From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017 10:52 a.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma Gee'; 'ceo@pgdb.co.nz'; 'Registrar'; 'licensing'; 'gascerts@pgdb.co.nz'; 'exams@pgdb.co.nz'; 'PGDB Competency Based Licensing'; 'accounts@pgdb.co.nz'; 'complaints@pgdb.co.nz'; 'overseas@pgdb.co.nz'; 'comms@pgdb.co.nz'; 'martin@pgdb.co.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Erin Hill'; 'jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz'; 'Rt. Hon. Winston Peters'
Subject: RE: Cover up

Martin,

Now you have had time to digest the last email I would like to bring your attention to the one last charge that blemishes my name. One out of 44 trumped up charges.

I said in my previous email below that I could not have been responsible for the explosion that nearly killed Ron Clarke, and I was found not guilty of this charge to the chagrin of those involved, but most if not all the evidence that points to John Darnley (but is ignored by the PGDB) was in possession of the investigator very early on.

Remember Darnley faced a charge FOR THE EXPLOSION but this charge disappears before his hearing. Max Pederson confirmed this in writing I can send if you wish.

My point is that all this evidence (that proves my innocence) was with the investigator well before my hearing. Most of it right at the beginning of his investigation and so he should not have targeted me. But target me he did. The focus of this targeting I will address later.

Basically if the PGDB couldn’t pin this on me then they didn’t want to pin it on anyone…..as no one has been held responsible for this near fatal explosion, whilst ignoring robust evidence and blatant impartiality conflicts, this is morally corrupt.

This phoney one remaining charge is based solely on the PGDB investigator, the very conflicted, Tony Hammond’s opinion. He is enforcing a Part 2 non mandatory clearance RECOMMENDATION taken from NZ 5261, he references a confusing and contradictory table 8 in NZ 5261.

I say confusing and contradictory because this table 8 allows for a mechanical fan sucking air from the outside and transferring this potentially contaminated air into the building. Allowing this inlet, into the building, to be nearer to a gas flue than a passive open window with no powered vacuum.

The name spa blower is a misnomer because a spa “blower” sucks from the out side and “blows” into what is traditionally the smallest room in the house, i.e. a bathroom, right under the nose of the bath’s occupier. It usually only blows when this person is in the bath. The specifications for these fans talk in 70 cubic litres per second, that’s per second…… and there is no restriction on the size or power of these fans. Please explain this to me?

Tony Hammond helped write this regulation NZ 5261 and would be I think protective of it. Another author from NZ 5261, a Bruce Kline had this to say on the use of alternative regs, my high lights in red, also attached.

Please find below a brief overview of gasfitting in New Zealand.
   “Gasfitting” is a defined term in the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006
   In order to do gasfitting you have to be licensed by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
   Gas work (gasfitting) must comply with the Gas Regulations and be certified by the gasfitter as complying with NZS 5261: 2003, part 1 which is the Performance based design and installation criteria
   Part 2 of NZS 5261 gives one way of complying with Part 1, but other ways of complying with part 1 can be used. Relevant Australian or British standards may be used if the gasfitter can demonstrate compliance with NZS 5261, Part1

I can use British Regs, and I am guessing the 70 million plus people using this reg in the UK makes it a robust and tested reg, the fact Mr Hammond was ignorant of this reg is not my short coming and I refer you to my testimony at my hearing about the behaviour of the fumes, I even drew a diagram. Please see attached.

I do not need to adduce any new evidence, it is all there at my hearing but it was ignored by the PGDB. I even have a photo of the fumes behaviour. Please see attached.

My testimony and supporting diagram illustrating the behaviour of fumes given at my hearing was exact to this photo and proven by the British Reg. I say it again it is not my shortcoming that the PGDB decided to ignore it and listen to the most conflicted person involved in my case, that of the investigator. The same person who gifted Darnley his full certifying license and then went on to withhold photos taken at the site of the explosion that proved my innocence.

In the table attached from the British Standard a clearance of 300mm is acceptable, now compare to Bruce Klein Senior Advisor Building Standards in reference to the use of a British Reg and bear in mind my califont had a 540mm clearance.

I am innocent as long as the PGDB ignore the opinion of just one person, the conflicted and biased Tony Hammond… Yes, the same Tony Hammond who gifted Darnley his license and went on to withhold photographs but he also said at my hearing that if there were no flue gases entering the building then it complied with the mandatory part 1 of NZ 5261. So in Hammond’s own opinion I am innocent, but the PGDB ignore this also.


