Hi Jax,

I can only tell you what I have seen and witnessed......

I find it hard to believe that the total mismanagement of the cert system had no effect on the decision to move the responsibility of that cert system from the PGDB. They had several bites at that apple and their last try was forced to add a disclaimer for accuracy....

I have seen so much of this mismanagement in just my case alone it is mind boggling, from certs denied to been having received when there are copies on the electronic website, missing leak test results, twink on copies, pink copies not reflecting carbon copies, crossed out information, different colour inks of the obviously added info.....I could go on and on...there is a lot and that's just my case.

For the record I didn't sign blank certs.....I did allow my boss to fill them out and then I would sign them......

It took me a very long time to realise that there was added information AFTER I signed the certs as he kept the four copies together....there is a lot of ignored evidence that shows this......

My worst mistake of my life was doing as I was told by my boss, relying on him to split the certs and register them as promised.....I complained to the PGDB as soon as I thought something was up (initially thinking it was a forged signature) first time I did this was 2002 and many times thereafter....the PGDB did nothing other than protect my old boss and frame me for the explosion......even though lots of evidence point to my old boss.

But someone who was involved in the signing of blank certs still has his case before the PGDB years later, possibly even up to today.....the Ombudsman knows....see attached. Apparently the protection for him is still present!


I do have every right to be angry because this signing of blank certs resulted in all the sites of my charges receiving an untrue letter that ended in an apology for giving all the sites of charges the impression that I was capable of acting illegally.....see attached.

Here are where I said I was a mere plumber as per the legal representative of the PGDB.......please take it in context......



From: Melanie Phillips [mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: 19 July 2011 12:38 p.m.
To: Wal Gordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee
 
Hi Wal
 
I can’t speak for the Board however, I understood that the phrase was not so much attributable to Mr Gee but rather an encapsulation of comments made by Mr Gee at the hearing (such as those at pages 353, 359, 396, & 404 of the transcript).
 
Again, this is only my inference and should be in no way taken as speaking for the Board.  I would suggest you raise this issue specifically in your penalty submissions should you wish the Board to address this matter formally.
 
Regards
 
Mel
 
Melanie Phillips
Legal Advisor
 
Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
Level 9, 70 The Terrace
P O Box 10655

from the transcript.......

Page 353

 A. This says "Perhaps the signature's been forged". I mean I'm a plumber. I - procedures, all this sort of - pipes and fittings no problem. Q. Now just can you please go to paragraph 40 of your statement which is tab 15? You say there that - have you got that there? A. Yeah. Q. So, you recall asking about - A. Yeah, when you've had two years to lay awake every night really trying to rack your brains what happened, listening to your wife crying into her pillow because your business is going under because of letters that don't reflect the truth, you tend to think about stuff a lot, you recall stuff. Yeah. I do recall that. Q. You recall that - you say Mr Darnley pointed out the pipework box ticked? A. There was three of them at the table, you had Mavis, the daughter-in-law, Mr Darnley, I pointed out I said "why isn't there any appliances on this?" They said you're not putting appliances in. He said - he pointed at the pipe box and said "that's what you did isn't it?" Q. So you are saying that - A. This statement was written quite recently, after I'd had time to think about it. Q. Because this is the first time in this statement that you've ever mentioned that Mr Darnley said that to you, isn't it? A. Yeah. Yep. Q. Is there any reason why you wouldn't have mentioned that before? A. I haven't remembered it. Q. So at that time you say you asked, were you - did that mean that you particularly remembered that certificate? A. Look, I don't know even know if it was that particular certificate, but I definitely asked him at that time, "why is that thing empty, that appliance part empty?", because Mr Hammond referenced another one where it was filled in, but that wasn't my handwriting either. It -it was endemic there. Q. So after that did you believe it was acceptable practice because you'd just done - A. After that, what, a couple of weeks ago?

Page 359

A. No. Q. But you would have known that a customer would have been charged for you doing a gas certificate wouldn't you? A. Well I should imagine, but I didn't run the company. Q. So when you had completed the - installing the pipework and the bayonet fittings what do you think was going to happen then? A. I did as I was told. I was told to go and fit two bayonets in the fish and chip shop. I went and did it. Q. But you must have known that two Blue Seal 45 GT fryers were going to be installed? A. Might be a re-fit, they might be putting two points there that they might want to hook a fryer up to in six months time when the redevelop the thing into a Cafe. I'm just a fitter mate. Q. So you didn't even ask anyone at Allgas what was going in there? A. The boss says to you "go to a chip shop; fit two bayonets", you go and fit two bayonets to a chip shop. Especially when you're a fitter. It's what you do as a fitter. Q. I would just suggest that surely in that situation before you did your certification -- A. Yeah. Q. -- you would have wanted to check with the office to make sure that nothing else was being done so that you only had to certify once? A. No. I would have looked at the potential draw on those two bayonets. Roughly what would have normally gone in there, what they would have been and I would have allowed for that in the pipe size, that's why I took a 25 mm pipe, a 20 mm pipe and I took a 20 mm right up to the bayonets to give it the maximum - maximum amount of gas. Q. Now, is it your evidence that you never saw the gas fryers that were ultimately installed in it? A. Yep. Q. Even though you signed the certificate after they were installed? A. Yep. Yep because the test date is the 15th which is the day before the quote was issued, because I couldn't have seen the quote either.

