I agree with you both here and the snipped bit further down. It is the case
(as you say) that legal precedent, which will define the law in detail, is
yet to be set. My point was that I bet (if you like) that the covert intent
is to discourage DIY and that, given that, when legal rulings are handed
down, they will slant that way. You are right that it isn't and cannot be
said to be definitely illegal to DIY gas work unless CORGI registered *yet*
as the law has not been refined. I suspect (and said) that it will
*probably* turn out to be illegal.
The unfortunate thing is that it will be (in the end) DIY work that was
neither competent or "competent" and which causes death or injury (ar, at
best, significant damage) that will trigger the legal ruling. This too will
slant the outcome. No-one is going to take a competent person to court for
doing a proper job even if they aren't "competent", I suspect!
I agree, if you were competent then I would have thought that it would
be an easy enough defence to mount with the aid of an expert witness
etc. So the chances of a case being brought against someone competent
(technically) would seem slight. A much more likely target would be the
outright bodger who lashed up a boiler with speedfit.
If you have a look at the most recent accident stats (same site), they
show 5 fatalities as a result of explosion / fire, and 20 more from CO
poisoning. Given the very low accident rate (in the grand scheme of
things) There must be massive probability that all these accidents
occurred on set-ups installed by a "fitter" rather than a DIYer.
No it's not. This was discussed when the gas regs were last revised.
Some of the vested interests (e.g. CORGI) wanted it banned, but there
was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in any nasty incidents,
so it was not banned. The nasty incidents are caused by incompetant
traders (some CORGI but more not), lack of servicing (which banning
DIY would only make worse most likely), and leaks in the supply
network external to the premises (Transco's responsibility).
I would certainly hope (personally) this turned out to be the case! Having a
somewhat cynical outlook when it comes to the unholy alliance of vested
interests, politicians and legislators however, I would change your words to
"...there was no evidence that DIY gas work had resulted in nasty incidents,
so it could not be banned outright." That doesn't mean time wont be bided
until it can be banned - look at the notices in B&Q and on equipment quoted
here, the programme that was the original subject of this thread, more and
more one has to say "no, that's not actually the law" - continuous gentle
pressure will do the trick against us eventually. Most likely in the long
term is an integration of Part P and the gas regulations (neater -
legislators like that) which is likely to be more prescriptive - when can
you remember a law that swung the pendulum the DIY way away from industry
As with all such legislation, those who are most likely to do a
conscientious job will not want to go against the law and those who don't
give a sh*t will carry on not giving a sh*t and nothing will be any
safer.Everyone on this ng (more or less) knows that but, wonderful people
though we are, no-one will pay any attention to us.
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).
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.
In law, the term common sense means nothing.
Now onto other matters.
I was cleared to work with far more dangerous gasses than the stuff that
came from the North Sea. Shouldn't that make me a competent person to
work with less dangerous gasses?
Only if you understand domestic appliances ... I'm not denigrating your
knowledge and skills by any means but surely there's a difference between
what happens on rigs/platforms and kitchens/bathrooms? It can't be just a
matter of scale.
Would Spouse, who knows a LOT about domestic appliances, be capable of doing
the job you did on the North Sea?
Mary, I was not trained to work on any North Sea platform. :-)
I did, however work with liquid and gaseous oxygen in the aerospace
industry. Now if you can think of any explosive gas more dangerous than
that, (that is common in industry) then let me know.
If I can work with oxygen, then I am sure I can work with North Sea gas.
It's a baby, in comparison.
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:24:39 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:
I am fully prepared to admit that Dave's skills in pipe fitting far exceed
my own. However there is more to gas fitting that pipework; flueing,
ventilation and siting to name a but a few. He may or may not be familiar
with these aspects of installing a gas appliance.
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
I did consider fitting a new boiler last year, but as you say, my skills
at pipe work and soundness might pass the test, but my knowledge of how
to get the best out of a flue told me to keep my hands in my pocket and
get a CORGI in and then get my hands out of the pocket :-)
As far as replacing pipes and gas components, I don't have a problem
until it comes to the open ends, like a flame. This is the time to get
an expert in. I have met some of them, in the past, that just looked at
the flame and turned round and told me just what the problem was.
Ed, just to correct you on this.
It was my job to test, commission and sign for flight, not bend the
pipes. I have every admiration for anyone who can bend pipes that easily.
Though I can bend pipes, I am no expert, I just know the rules to follow
competent probably (I would guess) but, due to the strangeness of the law we
both alluded to, possibly not a "competent person"! You'd have a far better
chance of convincing them that you were than most of us would though,
especially if you have a qualification.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.