It was mentioned earlier. If you do the work, and it's fine, you're competent. If it is not OK, you are by definition not competent. This (competency) id referred to in all sorts of regulations, not just for gas work.
I'm sorry, I don't believe that to be true, Aside from anything else (eg the intent of the law, the difference between "competent" (a matter of opinion) and a "competent person" (demonstrably competent BEFORE the event) )it's quite possible for someone who is not competent to get it right occasionally. This would not mean they should do such work again.
Yes, but, again you are confusing competent and "competent" One thing that is NOT in doubt is that the law regards CORGI's as "competent persons" (it says so). If they turn out to be incompetent, then their CORGI registration might be revoked, at which point they cease to be a "competent person" (but only then) .
It is tempting, but counter-productive, to cinfuse the sommon sense meaning of a word with the meaning of a word that has been used for a particular purpose in an act of Parliament (or any other legal document).
Bob Mannix
I don't think they would be quite so strict.
The fact that the law only defines "competent" to mean "CORGI" for paid work means that you can infer that the intent was not to define "competent" to mean "CORGI" for own house DIY work. Otherwise, they would have simply defined "competent" to mean "CORGI" for all work.
That is not to say that they would expect the highest levels of workmanship and skill etc. You'd have to do the job just as well as a registered fitter. No skimping on the leak testings, or not wrapping buried pipes or leaving flux all over the place.
I regard myself as competent at most things, but I still wouldn't do gas work myself (beyond connecting a bayonet), as I don't think I know about it in enough detail.
Christian.
Competent non corgi people *can* install gas but not for reward.
sponix
|| Unlike the sgns in B&Q which state that ANY gas work must be done by || a CORGI-registered person.
It's actually worse than that Frank. I bought a quick release cooker hose and a roll of gas tape in B&Q. Both of the packages clearly stated that it was "illegal to fit or use the product unless CORGI registered, therefore no instructions are given".
So even if you are competant, any instructions that might make you even more competant have been removed.
So how come they are still selling them then?
Dave
But what you (and Chris Bacon) are implying is a Darwinian system which encourages all to "have a go" because the only judgment on competency is done AFTER the job (and, of course, most would imagine themselves to be competent). The intent of the law is absolutely the opposite - to prevent all from having a go so there are fewer accidents. This can only be achieved by some system of ensuring competency is demonstrated a priori.
No, one cannot be certain of the meaning of the words yet but:
I am 100% certain the meaning of competenet person will, eventually, be decided in court
I am 90% certain the reason for the court hearing will be because of incompetency (biassing the judge against DIY)
I am 70% certain the judge (taking the above and the intent of the law into account) will come down against DIY and pro CORGI, making competency almost impossible to demonstrate outside CORGI.
Of course, that leaves a 30% chance he won't. We will, I am sure, all found out some time!
Bob Mannix
Well, it is.
It's also possible for a trained person to do something wrong, in which case for that job they were not competent, e.g. your referenced CORGI, who can be prosecuted.
I'm not confusing anything.
They're just covering their arses in case you mess up.
Christian.
< definition of competent >
So am I. It will be the only definition which will count but I don't think it's been tested yet.
Yes.
Not necessarily.
Yes. I hope it's later rather than sooner. I know that there are incompetent installers (of everything) but I don't think that there are accidents in 30% of installations.
That's merely opinion, however. I'm not a judge.
Mary
I would qaulify and say not necessarily true (with knobs on :o) ) - what about the next job?
Yes, true but, in the eyes of the law, when they did the job they were doing it as a "competent person" and the person who hired them (if they did) did the correct thing and hired a "competent person".
Of all right, refusing to accept my distinction - fair enough.
(see other post replying to Christian)
Don't get me wrong, I deplore the whole CORGI/Part P fiasco but that shouldn't blind one to how things are (or are likely to be), just because we don't like them.
Bob Mannix
Not in any official capacity anyway :)
Hey, if we start having a go at people for being judgemental on ng's, there would be no-one left ;o)
Bob Mannix
But being a CORGI does *not* mean you are immune from prosecution! You have to take tests to be a CORGI - which lets you in to that organisation. If you at ant time make a mistake, you were not competent by definition, and can be prosecuted, not just be expelled from CORGI. People are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
But I assume the CORGI or their employer would have indemnity insurance which would cover them to a point.
Well I agree with that. I don't think there's much to be gained from arguing about CORGI's who have a well defined place in the scheme of things (and are not immune to prosecution as you say). The argument is over the meaning of "competent person" (in the not-a-CORGI sense to do with gas work), who would define this term, and when, and what the definition will be. It's not an exact science but the definition will come eventually.
Bob Mannix
Surely having a go at someone for being judgmental would be a bit hypocritical anyway :)
The meaning is that the person is competent. If they do a bad job, they were not competent. That's all there is to it! That is *why* the term is not spelt out in black and white, so that the accused can't just say "Well I passed all the tests, so it was not my fault".
It makes no difference. Why did the job blow up? If it's because of an installation fault, it is because the installer was not competent. If it's because of something else (someone drilled into the gas pipe) then it's nothing to do with whether the installer was competent.
The *only* reason that something should "go to court" is because the installer was perhaps not competent. The standard of work decides that.
It won't cover the osds from going to prison!
Nowadays it could as easily be down to a bomb factory going off
Clearly, if you were the judge, that would be true! :o)
I meant the court hearing mentioned in the first para., which will be the one where the precise meaning of the act is defined - there may be other reasons for a court case as you say.
Indeed but I believe you are missing the point. The gas installation regulations and the requirement for CORGI registration or a "competent person" were NOT brought into being to allow only the successful prosecution of incompetent people AFTER the event. They were put in place to prevent accidents by trying to ensure that work was done in the first place by competent people (the issue of whether they will be successful in this is a different topic!). To do this you cannot rely on "if the work was done OK the installer was competent" approach. There has to be some demonstration of competence before the job is done. If a person really is competent then ther's clearly no problem. The problems start when they are not and think they are.
We shall see the truth eventually, whatever is said here.
Bob Mannix
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.