Gas Safe Register - No More DIY ?

[BodgeIt]

Just received a flyer from a local heating company about the gas safe register.

It states (quote) "Under the new regulations from 1st April it will be illegal for anyone other than a gas safe registered engineer to perform work on gas appliances in your home"

Does this mean that a 'competent' DIYer can no longer install a gas fire or a hob or a boiler. It was my (limited) understanding under the CORGI scheme that only 'paid for' work or work in a rented out property had to be done by a CORGI engineer?

Has it changed ??

Cheers

[Andrew Gabriel]

See recent thread. There's no change in the law. The gas industry has always struggled to understand the laws that apply to it.

[John Rumm]

and the new scheme is being run by crapita who do have a bit of a reputation for less that accurate publications!

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:53:24 +0000 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:-

Indeed. They will no-doubt word their spam very carefully to imply all sorts of things while not actually saying them. This can be seen in other things they operate, such as the BBC tax system.

[ARWadsworth]

Such as the letter I received this week from Crapita that informed me that I need to take immediate action to prevent the risk of a court appearance as I do not have a TV license for my address:-)

Adam

[ARWadsworth]

your attendance at school is not up to scratch.

[BodgeIt]

Could you point me to the recent thread you mentioned, I can't locate it. Thanks

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:23:07 GMT someone who may be "ARWadsworth" wrote this:-

Crapita are.

[.]

20th March .Posted by Vass

[.]

20th March .Posted by Vasss " No More Corgi" [e-mail]

[The Medway Handyman]

,

But you don't have a TV... Let them take you to court - just for a laugh!

[Graham.]

He could own a dozen TVs, It doesn't necessarily follow that he needs a licence.

[Tim S]

John Rumm coughed up some electrons that declared:

Indeed - remember it's crapita who run the TV License operation...

[Frank Erskine]

:-)

[geoff]

In message , ARWadsworth writes

I've given up even sending abusive replies back

I just ignore them

[Andrew Gabriel]

I used to reply when they included a reply-paid envelope and a tick-the-boxes form, as that's the max time and money I was prepared to spend on it. Then they didn't bother you for 3 years. Since there's no longer a quick free way to reply, their stuff (which usually says things like someone's on their way around to visit) just gets put in the junk mail pile.

A few years ago whilst I had scaffolding up, I took the opportunity to put up a TV and FM aerial, and I thought that might result in more persistent nagging, but I don't see any sign they've noticed it. The TV part isn't connected to anything inside.

[Phil L]

Yes. If you buy any copper tubing or a blowtorch at B&Q, a SWAT team will follow you home and kick the door down whilst you are plumbing, resistance is futile and you may end up in Guantanamo bay in a straightjacket while large blokes called Hank take it in turns waterboarding you and asking if you have a sister.

[ARWadsworth]

You just reply on the back of the envelope and then write "return to sender" on the address side. The reply need not be abusive and it may be illegal if it was abusive.

I would be delighted to have a reply-paid envelope and a tick-the-boxes form to return every twelve months so that I could respond for free and state that I do not use a TV. I would also consider using a freephone number if there was such a system.

Every envelope sent back costs the TVLA money.

Adam

[Doctor Drivel]

NO. The law has not changed.

[Ed Sirett]

It also costs the postal service and that puts tension between the two parties which may help in the long run to reduce the nag pile.