A reply from the Board regarding signatures!!!!!!!!!
It reads bottom to top as it is an email
Hi Max,
I am confused, I thought that a signature is what makes a letter legal and identifies to the reader that the signatory is not only aware that the letter has been carried out in their name but that it becomes a legal document, in the same vein as a gas certificate for example.
So, I find it quite ironic and of great concern that the Acting Registrar, Kern Uren, has procedures that in effect give the impression that a letter is signed on his behalf, with the signatory unaware of its existence, but then can prosecute a tradesman for signing certificates, which have been altered after he had signed them, and refusing to acknowledge my bringing it up or even investigate that possibility. I believe it is just a bit hypocritical too.
In my case I have offered 3 out of a batch of 89 certs, that show beyond doubt that there is writing on the pink master copy but absent from the blue carbon copy, the added writing is defiantly not in my hand along with the rest of the writing on these certs, but the Acting Registrar, Kern Uren (who phoned me and “warned” me in a manner that I found quite un nerving and also I find the coincidence too much concerning the letters mentioned below, he also apparently gave false evidence at the regulation review), said I was being vexatious. If his meaning that he supplied from his dictionary on the meaning of vexatious is true, then my trying to bring to the Board’s attention this evidence, was to cause trouble and not that I was offering valid evidence to get a fair hearing. The “impartial” investigator also has decided to ignore this. I have personally told both Kern Uren and Tony Hammond about these certs. This “impartial” investigator actually “had a large input” in to bringing the self certification system in to being, which, in appointing him as an “impartial” investigator, is a bit like asking a father what faults he can find in his offspring. The investigator also withheld information, which was only grudgingly granted when applied for under the privacy act, that the offending hose in this incident, had had it’s “outer sheath cut away some time previously, as evidenced by the dirt and grease present on the flexible pipe below” this can be found in the forensic scientist report, signed 3 weeks after the explosion. In my experience this outer sheath is a major part of the integrity and soundness of these particular cooker hoses, this evidence didn’t even make it in to his report to the Board.
After the farce of my last hearing into the Board’s impartiality, presided over by at least 3 members about whom the complaint was actually about (this would give them a majority), a hearing where I could not cross examine anyone. Bearing in mind it was done in light of a paper written by the NZ Law Commission January 2008, Wellington, New Zealand which states-
5.36 A difficulty arises here in that occupational regulatory and disciplinary bodies are
often funded by the relevant industry, which may adversely affect perceptions of
their independence. However, this funding is necessary. We suggest that it may be
acceptable for these bodies to be funded through mechanisms such as licensing fees
and industry levies provided that they are independent from industry associations
and other purely industry groups, and that other mechanisms are in place to
safeguard their independence.
Then you will have to forgive me for not holding much faith in getting a fair go at the next hearing, which will be presided over by the same people I presume. Since sending out a blanket email yesterday I have received several emails from people who have been dealt to by the Board, and frankly feel as though they have been shafted, lied to and basically set up.
Please Max turn off the path set by your predecessors; since I have been involved in this situation I have met many, many people who say the same thing about the procedures and attitude of the Board, and its honesty and integrity. Actually I haven’t met one person who has had anything positive to say (unless you count Board Members). I believe in the principle of the Board and what it stands for, just not how certain people represent it. As it is now it is killing our industry and quality tradesman are leaving in droves.
Thank you Max, please don’t take any of this personally, but I am at my wits end and just trying to get someone with a fair and open mind to genuinely look at what I am saying, this is something that I don’t believe will happen if the people who I have encountered so far continue to over see and carry out their duties. There is a lot more that I can show you and would be happy to do so.
I apologize in advance for copying in the media, MPs and Federation members but in my horrendous experience the people I have dealt with so far tend to do the right thing in a public forum, I am not tarring you with the same brush, but my faith in human nature is at an all time low, I was a very trusting person before and this is what got me into this position. I am about to loose everything, for something I tried to warn about as far back as 2003 and by letter in June 06 from my local MP, my family come first and foremost in my priorities and if I must chance putting a few noses out of joint in the process of protecting/providing for them then I will do everything I possibly can.
I truly hope you can accept this email in the intention that it is written. It is no reflection on yourself, but just a desperate man trying to look after his family and protect the public, I hope you are not offended.
Best Regards
Paul Gee
Managing Director
Gas, Solar & Plumbing Services Ltd
PO Box 249, Takaka 7142 NZ
03 525 9889 / 0274 33 33 50
From: Max Pedersen [mailto:Max@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: 25 February 2011 5:34 p.m.
To: Wal Gordon
Subject: RE: Gas Certificate Response
Hi Paul
Thanks for your email. I have now carried out enquiries into the matters that you have raised.
The letters in question that were sent to you are as a result of the Board carrying out assessments of gas compliance certificates that were not transferred across from the hard copy database to the new electronic database due to problems validating addresses or other material details missing. This work is being undertaken by our Certification Administrator using a standard letter that uses the Deputy Registrar’s electronic signature. Mr U’ren would not personally have known that the letter was being sent to you and it is unrelated to the other matters before the Board.
Accordingly, I am happy for you to make the necessary changes to the gas compliance certificates within the next 14 days from now. Once these have been received the Certification Administrator will enter these onto the electronic database.
Regards
Max Pedersen
Chief Executive
Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
p: 04 494 2970 f: 04 494 2975 w:
www.pgdb.co.nz PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
This email contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, which may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby on notice that you are in possession of confidential and privileged information. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone (collect) and return the original email to the sender at the above email address.
From: Wal Gordon [mailto:wal.gordon@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2011 1:54 p.m.
To: Max Pedersen
Cc: Kern Uren
Subject: Gas Certificate Response
Dear Mr Pederson
This is Paul Gee from Wal Gordon’s email address.
As you are no doubt aware I am currently in Wellington attending a Board Hearing and have been since Monday night.
Prior to leaving, actually on the way to the airport, I cleared the PO Box and found an envelope containing two letters dated 17 February 2011 giving me ten days to respond to a request by the Board’s Acting Registrar, Kern U’ren.
The Acting Registrar would have been fully aware I was going to be in Wellington for most of this week. I find it quite disturbing he is attempting to add pressure to me in what is already a stressful situation. Why would he send out letters with a deadline of tens days from the date of the letter when I would not have a show of meeting that requirement due to being involved in a Board Hearing. Both of theses certificates are at least two years old what was the rush.
I will respond to the letters at my earliest convenience as I have been stuck in Wellington for what was to be a three day hearing which was in fact less than two hours.
I apologise for the delay and will give it my attention on my return to Nelson
Yours sincerely
Paul Gee