Page 396

A. I hadn't. Q. -- bottles on - A. I hadn't. Q. So why weren't you saying that in your response that it had nothing to do with you? A. Because I thought Mr Hammond was coming from the point that the cylinders were left - this is how he worded it to me, the cylinders were left on a deck, that I had worked at the address and I had worked at the address and I had walked away from it and left them on the deck, that's what I thought he was saying. Q. Yeah but at the time you got the audit report and responded in this letter Mr Hammond hadn't interviewed you about Powick Street? A. Oh he talked to me - well I must have got it from somewhere, where did I get the advice from? Where - who said to me - when is this dated? Q. What date? A. Yes. Q. 15th of March 2010? A. Yeah. Basically I believed I was being accused of extending the pipe from the existing cylinders and leaving the cylinders on the deck. So I must have got that from somewhere. Q. Would you agree though that - you might disagree with this, but I'll put it to you so you've got a chance to explain because I think we're going to. That it is a safety concern to have LPG cylinders sitting on a combustible surface? A. That's yep that's why I didn't put them there. You're ignoring the evidence that the 24 was fitted after I was there. It was fitted to an extension where the cylinders are situated. Now we can talk about how I word things, how I speak, I'm a bloody plumber. I don't go to elocution lessons, I speak like I do. I am a common working man. I work with these (Indicates hand) not that (indicates mouth).

Page 404

MR PARKER: John, I'd just prefer that you ask Mr Gee to explain to you what happened, rather than perhaps you lead Mr Gee to what happened. So if you have he got an issue around ask him about the process, can we have Mr Gee explain to us the process? MR SIMMISS: Okay, except I am just trying it arrive at a certain point. MR PARKER: I am happy if you ask him parts about that, but I don't want us to be telling him what we think the answer is. MR SIMMISS: No that's fine. I'm not trying to do that, I'm trying to understand the series of events that happen in a work environment to understand how the process can come about, that's all. MR SIMMISS Q. So in reality there's a good possibility you don't visit jobs again after you've done a certain stage, it could have been given to somebody else in the company? A. Totally. Q. I think that probably ends up where I need to be. A. Can I just comment, I was more like the donkey work guy, you know, I'm a big fella, I'd be given stuff to carry, then they go round, turn the things on and say look it works, you know. Q. Without putting words in your mouth, I just wanted to end up with why there was so much different writing on gas certificates and who might have been filling them in under what process that's all. MS INESON
Q. Mr Gee my only question is more or less the same, I am trying to understand the process, and I notice on page 154 there is a quote for Milton Street and it's dated the 16th of June, that's tab 12, number 154, it's



Look at the findings and compare to my pages from the transcript.......do you think I said I was a mere plumber......or did I mean I was the employee not the boss......in context.......

When you got these professionals trying to understand us tradies you are misunderstood......or they just make shit up to discredit you......

Of note they even audited two jobs of most if not every fitter in my area and told them it was because I had complained about the standard of work in Nelson......when actually I had only complained about the work of one man.....the same man gifted his licence and didn't register the last cert for the work at the chipshop.....but a copy is on the PGDB electronic register........

Add this to the letter sent to the Motueka High school which even the PGDB agrees could have given the sites of all my charges that I was capable of acting illegally, before my hearing.......just a tad prejudiced these sites eh?






AND I STILL WENT 42 OUT OF 44 CHARGES INNOCENT.........its called character assassination.....




.

Right guys I am going to describe each of the documents I have on file (not all because I have loads more in hard copy )

I am going to start from the first in a time line, first historically, they are on USB stick, P.M. your address to me and I will send to you a USB in the post (I have already distributed throughout some real good mates/relatives in places I have lived in, both ends of the world).


I got enough to go for one document a day for a year............(or might be more like one a week for seven years)


I am going to attach the document and then write a description of how it ties in to the case.......if you don't want to look at them.....don't look, blank me or delete me (or give me feed back, I welcome it).......but if you want me to show you how messed up this bullshit is.....have a read.......


Number one....... Bickers and Hammonds IPENZ license numbers.......


