Please see below an open letter that I sent to Max Pederson, the name that appears on the cover letter for a 33 page report on my “concerns”, this report took about four months to write, giving them plenty of time to put their spin on some very damning evidence. Blatant evidence, which they are trying to cover up with flannel and bullshit. I understand that if you are not familiar with the whole three years of persecution that my family have endured, then it will seem a little disjointed, I apologise for this and urge you to ask any questions that arise, as I have based all of this on fact and not spin I do not need four months of preparation and a gaggle of lawyers to organise an answer, all incidentally funded by the very trades that they do not represent, but hound and persecute.
It basically breaks down to this, as I read the report (which I will attempt to attach)-
• The Board appears not to have a problem with, and is OK with, a total lack of an investigation into, a gas cert (cert 345138 mentioned in the report, you can look it up on their soon to be defunct web site) at the site of an explosion, that nearly killed some one. This cert lacks any writing in the section for a gas leak pressure test. On all the copies I have seen, the gas suppliers and certifiers copy of this, I believe, fundamental part of a cert…. is empty. I can not get an original pink copy, because the Board say it was never received by them, or perhaps when the person in the explosion asked for a copy and someone at the Board noticed that the test result was empty they put it through the shredder.
• Apparently (according to the Board's report) this fundamental section of the cert is not a “specific requirement”, even though the Act says that you are not to sign off any work with out being sure it is safe…..how can you be sure that it is safe if you don’t test it?? and the Board are condoning not filling out this gas leak test section??
• The Board also has no problem with their statement that the master copy (pink copy) was never received by them and was never registered with them, their statement that the only evidence that they have of its registration…is.... it appears on their web site……I kid you not. Entered, according to this report, four years and a day exactly before the explosion. And was stated to the poor sod that got blown up, days after the explosion, not to have been received by the Board. What would happen if the Board admitted registering a gas cert with no leak test………AND IT EXPLODED?
• So we have a situation where the “impartial” (LOL) investigator and the “Impartial/professional” Board (LMFAO), has no problem with the certifying gasfitter ( my old boss who was enabled by way of one oral exam to gain his full craftsman license by the same investigator, with no formal training or apprenticeship, basically a salesman and member of LPGA and/or GANZ, along with the investigator and the Board member who chaired my hearing) to not “legally, on paper” test a gas installation, that later exploded and nearly killed someone. Perhaps the Board members, investigator and my old boss talked it over at the meeting where my old boss “resigned” from another organisation the New Zealand Institute of Gas Engineers, because they were all members of that also. Also of note is that Allan Bickers and this same investigator, Tony Hammond, are members of IPENZ, but it is OK for our industry Board to have members of industry groups(against the best recommendations of NZ Law Commission) because we have a small population base to choose from, this is as per Maurice Williamson MP for Building and Housing, I have the letter where he states this.
I could go on and on, and have done and will continue to do so, but I will offer this up for comment now and welcome questions.
Please see below the open letter sent a few days ago to Max Pederson at PGDB.
Max, as your name is on the cover letter for the “report” it is to you I initially aim this reply to, but it is an open letter and I intend to circulate along with the report.
I am in receipt of the report into my concerns. It raises more questions than it answers. I publically accuse the Board of a cover up, nepotism and corruption. Yes I have had to be repetitive and will continue to be until this is fairly looked into.
You mention the complaint from Lance Windleburn, please can you show me where he complains about me in person, I have talked to Mr Windleburn and he said at no point was my work in question, as I remember the complaint specifically mentions dodgy certs, please correct me on this as I am living in a caravan with out my reference material, now in light of this tell me why the issue mentioned in the next paragraph below was and never has been tackled or addressed.
The elephant in the room is the pizza oven certificate, the certificate for last work to be done at Milton St, that then exploded. It appears the Board is unconcerned that, at the site of an explosion that nearly killed someone, the most recent work undertaken (before exploding) appears not to have been legally pressure tested for gas leaks. No one was questioned about it, even though the omitted information of testing came to light within days of the explosion? Also that the certificate appeared on your web site around the date of installation and you still appear to stand by the statement that it wasn’t registered at the Board? Isn’t the fact that it appeared on your website enough evidence and shows that someone is covering it up? In the report there is no mention either of the third hose sold by Allgas and fitted to the site of two fryers, with this extra hose fitted to the fryer apparently responsible for the explosion. All told to Mr Hammond.
