: +222/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #74 on: January 24, 2015, 08:40:19 PM »
Something that has bothered me for a while now, it is the predetermined, almost willed, outcome of a hearing.....but if it don't go the way they want it, they just stop? Is this reasonable? Is it safe? Has a duty of care been observed?

For example, if the police go after someone and it comes out at the trial that the guy on the stand didn't do it.......do they just leave it at that?

No one has been held responsible for an explosion where someone nearly died, with all the evidence, especially the evidence at the hearing (although it was with held by the investigator, until the hearing) points to someone at Allgas, in all probability Darnley, you remember the guy who faced a charge but it disappeared....is this reasonable?



Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via twitter

Similar Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014

Started by Wal

5 Replies
2941 Views
Last post December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
by Jaxcat
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 184 Dated 6 December 2013

Started by Wal

2 Replies
2486 Views
Last post December 06, 2013, 02:13:52 PM
by Jaxcat
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 185 Dated 13 December 2013

Started by Wal

5 Replies
3060 Views
Last post December 13, 2013, 04:01:14 PM
by robbo
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 186 Dated 20 December 2013

Started by Wal

1 Replies
1731 Views
Last post December 23, 2013, 06:39:28 AM
by Watchdog
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)