SEE ANY SPAM? PLEASE REPORT IT, TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY CLEAN.


Do you have a plumbing business? Is your business plumbing related? Register Now


Author Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014  (Read 81537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wal

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Karma: +80/-0
Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:44:30 AM »
Having an industry that is fearful of the regulator is not regulation but an oppressive bureaucracy.  Even after a change in Minister we appear to be no better off. Our impression is we, as an industry, are being punished because of failing Government and Board systems and it appears those in positions that can make change are too gutless to say “enough is enough”.

You would think that with a PhD in landslides at the University of Canterbury that the Minister, Dr Smith would realise the regulation of the industry is slipping away from his appointed Board.



Linkback: https://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2014, 08:35:25 AM »
Thanks to everyone involved in the Federation for all the work done in 2014 - great stuff.  And especially to Wal Gordon - a man amongst men, you have earned such respect for taking a stand, we need to follow your example. 

Interesting article about SKILLS - they seem such a bumbling group of individuals, scarily in charge of a huge amount of money.  Stephen Joyce made a major F++k up bundling all these ITO's together - it hasn't work for the betterment of industry (well, our industries anyway).  The beast is too large to be tamed almost, but then I remember the David and Goliath story....

Merry Christmas to all - the holidays can't come fast enough for me.
Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you?  Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?  (Walt Whitman 1819-1891)  American Poet

Offline Watchdog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
  • Karma: +27/-1
  • Plumber gasfitter and drainlayer
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2014, 07:52:32 PM »
Hi Jax and fellow readers.

Yes the Federation has done a lot for the industry this year and you have to take your hat off to all those who support Wal and the cause. When you see all the information that is published in the Fellow Practitioner each week it makes you wonder what will happen next. Perhaps there is still a lot more that the industry don't know about.

I remember seeing Wal on the TV a few years ago talking about the Paul Gee case and he said the faces on the Board change but not the attitudes. That stuck with me and as the years go by I think he was right back then and saw it long before us. Jax is right that we all need to step up and help. I think it will be my New Years resolution to get off my backside and help.


Offline Enn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: +22/-1
  • Ex-chef
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2014, 08:07:03 PM »
Well they say Nero fiddled while Rome burned so it is not a new management model.
 Just proven to have less than desirable outcomes!

They also say that as in life as in sewerage the good stuff floats to the top.

You get holidays Jax? :D

Enjoy your holidays guys, the way my phone has been going with people wanting stuff done before Christmas i could be flat out for a couple of months! It's the same every year....



 
''Never have so many been fooled by so few''
Plumbing is not a career it is a disease....

Offline Watchdog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
  • Karma: +27/-1
  • Plumber gasfitter and drainlayer
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2014, 10:04:21 AM »
They also say some organisations are like septic tanks.  Green and lush on the top but full of shit under the surface.

You don't have to have a PhD in landslides to know that if you don't have a solid foundation with depth then when pressure is put on the surface it will slip away exposing the poor structure underneath. No matter how much topsoil and manure you put on its not going to stop a landslide.

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2015, 10:54:53 PM »
Apparently they have published a policy on "dealing with unreasonable people".......

I should get a copy and apply it to how they fob the industry off with their fingers in their ears going lalalalalala, tell lies, hide evidence, turn a blind eye to blatant evidence, even misrepresent it and then tax us via a charity and frame innocent people......sounds pretty unreasonable to act like that.


Or just another way of coving up for being a dodgy bunch of....er hum Professionals. LOL.

Like a rotten tomato, nice and shiny on the outside but every time you prod it some more shit oozes out......needs blating.
You can't choose who you are.....but you are the sum of your choices.......

Offline wombles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +13/-0
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2015, 09:59:48 AM »
As I was driving thru Warkworth, I saw a 20m (approx) line of pexal on a commercial building that was not lagged and had turned white in the sun. Never seen that before. Perhaps if there were auditors checking full time rather than only when a complaint is made, this kind of thing could be corrected without the need for $20k hearing and a 10K fine

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2015, 03:26:24 PM »
I saw that policy on the website and can only assume, from the comfort of my arm chair that the policy has been written specifically for the Board's dealings with Paul Gee.  I imagine that they are not liking the fact that Paul is not going away quietly, he is not "taking his medicine" from the Board, and he is consistently pointing out inconsistencies  in the Board's approach to his case and the charges against him, and the case bought against others and the medicine handed out to them. 

