After my family was terrorised for 2 years of persecution, lies and untrue letters sent to my customers.....after totally dismissing 42 charges out of 44 at a biased kangaroo court.....this is how my last charge was dealt with........this was days before Bickers (a twat) went in my local paper and quoted me as saying "I am just a mere plumber".....but couldn't show me where I said it......
The Final Minutes
14. 152 The final three minutes of the hearing held against Mr. Gee were probably the most
telling that appear to have been ignored. Mr. Hammond the Investigator under
Cross Examination by Mr. Gordon regarding Malvern Avenue. Here is the copy from
the transcript:
Q. That's fine. Now, the second thing I have just to clarify and you're talking about Part 1
and Part 2 of the Act. Now Part 1 is what must be done, what you must comply with?
Page 131 of 137
A. Part 1 is the mandatory requirement.
Q. Mandatory requirement, yes, and Part 2 is a way of compliance?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, the reason I was asking about that, because on page 35 of the edition I have here,
1.5.7, it meanings about flue terminals and in the second paragraph of that section it
reads: "Flue terminals shall be located to minimise entry of combustion products into
any building and to minimise the effects of adverse draft on the performance of the gas
appliances". So in reading that, if there's no gas entering into a building, then it
complies with Part 1?
A. Yes, the aim of that is to make sure that gas does not enter into the building.
Q. So that's the aim of it, so if there is no gas, say in this case we've got two situations
where people are saying there's no gas entering, then according to that paragraph then
it complies with Part 1 of the Act?
A. No, I don't rely on consumers whether the gas was entering or not, it is the gas fitter's
job to locate it in such a way that gas does not enter the building.
Q. But that's what it's saying here though isn't it, it's saying that if the flues aren't entering
the building then it complies with Part 1?
A. Yes, but -
Q. And if the customers are saying fumes aren't entering the building then it's compliant
with Part 1?
A. But in order to ensure that under all conditions products of combustion do not enter into
the premises, then one way of complying is to ensure that the clearances are in
accordance with Part 2. If you are putting in an appliance with clearances other than
those in Part 2, then you need to demonstrate how the - how you have ensured that
under all conditions the products of combustion can't enter the property.
Q. That doesn't say "in all conditions" there. Does it say in here "all conditions"?
A. No it doesn't say all conditions, but that's surely a general inference from the
requirements of the standard to meet all conditions.
Q. Well an inference is fine, but as per it says here the - that's located to minimise entry of
combustion products and to minimise the effects of adverse draft et cetera. So those - if
there's no fumes entering those two locations that we've been talking about, then
they're actually compliant with the mandatory part of the NZS 5261?
A. I don't have any knowledge of whether products of combustion are in fact entering or
not. I have not carried out any tests to demonstrate. I am unaware of any tests that
have been carried out to demonstrate that.
MR PARKER:
Well I think we have reached the point where we are having submissions, so I think we can
adjourn now.
Page 132 of 137
MR BICKERS
Q. Mr. Hammond, I'm sorry I'm just thinking about what Mr. Gordon had put, under what
circumstances does 1.5.7 take precedence over 1.6.2? And 1.6.2 which is the
manufacturer's instructions, which in turn is table 16, so what would be necessary to say
that you've complied with 1.5.7 and you can override 1.6.2?
A. If the manufacturer had carried out some tests and designed a particular appliance in a
particular fashion that he felt that it could be put closer to some other part of the
building or whatever, then presumably he would provide that information to the
gasfitters so they could see that it was appropriate to do so other than was specified in
the means of complying.
MS INESON
Q. Supplementary on that, so does that mean on page 101, is that the point of number 6?
A. Sorry?
Q. In page 101 is that the point of note 6 at the bottom of the page?
A. Yes, that note is there specifically for.
Q. To describe what you've just described?
A. Yeah.
(Witness excused)
14. 153 As can be seen the Investigator didn’t have any knowledge of whether products of
combustion were in fact entering the building or not. He had not carried out any
tests to demonstrate they were. He was unaware of any tests that had been carried
out to demonstrate that. His job was to prove the offence and part of that offence
was non compliance but yet he just admitted he didn’t know if the installation was
complaint or not.
14. 154 It is quite disturbing that the hearing was abruptly cut short at this stage by the
Presiding Member Mr. Parker.
14. 155 Note 6 that Ms Ineson referred to stated:
(6) Some gas appliances may be suitable for closer installation, refer to
manufacturer’s instructions.
14. 156 British Standards state 300mm based on the manufactures instructions but they
were not referred to in the hearing. Needless to say the installation was safe and
had been demonstrated by Mr. Gee to be safe. The Investigator did not prove that
it was unsafe. Mr. Gee was found guilty of installing the unit closer that 1500mm
based on the manufactures instructions which were based on the NZS 5261:2003.
Page 133 of 137
14. 157 It must be remembered that the Legal advisor stated the Burdon of proof is on the
investigator and Mr. Gee doesn’t need to prove anything.
Share Topic
Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014 (Read 235387 times)
December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM