What do you mean? Anyone can run pretty much any business, qualified or not. The issue should be whether unqualified persons are certifying jobs, signing documents they are not qualified to sign.

I run my own business, but if I need a job certified I have it inspected and certified by a qualified person. I tell my customers that there is a part of my industry I am not personally qualified in as yet and they have never had an issue. Their concern is that the job is properly certified and as long as it is legally done they are not concerned who does it.

I'm sure the PGDB is aware of the issues in the industry, but your proposal may leave you open to charges of libel or slander and may wrongly hurt legitimate businesses operating within the law.

hi guys, yes when you sign that cert you need the backing of the company you are working for and insurance, it`s all well and good to think that your boss will back you up if things go wrong but if he dose`nt you up the creek while all the time he is making plenty out of the system, i don`t think the self cert system was though through well enough so will be glad when it is gone,cheers

I agree with the comments here - there have been small pockets calling for the same system as Australia - that is where everyone has their registration number displayed on their vehicle as a legal requirement.  This makes it clear to the home owner as well that  theyhave a fully qualified person. 

As to business insurance - you cannot get insurance to cover neglect in any form.  If you do not follow the legal statutes and regulations relating to the trade you work in then no amount of insurance will cover you.  Insurance companies do their own investigations into each claim and if they suspect you have not acted professionally then they have an out not to pay.  Public Liability covers damage consequential to actions you might take.

Certifiers employed by business owners should only be responsible for signing off their own work.  I do not understand why they would do otherwise unless they were being paid a rather large sum to oversee others work.  On the other hand a certifier should be expected to sign of his or her work - this is what they are being paid for.  As a firm with multiple certifiers this has never been a problem.  No one is asked to sign off anyone else's work, but they are expected to sign off their own. 

We need to encourage our young trainees to aim to become certifiers, not to be content to stop at licensed stage.  The number of certifying gasfitters for example is very low, I think just over 1000 for the whole of NZ.  We should even back the sort of apprenticeship which goes right through to certifying status, and the sooner a formal course of study is written to provide the link between licensing status and certifying status the better. 

I'm against non-licencsed/non-registered people operating businesses which specialise in plumbing, gasfitting or drainlaying. Unfortunately they can though as the PGDB Act doesn't control it. It simply controls who can physically do the actual work.

I know of guys covering for three or four businesses which really annoys me but I make sure that same CP meets me on every job that the different businesses do. If he doesn't turn up I fail it as I'm not satisfied it was done by the appropriately licensed person. This annoys him but he's stuck with it as I have to know that he has given direction or supervised over every job.

The same problem exists with every type of regulated trade or position. I could go out and run a hospital, law firm, accounting firm or a dentistry as long as the people I employed could do the work legally. I don't see any change to this happening. All we can do is make sure they follow the law to the letter.

I agree with all of the above in regards to non certifying tradesmen operating there own business. 'licensed' plumbers operating there own business's are still required to work under the direction of a certifying person but in reality we all no this isn't the case! its not simply just getting ya mate in to sign off the job! you're not qualified to work alone unsupervised so you shouldnt be doing it!

I know of a dozen business's where the operators are not even licensed! You tell the board and they sit on there hands! Soooo whats a disciplinary levy being used for? Latte's and a piss up on a friday avo? Wouldnt suprise me!!

hi guys, yes what a minefield, do you really want to get involved?..TS, does anyone remember the "Shannon's" franchises, yes i believe they all went belly-up just like the person who thought he would make a fortune out of them,cheers

hi guys/jax,from what you i pressume he is actually registered just did`nt want to re-licence this is what the trade is coming to today, why could`nt he do a good job? if he was a properly trained tradesman he should have been able to, if he had i would think that you would not have been involved,cheers