This case would need to go down as one of the most shameful in the history of this PGDB.  The investigating was shoddy, ill conceived, some might say vindictive, and unprofessional in my opinion.  The holes that got shot through it by Wal Gordon and Paul were absolutely gobsmacking.  For the Board to lay 44, yes 44 charges and only get a guilty on 2 of them (and I believe Mr Gee is contesting the two he was found guilty on) shows that the Board did not do their homework before deciding to charge Mr Gee and going through with a farce of a hearing.

I believe there have been numerous items of correspondence from Mr Gee to the Board - and when I saw this policy I immediately thought that it had been written with him in mind so there will be a justification on their part now to no longer correspond or involve themselves with him.

I guess only time will tell whether this is true or not when they finally refuse to write back to Mr Gee and cite the policy as the reason.

I wonder if they will apply it internally?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2015, 06:30:30 PM »
I wonder if the shocking administrating of the gas cert system will come under this policy too, how dare we even ask?

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2015, 06:40:19 PM »
Sent just now.........


Mr Pederson,

 

Please by way of an OIA request please may I have a copy of the “dealing with unreasonable people” policy ,and also an answer to my most recent correspondence.

 

I ask all those copied in why the Board would need such a policy and I ask you to read this policy…….they have ignored a fraud, a life threatening explosion and a central heating system that could potentially kill some one, their own total cock up of administering their own gas cert system…..and the blatant framing of myself for something I did not do……and now they have a policy to legitimise ignoring me.

 

What happens if someone gets hurt? Will they have a policy to ignore that too?

 

 

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 

63 Takaka Valley Highway

Upper Takaka

Takaka 7183

 Mobile: 0274 33 33 50

 A/H: 03 525 9889

 

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014 9:42 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'; 'communications@pgdb.co.nz'; 'complaints@pgdb.co.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; 'campbelllive@tv3.co.nz'; 'Andrew Little'; 'jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Jude Hutton'
Subject: RE: Letter responding to 26 Nov email

 

Dear Janis,

 

Please can you pass this to Mr Ron Patterson and add it to the original complaint I made to the Ombudsman’s office, a complaint that you appear not to have any concern with, fairness for all?

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Pederson,

 

You could have given me this answer, letter attached, the same day I sent my request, but again you have managed to stall, until after Christmas this time, well done.

 

My OIA request is about your claim of my “varying emails” that you have alluded to in your letter 25th Nov, also attached. Please can I get all copies of these, re-my emails concerning this c/h system.

 

You mention in this previous letter in your own words,  that you can only decline a request because it is either frivolous or vextatious, if it is neither then you must appoint an investigator. Then you go on with no mention of my request being either frivilous nor vextatious.

 

So, in your own words you must appoint an investigator, and should have back in 2010. You activley promote that people should let the Board know about bad work, this isn’t just bad, it is potentially life threatening.

 

My information is not totally second hand, some is, but this I believe just adds weight to my complaint as it means other people saw things of concern. You have made no attempts to varify?

 

I witnessed first hand how he started this installation and he told me what his intentions were, which I was told by the apprentice later happened. What you see as secondhand evidence, I see as a second independent witness.

 

Ironically, you talk about a schematic not being used, but you make no comment about his comments of “just use poker face and pretend you know what your doing”, when I requested this schematic.

 

The schematic, attached, is how I believe and have been later told the system has been intalled.

 

I also believe it is the Board’s duty to determine whether or not the system has been installed in such a dangerous manner, protecting the public is the reason for your charity status, is it not (oh and for tax reasons).

 

The risk of legionaires disease is very real. I ask you this Max, if this property has one gas cert for only a califont, but has central heating, with no cental heating boiler, then please explain to me how the instantly heated hot water is being heated for both the radiators and the hot water. The plain first hand evidence is there for you to see, if you would but look.

 

Under an OIA request please can I get a copy of the letters you apparently must have sent to Mr Darnley, re - my many compliants. This you say must be sent under section 90(3) of the act, upon receiving a complaint, from anyone, even me. You should have quite a few of these as I have complained many, many times since 2010 (this is much longer I believe, at least by phone call in any event). Just to be clear I would like a copy of all these letters and all the responces the Board have received in relation to this matter.

 

You mention that under section 3 of the act you will not be taking any action, especially as the owner wants nothing to do with it (apparently now you have no problem relying on second hand hearsay when it suits you), as it will make it “practically impossible”.

 

In light of this comment, please can you tell me why section 96 (2) of the act does not apply? This is not a reason to “not” appoint an investigator (a double negative, bad grammer which is something I have become acustomed to in dealing with the Board…. please see the Boards take on impartiallity).

 

It is an indication of your reluctance to investigate Mr Darnley, who you have also “overlooked” in his blatant involvment in an explosion that nearly killed some one, but you saw fit to make me the scapegoatn for this, for something that I had warned about for many years before the terrible incident……sound familiar Max?

 

 

 

96 Restriction on entry to dwellinghouse

·         (1) Despite section 93, an investigator may not enter a dwellinghouse without—

·         (a) the consent of the occupier of the dwellinghouse; or

·         (b) a warrant issued under subsection (2).

(2) A District Court Judge, on the written application of the investigator, may, by warrant, authorise the investigator to enter a dwellinghouse.

(3) The District Court Judge may authorise the investigator to enter a dwellinghouse under subsection (2)—

·         (a) only if the Judge is satisfied that—

·         (i) the proposed entry is necessary for the purposes of section 93; and

·         (ii) the investigator has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the consent of the occupier to the proposed entry; and

·         (b) subject to any conditions that the Judge thinks fit.

 

 

I think for the Board to prevent any possible/potential danger to the public would be a condition any judge would think fit……What happens when someone falls ill, or worse Max, it is on your shoulders.

 

Perhaps Mr Campbell  could send one of his reporters to this house and sample the water from the radiators and shower, and take note of how many gas water heating appliances are there at the dwelling and whether there is any central heating radiators coming from the one gas water heater, and whether the hot water is heated instantly when a hot tap is opened, an impossibility if these c/h rads and the water are separated (which they should be to prevent cross-contamination, this is basic 101 central heating).

 

You appear to be be prepared to gamble with peoples lives. What happens when this unconcerned owner sells this house, and someone unknowingly puts their kids in that shower to bathe?

 

It is reprehensable that you won’t look at this and you have offered no credable reasons not to. You have mearly used lawyers double speak and stalled, again, and refused to investigate Mr Darnley, again.

 

 

 


Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2015, 06:44:21 PM »
In my hot water cupboard of dealing with these corrupt twats......I am going to miss my little open vent by email........better go check my TPR when they take away that open vent, and perhaps turn my temp down.....hope my stat don't fail......

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2015, 06:48:46 PM »
From the nice people from the tele......



Thank you for contacting Campbell Live.

 

We do receive a high volume of emails, if your story is of interest to us we will be in touch as soon as we can. It's helpful to have a phone number to contact you on, and please include your original text with that so we have all the information together.

 

Many thanks,

the Campbell Live Team.


Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2015, 09:23:48 PM »
hi guys, the board cannot `undo` their illegal rulings of the past! ah but wait they just get the governing minister to change the law to say they can, and they did, bugger is that even legal? cheers 

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2015, 04:38:03 AM »
Still got some up my sleeve mate....

What every kiwi (not just those tradies affected by these goons) should ask themselves is....... even if this is massive to me and my family (and believe me it is huge), it is mere small fry to the powers that be..... but if they will cover up such corruption and ineptitude over a "relatively" small matter.....what do they do over the big stuff, the world changers?

As a Government, you are not only judged by your actions but also by your inactions and what you are prepared to ignore. Or do we have acceptable levels of corruption and law breaking?

If the law of the land only applies to some (usually the "lower" levels, the least powerful) and not others (usually the ones running the show, and from my experience it is a show), it is a form of control not democracy.

Which is it?


I want to read this policy and apply it to them and their recorded and documented behaviour, with signed correspondence.

Someone else send Campbell live an email, the more the merrier ......... god knows they have a few off me.... just copy and paste off here if you want.

Offline Badger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Karma: +220/-151
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2015, 05:09:30 PM »
The attachments from the correspondence below........


You got to ask why they are so against checking that this house is safe....

 


Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via twitter

Similar Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 235 Dated 5 December 2014

Started by Wal

5 Replies
1256 Views
Last post December 10, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
by Jaxcat
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 184 Dated 6 December 2013

Started by Wal

2 Replies
1148 Views
Last post December 06, 2013, 02:13:52 PM
by Jaxcat
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 185 Dated 13 December 2013

Started by Wal

5 Replies
1425 Views
Last post December 13, 2013, 04:01:14 PM
by robbo
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 186 Dated 20 December 2013

Started by Wal

1 Replies
764 Views
Last post December 23, 2013, 06:39:28 AM
by Watchdog
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)