Nor mentioned are the 3 certs that have writing on the master copies but not on the carbon copies or a letter accepted by the Board written in my name on Allgas letterhead 3 months after I left Allgas, to alter a certificate….again all told to Mr Hammond. There is a lot more, and it seems after reviewing ALL my correspondence a lot has been left out. It is selective and I intend to raise this at the Public Enquiry that is well over due.
Point 2.6, in the report states that the Board met to consider penalty, please can I get these minuets under a formal OIA request.
Point 2.19, safeguards are mentioned in relation to impartiality, please as another formal OIA request can I get a copy of these safeguards, I have already asked for the conflict of interest registers, if there are other safeguards please include them with this formal OIA request.
Point 2.26, if all decisions can be appealed under the 1976 Act, why did Mr Laurenson object to my appeal at the High Court? It appears the left hand doesn’t realise what the right hand has already done.
Point 3.5, how is it Mr Hammond can not find any substance in the complaint for Mr Darnley at the exploding chip shop, when Mr Darnley did the last work on site and then did (or didn’t) register a certificate with the Board with no gas leak pressure results filled in …..which later exploded……….but wasn’t even questioned about it. Please can you give me your definition on “impartial” and “substance”.
Point 4.3, you state that the certifying gasfitter must test and certify the work, then appear to have no problem with the numerous certs (11 in a test batch of just 150) I have highlighted to you missing the test entry, one of which is for the very site of an explosion, i.e. the pizza oven cert done by Mr Darnley at the exploding chip shop.
Point 4.6, the pink copy of a cert is to be ensured by the certifier to be registered at the Board. But it appears the Board and the “Impartial” investigator is not concerned about this “non registration” …..at the site of an explosion and all copies that are available are missing the leak test. Any one with a will to see, must see this as substance to the complaint by Mr Windleburn, I urge you to reread the original complaint from Mr Windleburn, as it specifically mentions dodgy certificates, you can’t get much more dodgy than an empty GAS LEAK PRESSURE TEST……AT AN EXPLOSION!!!!!!!! It beggars belief.
Point 4.14 and 4.15, Kern Uren’s testimony undermines both these points. If there was no problem with the accuracy then what brought about the disclaimer and Mr Uren’s comments at my hearing.
Point 4.29, yes I do admit to installing the pipework and testing it, as per some of the info on the cert ( pipework which was all later altered and shown to be altered by the withheld photos that were in the possession of Mr Hammond from very early on in the investigation), the handwriting on the cert, none of which is my handwriting. The last thing you do after installing pipe is test it, this was the 15th, I was handed it to sign later on and after this is when the alterations/additions were made. And you conveniently miss the third gas hose; do you think Mr Hammond was thorough in his investigation? Of note the 15 of the test date is in another colour ink (again not in my hand) and if any of the office staff was actually asked about it we might actually find out what happened.
You seem to not understand that what I was doing was what my boss told me to do, I was just the fitter i.e. employee (this is the context you should take my “mere” plumber comments in). I was acting under instruction and was a very trusting person; this is very much past tense. I had tried to tell the Board, MPs AND ANYONE WHO WOULD LISTEN FROM THE VERY TIME I LEFT ALLGAS, six years before the explosion.
Point 4.29 C. Who did he ask as his own report shows only briefly John Darnley and none of the people who actually filled out the certs, i.e. office staff?
Point 4.29 F, this is a bare faced lie and I call Mr Hammond on it, I passed a lot of comment on it at my interviews, the lop sided view on this of Mr Hammond and now the Board is very telling. At no point has anyone asked the question, why did Mr Darnley/Allgas change the status quo, I was doing as I was told. I told him in no uncertain terms I would be leaving ON THE 13th the day of my written warning, which was the day before he ordered the certs in my name for the first time. I was given a written warning for, ironically, airing my concerns about safety, all known to Mr Hammond and told to the Board, you have a copy of my letter of reply to this written warning but AGAIN have chosen to ignore it.