Look at the dates and the sequential numbers of their licenses.......do you think these guys might have known each other?



Keep this in mind.....





.

Now when you call the investigator the "impartial" investigator.....you wouldn't expect him to be in groups with quite a few PGDB members on the panel for my hearing......

Mr Bickers is the guy who went in my local paper and slated me for my last charge out of 44.....over a 95% rate of innocence.......for a charge that the PGDB later told an elderly couple to "just close the window when you use the califont"

Bickers also charges quite a bit of money to run a course on the "professional witness" ....now that is either for professionals who appear as a witness, or maybe people who are making a living out of being a witness, either way you would have thought he was aware of the conflicts of interest......he was also the guy who gave up his post as the PGDB before his tenure was up.......Nick Smith also told me he was a very good friend of his..... well they are both long term members of IPENZ.....as was Hammond.....hmmmmmm interesting.....


Mr Alan Bickers (chairperson)
Mr Bickers is currently a Director of Catalyst Management Services offering management consultation services to public and private sector clients. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and is a Chartered Professional Engineer. He is an Associate of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute NZ and a Justice of the Peace.
Mr Bickers has worked for four local authorities with the last position as Chief Executive of Tauranga City/District Council (1987-1995). Mr Bickers has served on the Standards Council of NZ (1993-1997), Bay of Plenty Health Board and on the board of Transit NZ (1997-2004) with the last three and a half years as Chair. He has spent the last two decades involved with the Institution of Professional Engineers NZ (including President 1991-1992) and is current chair of their Disciplinary Committee. Mr Bickers has been appointed for a three-year term.




When there is a conflict of interest, you should claim it and step down.......not close ranks and screw someone over.



.

Tony Hammond is the president of the Gas Association of NZ. ( GANZ )

This is circa early 90’s and has been involved with  GANZ for 12 years already by then.....and was president for a two year term in Feb 1993. Developing standards (just like the one he protects at the hearing).

MIPENZ, NZIGE fellow……to be a fellow he must have been there a while too, and as a fellow not leaving anytime soon.

His mate Stephen Parker, later to chair my kangaroo court…….well he was involved in GANZ form 2000.

The explosion happened in 2009.....

This is from Hammonds report written after the explosion.......

Darnley gifted full craftsman licence in 98 after some years on an exemption (no apprenticeship).......what is omitted from this document is that it was Hammond who held this oral exam....I will show this in Hammonds own affidavit later on.....he didn't admit this until he was caught out and it was discovered that he was the guy to hold this oral exam.......

Darnley later faced a charge for the explosion.....but as we all know     poof     it disappeared, even though all if not most points to him or someone at Allgas (he was the only craftsman gasfitter there) and it was Darnley who sent out the carbon copies but didn't register the top pink copy of cert 345138 with the PGDB ......this is the PGDB version.....to the blast victims lawyer.....

But there is a copy of cert 345138 on the PGDB website......Ombudsman knows this too.....

According to Hammond only 10 people granted a license after an oral exam....Darnley one of them......

Of Note..... there is a guy who has good reason to believe that the one % he needs to pass his craftsman exam from the PGDB should be granted because the question was wrong in the exam......the PGDB have fought him tooth and nail not to grant his license.....I am told that this guy is correct, but the PGDB stubbornly refuse his license (oh he actually served an apprenticeship too)......it appears the only way to get the ticket gifted is to do oral with Hammond.....and be in his group.

Hammond represents GANZ writing NZS 5261: 2003...........have a gander inside the cover of this standard.....

This is the standard that states part one is mandatory and part two is a means of compliance.....Hammond enforced the part two Table 16, this is just a means of compliance and not mandatory.....


Of Note: This table 16 in NZS 5261 : 2003......take a look at a spa blower in reference to flue proximity.......

Spa "blower" is a misnomer really because it actually sucks from outside and blows to the inside, the blowing happens in the bath (perhaps this is where the oral exams happen).........

Why can the ingress/intake of a high powered vacuum pump/fan (the spec on these spa blower pumps/fans talk about meters cubed by the minute, pretty powerful) be nearer to a gas flue than a passive non sucking opening window ?


No one can answer me that? but I think it means that the non mandatory part two looks a little less concrete on its application and is (as everyone is told) just one way of doing it......apparently not according to Hammond, this table and his enforcing the non mandatory part two....well its the only reason I had that one last charge....


Basically I didn't go 100% innocent because of the opinion of one very conflicted man, old Hammy, the hearing shut down conveniently by Stephanie Parker, just as we were cross-examining Hammond about it.....Wal had Hammond by the balls and his buddy Parker came to his rescue.....it was awesome, the transcript doesn't show the squirming nor the broken voice, it was beautiful.



.

.