no more Corgi?

[Vass]

raising for t' Gov't again?

[Bob Mannix]

There is also no mention of competence when doing the work, just:

"It is law that anyone carrying out gas work that is within the scope of the Regulations is on the Gas Safe Register from 1 April 2009"

So DIY stuff has 2 weeks to go?

[Peter Andrews]

I don't believe the law has changed, just the registration authority - so carry on DIY.

AIUI if you don't get paid for the work and are COMPETENT it's OK.

Peter

[the realfictitious]

And on that site I can see absolutely no mention of folk who D-I-Y gas work ....not even to say they can't do it .

[Bob Mannix]

Well that was my point, it does say:

It is law that anyone carrying out gas work that is within the scope of the Regulations is on the Gas Safe Register from 1 April 2009

not "anyone carrying out gas work for money". It's likely the regulations have not changed and the wording is deliberately misleading, but it is the wording!

[matthew.larkin]

Surely that's one (of several) conditions of being "gas work that is within the scope of the Regulations". It might have been better for them to describe what constitutes the scope of the regulations, but I presume they are reasonably complex.

Matt

[Dave Liquorice]

Depends what "within the scope of the Regulations" covers.

AIUI the current Regulations say that individuals only have to be "competent" and that registration is only required for paid work or work on other peoples gas systems. Thus they don't cover DIY by a "competent" individual. Are the Regulations changing?

[John Rumm]

Indeed. The regulations include within them a scope which is set out in the GSIR part B General Provisions:

[Bob Mannix]

again, are as clear as people think. The only classes of people discussed are employed or self employed. The regulations are silent on other classes of people. There is no provision for DIY people to be competent but not CORGI, as they are not mentioned at all. Were someone to take the view that DIY people were "self employed" for the duration of the gas work they were doing, they would clearly have to be registered. It all comes down to the definition of "self-employed" within the meaning of the regulations, in the end (AFAICS), which may have been decided already somewhere, not what they say about DIY.

[John Rumm]

Well they spell out two classes of person (employed and self employed) and state they are in the scope of the requirement to be a member of a class of persons etc. By implication if you are not in those classes then you are not required to be a member of a class of persons. You may or may not be able to carry out gas work - however that should then come down to a straight assessment of your "competence" (as yet undefined).

Its an interesting question...

Alas in spite of many years of lobbying by individuals and organisations representing small businesses and contractors, there is still no legal definition, or status of being self employed in the UK. (its also worth noting that, just to add insult to injury, ones legal status can be contrary to ones taxation status - hence you can be legally self employed, but taxed as an employee or vice versa)

It strikes me it would be difficult to claim someone doing work just for their own benefit is as a result self employed. Having said that - this is not a test that the courts are typically asked to resolve (i.e. is a person just an individual or a self employed individual). The common question they do need to answer is whether someone is employed or self employed - for which mechanisms (albeit sometimes archaic) are available[1].

[1] Generally, each case needs to be assessed individually by taking a view on the overall arrangement between the worker and the person procuring the work. This is done by applying a series of tests to the arrangement in attempt to establish a balanced picture of said arrangement. The tests have evolved out of case law and legal precedent over the last hundred years or so. Typically they include tests like who controls how the work is done; is there a master to servant relationship; if there a mutual obligation on the notional employer to provide work, and on the potential employee accept it; is the potential employee in business of their own account etc.

[Bob Mannix]

I was recently involved in a private legal dispute where a legal document was "silent" on an issue. The legal representatives on both sides immediately interpreted to suit their clients (as they will always, to get the business) and the matter was decided by a judge (and this is no implication of wrong doing) arbitrarily. I would be wary of a regulatory system that was silent as far as I am concerned (if I felt it was important that is).

I don't really mind as I have no particular axe to grind, but sometimes silence speaks volumes and there may be more than one "common sense" interpretation! One day a judge *will* decide one way or the other and the law will be made from that day forward (unless it has and I have missed it) irrespective of all the years of arguing and points put forward and that will be that.

Yes, even more likely the decision will be arbitrary! Of course legislators may spot this in the mean time and amend the legislation - one DIY gas bang and it's game over, I suspect!

[Ed Sirett]

No they are self financing from the fees I and others pay to them. C[r]apita are the new Corgi. The HSE have appointed a new organization to keep a register of gas work professionals.

These are the same crew who run TV licensing and the Congestion Charge.

[John Rumm]

Its not a very satisfactory system one I have to agree. It seems designed to keep lawyers in business! The worrying trend is that ever more legislation is written this way - and great swathes of it are ushered in under statutory instruments that can defer the actual detail to subordinate documents that will never receive parliamentary scrutiny and can be changed at will.

Well maybe, maybe not. The HSE have admitted in the past that they are not aware of any problems resulting from DIY fitting. The bulk of the real concern being illegal commercial work IIUC. I expect part of the reason there has never been a concerted push to outlaw DIY is a realisation that the status quo works reasonably well anyway[1], and also that enforcement of a ban would be impossible.

[1] With joe public assuming that it is illegal and hence leaving well alone; corgi doing nothing to dissuade them from that assumption (and in many cases reinforcing it).