Also see attached the email (shown to the PGDB) from the owner of Malvern Ave (the site of my last charge), he had no problem with the install whatsoever.


But and it is a huge but…..and I think this shows the inconsistency of the PGDB when it is convenient to them.


But…….. when an elderly couple actually complained about fumes entering their home, they are told by the PGDB to close the window when they use it; I am told they are on anti stress medication over this. This was AFTER my hearing……please see the details for this in the attachment for the Highgates.




Martin you talk of integrity…..please can you let me know what the PGDB’s definition of integrity is…..because all this above is void of even a shade of integrity.

Do the untrue letters that ruined my business before the hearing reflect the PGDB’s take on integrity? Please see an example sent to my local high school and the empty meaningless apology from the PGDB, admitting that the letter sent before my hearing could have given the wrong impression to my customers that I was capable of acting illegally in other parts of the country….BEFORE my hearing…..this is the definition of prejudicing in my book, at every site of all the extra charges, BEFORE MY HEARING. Fair hearing, I do not think so!






Please table this information and email at the same PGDB meeting, and again I ask each Board member to comment or at least confirm they have read it.I have even more evidence, but as you already have a lot to table I will leave it at that for this meeting, I am more than happy to provide more if required.

I ask you Martin is it acceptable to the PGDB to protect the guilty to the detriment of the innocent…..while putting the NZ public at risk? Again I ask for your definition of integrity?


Does the reputation of the guilty mean more than that of the innocent? AT A RISK TO THE NZ PUBLIC?     Really?



I ask everyone at the PGDB at this meeting and the others copied in…..Is the precedent set by all this helpful to NZ or the plumbing industry? Should we not take a more heuristic approach using experience to learn and improve, not cover up and hope it goes away? Which is the right path for NZ? Perhaps not the right path for some unscrupulous people, but do they matter more?

You are a continuous membership industry board….you inherit the actions of your predecessors and set an example for the people you hand the baton of responsibility to……are you happy to put your name to all this? What does it say about your integrity, your attitude to corruption, to safety, to standards……to ethics, to common decency? I will ask until I find someone with some moral fibre.

I was set child sexual abuse case notes to my home…..are you all happy with this too? Just to prove a point on probabilities in a gasfitting context? Really? You stand by all this? I can send copies of this to any that request it but I do not like to send this sort of filth about blindly.

Those that ignore lessons to be learnt from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat those mistakes. Integrity takes ownership, corruption covers up. I ask you that are copied in, did the PGDB learn anything from the last time they were sacked by Michael Cullen…..because the cover up took place after this sacking.



Please table this as I said at the next meeting, and forward any comments to me, or if you refuse to table then please tell me why. I will look for any mention in your publicised minutes.



Yours with Integrity Paul Gee

And here is the response from the PGDB...........they won't even table my correspondence...........they know that you know the level of corruption that was levelled at me and my family.

So they turn a blind eye......they won't even look.....It is very similar to kids in a play ground when they don't want to listen to he truth....fingers in their ears, eyes shut shouting lalalalalalala.....what a bunch of monkeys.....hear no evil, see no evil......shame they couldn't speak no evil....or do no evil.


Integrity or corruption.......please think of this the next time they go on about these words and say they are here to protect the NZ public and go after cowboys......joke is sadly on us. We finance this and we (by our silence) condone this.....




 

Blissful in their ignorance, but wasn't there emails sent to all the available address's at the PGDB?
I can see what is meant by emperor's new clothes.....strutting around dressed in an imaginary pompous coat of integrity while everyone can see their bare arse of a cover up........so pretending not to know.......makes it go away?

I'll think of this next time they gloat they have caught someone and saved the world.....very embarrassing.

The worst part is they are refusing to even look at what they have done knowing that you all know how bad it is.... (I know they know you know because I have passed on the link to this forum, and told them that I will table their reply on this same forum)....believe me they know....

They know that you know all this but they apparently couldn't give a shit.....Integrity? In touch with the industry? Fairness? Transparency? Up Front? Nice people? Sneaky? Corrupt? Cover up?......



Just hope that nothing goes wrong for you guys and it suits them to hang it on you instead of facing any mistakes they might have made.....