Point 4.31 A…. you again claim not to have had cert 299760, how did this one get on your website and if memory serves me right has the leak procedure empty.
B …..if the certifier who signs the cert is accountable for the work at a property regardless who owns the cert……….how do you justify the fact that the last work to be done at the exploding chip shop is signed by Mr Darnley but he was never interviewed about it or for that matter held accountable.
C….. yes I was offered copies of the certs, but I was also told there were over 1000 and it would cost $25 per cert, I was also told that a specific certificate was filled out correctly, but it wasn’t…. another apparent untruth.
Point 4.37 He wasn’t held responsible for anything at the Milton Street explosion site even though he issued the latest cert for the site, an incomplete one at that and claimed (by the Board and Mr Darnley) not to have been registered (which is meant to happen with in 10 days of installation, but this is ok apparently?
)….but it was in all probability received because it was entered on the website around the time of installation. On the face of it, it appears to being covered up by some one at the Board, it is incomprehensible that you claim not to have received a document, but it then appears on your website……how do you propose that happened?
??
Point 4.45, 6 and 7. How can a site be safe if not tested for leaks?? Has Mr Darnley been reprimanded for not filling out the test results on a cert for the site of an explosion?? If he has been investigated can I formally request by way of OIA any information pertaining to any punishment or investigation in relation to Milton St? It appears, in light of these 3 paragraphs mentioned of the report that the Board is making excuses for Mr Darnley not filling out the test results, apparently it is not a “specific requirement” and as far as I know he hasn’t been investigated for this……….at a site of an explosion where someone nearly died?
??
Point 4.49, I am aghast that an industry Board is playing with words on an issue so fundamental as testing your work for leaks, it also says in the same Act and Regs that all work is to be carried out in a safe manner and that the certifier has to be sure it is safe, this is impossible to do without a pressure leak test and it is unforgivable to break it down in to semantics and spin with wording, absolutely unbelievable.
Point 4.55 and 4.56 is just nonsensical. It contradicts its self. You have stated that the Board has never received a pink copy and that it only received a photocopy “after” the explosion…..but it was entered on the 8th April 2005 exactly four years before the explosion, then in point 4.58 say that there are no significant inaccuracies and no further action is to be taken, again unbelievable.
Point 4.61 My concerns about cert 345138 is not considered significant……..it bloody exploded!!!!! and wasn’t tested for leaks, apparently with the blessing of the Board, I now know the meaning of another word. I have learnt quite a few words courtesy of the Board…. vexatious, frivolous, minefield and now gobsmacked, totally and utterly gobsmacked. It is impossible for the Board to have a document added to its website and not received it, utterly and totally impossible.
Please can you print off a copy and pass to the office of the Ombudsman.
Please take this email also as a formal complaint about the plumbing at the site of the stagnant central heating water coming out of the hot water supply. Apparently you have already told the TA but as far as I know nothing has been done. It really needs attention. I have tried to contact them but have received no reply.
This report alone is reason enough for a public enquiry. Believe me, I have drawn a line in the sand. On blatant evidence such as this, if you think I am going to walk away form loosing my home, business and time with my young family and have sick and twisted filth put in front of my wife, you are so very much mistaken. I will see this looked into fairly and get my last bogus charge over turned and clear my name…….or spend the rest of my life trying, you have no idea how far I will take this or you would sort it out today, I do not listen to flannel and you dig yourself deeper by the day.
I had warned about all of this since 2003 and it was the Board who brushed it under the carpet……. and still do to this day.
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/pgdb-new-zealand-plumbing-gasfitting-and-drainlaying-board/30/a-corrupt-and-incompetent-pgdb/1199/
Share Topic
Topic: A corrupt and incompetent PGDB (Read 8710 times)
April 22, 2013, 10:54:37 PM