There is a lot of knowing in this.......but the PGDB have their fingers in their ears, eyes wide shut while they shout at the top of their voice (very ironically) no no no no no ......pretty childish if you ask me.

It's a sad sad shame they were not shouting know know know know....its all in the spelling apparently.



.

How can the PGDB create this electronic cert with out receiving it? Are they psychic? Clairvoyant perhaps? Maybe even time travellers?



The PGDB denied receiving this cert while the guy lay in an induced coma in a burns unit for two weeks......they denied receiving this cert 345138 and the guy still had 5 days left in that drug induced coma.....nice people.

From: Melanie Phillips[mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]



Which is it? did you receive the cert or not?.....this type of work and certifying was done in peoples homes and businesses.....







Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 3:22p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee; WalGordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee
Hi Paul
I have just gone back through the file and can confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138.  The only copy the Board has is a photocopy of the certifier’s copy, which you produced as exhibit PG007 together with a copy of the gas suppliers copy.
I see notes from Belinda Greer on the file that the Board copy of certificate 345138 was received after the explosion in 2009, I think from the Department of Labour.
I’m sorry I can’t help you further.
Regards
Mel

So the reputations and egos of these "professional" people are more important than mine or yours or the integrity of the trade, it totally limits if not excludes the amount of blind faith that we can place in their hands to do the right thing......it is non existent in my experience.....

If we turn our backs to these muppets they become just an expensive rest home of goons....... that we get to finance......

How can we have faith in people who are happy to set this precedent........ to set this precedent for OUR future?

Not their future.....remember they are totally sorted financially...... filling their bank accounts with wages paid by us, probably with a nice retirement sorted out......now get back under those floors and break your knees to pay for this.....people like this are utter parasites.....

Well (and the egos won't like this)......if you let this precedent stand your reputation is in tatters......it really is, it is embarrassingly so.





.

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018 5:27 p.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma Gee'; ceo@pgdb.co.nz; 'Registrar'; 'licensing'; gascerts@pgdb.co.nz; exams@pgdb.co.nz; 'PGDB Competency Based Licensing'; accounts@pgdb.co.nz; complaints@pgdb.co.nz; overseas@pgdb.co.nz; comms@pgdb.co.nz; martin@pgdb.co.nz
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Erin Hill'; jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz; 'Rt. Hon. Winston Peters'; 'Allan Day'
Subject: RE: Cover up

Martin,

The seventh anniversary of my May 2011 hearing approaches (wrt hearing also see biased bent corrupt laughable kangaroo court).  And as you are well aware I am still trying to clear my name. Please may I make a formal request for you to retain any documents that are relevant/attached to my case in anyway, so as it can be referenced in future legal action.

I am sure that the excuse of     “oh its gone past 7 years so we don’t have to keep it”    will soon start to be utilised.

In light of this anticipated excuse I am formally asking you to retain these documents.  If you do insist on throwing out these documents then please may I have them sent to me, I will pay the postage or can pop in and pick them up. I have copied in all PGDB dept’s so the PGDB have a broad awareness of this request.

I make this request as I am attempting to prevent any relevant documents disappearing similar to gas SAFETY cert 345138 issued to cover the last work at the site of a near fatal explosion caused by a gas leak………the same cert 345138 that couldn’t be found after that explosion……...but IRONICALLY there is a copy of 345138 on the PGDB’s fox-pro system, even though the PGDB deny ever having received cert 345138……..not received ever!!!…..with all available copies of cert 345138 missing a test for GAS LEAKS of all things…..…A cert issued by someone gifted his gasfitting full license with no apprenticeship served…and then investigated by the same guy who granted that license……..confusing eh? What a joke!!!!

If anyone copied in isn’t sure to what explosion I refer to above I have attached a very brief history outlining what happened to me and my family at the hands of the PGDB. I do this because just recently I asked for a file on another gas leak which resulted in a fire in Nelson on a specific day/date, a year before the explosion (I am trying to ascertain whether the same guy is responsible), I was told by Martin that he could not provide because I didn’t give enough details see attached (I guess there must have been hundreds of fires started by gas on that day in Nelson……that’s a bit of a worry eh?)


I am quite sure this request is in vain and yet again a waste of my time, but there you go.


Thank you.

Yours with Integrity Paul Gee