Plumbing and Gas fitting Forum

Support => Fellow Practitioners Update => Topic started by: Wal on December 12, 2014, 06:44:30 AM

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


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


Title: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Wal 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.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat 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.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Watchdog 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.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Enn 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....



 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Watchdog 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.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: wombles 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
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat 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?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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.

 

 

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo 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 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger 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....

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 10, 2015, 08:24:31 AM
I have been warning about dodgy certs covering dodgy work since 2002, my boss bought 4 books of certs in my name just after I told him I couldn't work for some one who was clueless and had no concept of safety. Which was understandable because he had no formal training and was given hid full craftsman's ticket, by none other than the same person who the Board later knowingly appointed to be the "impartial" investigator.

I was told by the investigator when I told him about these books of certs mentioned above that "it was common practice" and when I pushed it that "I should make sure I have my own house in order before dobbing my boss in" and that the system "was too big to fail", well Tony my house was in order and the cert system has failed.

The Board then went on to ignore a fraud that was highlighted at my hearing (this was separate to my boss and the explosion, although I believe there were others), a near fatal explosion, altered charges, conflicts of interest, they sent child sexual case notes to my wife, lied about me, wrote all the statements for the witnesses at my hearing (which some said they wouldn't sign, one saying that if she had "seen the photo she never would have signed"), wrote lies in my local paper about my short coming for my ability to position a califont.....then later ignored a califont at another address, which was fitted closer than mine (note:my customer said it was never a problem, the one the Board ignored.. was closer and had been complained about by the owners), there is lots more, lots lots more etc etc.


Whose behaviour is unreasonable? Who should be ignored? Who needs to have articles written about them in their local papers, national papers?

People in other countries are willing to risk their lives and pay with their lives to draw cartoons......where is our press/media....my local paper's head reporter told me that their paper didn't have the resources to warn their own readership about safety concerns about this dire situation, this was after someone nearly died in an explosion and they had no problem repeating the lies the Board had issued over my case.


I have enough on these twats to show them for what they are, it just needs someone to tell the Public at large, they would be gone by dinner.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 10, 2015, 10:46:49 AM
Hello Guests, it is always amazing to watch the "guest" numbers grow, all I ask is a fair hearing on a level playing ground with a truly neutral ref, but most of all done in the public eye, warts and all.

I am sure if anything I have publically said was untrue or liable  I would have the board's gaggle of lawyers, that we tradesman pay for, on me like white in rice.

Now guests go look at my many posts on here and have a think about it, I have had my break from this that I promised myself and my wife, now I am back in to it, believe me I will get this sorted.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 10, 2015, 10:53:35 AM
Sent this morning

Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2015 10:49 a.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma Gee'; '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

 

Hi All,

 

 

Please do not think this is even remotely over for me, please see my posts under “Badger” on the plumbers forum.

 

 

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg9143#msg9143

 

 

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 11, 2015, 05:46:24 PM
Another sent this evening

Mr Pederson,

 

Please can you confirm whether the 8th person from the left in the back row, is Peter Jackson the present chair of the Board. The one stood next to John Darnley (my ex boss who the Board have been protecting since an explosion nearly killed someone), Mr Darnley circled on the left and Mr Jackson circled on the right of the back row.

 

I can positively identify the so called “Impartial” investigator (Tony Hammond) later appointed to persecute me, and two other Board members, one of these Board members (Stephen Parker) later to be the chair of my hearing, the same chair that called a halt to my hearing just as my advocate and I were going to totally clear my name, the last 2 charges out of the 44 trumped up charges. Of note this and other photos contradict Tony Hammond’s signed affidavit re- how well he knew Mr Darnley and how many times he had met John Darnley.

 

Ironically this was the year, 2006, that the Board received a letter written by Nick Smith MP airing my complaints about dodgy certs covering dodgy work, the later explosion occurring in 2009.

 

I do not think it frivolous, vexatious or unreasonable to ask this and expect an answer, full disclosure of relationships is a very serious matter and I feel it is reasonable to make this request and I think it is also reasonable to expect an answer, please do not reply that Mr Jackson was not a member of NZIGE, just whether it is him in the photo.

 

I do how ever think it is unreasonable for my family to lose our home, business and reputation because I was made a scapegoat to cover up the total mismanagement by the Board of the gas safety cert system that ended in an explosion.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 11, 2015, 10:17:30 PM
A history of what happened to my family,  from the pages of Parliament, link below.....

http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/50SCCO_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL10613_1_A228633/41f318cdc17be834a9f590445ffcdc8d878343be
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 11, 2015, 10:21:00 PM
just copy and paste the link below to a google search engine.......what would you do? would you let it lie? I won't....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 12, 2015, 05:34:39 PM
FYI GUYS, the policy for dealing with unreasonable behaviour.....

http://www.pgdb.co.nz/~downloads/Dealing%20with%20unreasonable%20behaviour%202014.pdf


As read it they should always act fairly and honestly and in good faith and they should consider the amount of loss inflicted on people....well I have lost a hell of a lot and they have not acted fairly, very far from it and they have lied about me, actually in one event having to apologise for it when they prejudiced all of the witness's for my hearing by inferring that I was capable of acting out side the law, all done before my hearing. See attached. They have issued a lot of letter like this, denying and ignoring blatant proof, all signed too.

Well when they stop talking to me (and they will), it is time to up the ante in the public arena.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 12, 2015, 08:10:17 PM
That's very strange the link below stopped working twice.....and it was part of Parliaments records......how could have that happened?????


Anyway here it is in full sorry about this, its a bit long, but what would you do?



Please take the time to read this, I thank you in advance….

My name is Paul Gee; I am a craftsman/certifying gasfitter and plumber from Nelson/Takaka.
I have tried to warn about dodgy/dangerous work signed off by incomplete/dodgy certificates for 6 years and was ignored by the Plumbers board, all before an explosion nearly killed someone in 2009. Since then a resulting witch-hunt and hearing was inflicted on my family. Because of this, I have had to work away from my young family, for over 18 months. I was made a scapegoat by the very people who I had tried to warn. These same people (the Board) were responsible for empowering my old boss (the person I had tried to warn them about).
Even after expressing my concerns about impartiality, I was ignored to the point that the “Impartial” investigator that I had complained about was overseen by his colleague as chair of my hearing with little to nothing registered in the conflict register. I had letters sent to my customers by the Board that told lies about me, had evidence with held and witnesses added at the last minute and others that wouldn’t sign their own “statements”, child sexual abuse case notes sent to my home address opened by my wife, I lost my business, home, reputation and time with my two young sons and wife.
I have been living in a caravan for many months working away for extended periods and only seeing my family sporadically, I have missed 18 months out of my 5 and 7 year old sons lives……I have done nothing wrong, please read on to see my whole story…….

A Very True Story Every NZ Tradesman Should Read
 Back ground History
I complained about the work practices of my old employer, John Darnley, since 2003 and the dodgy certs involved, and many times since 2003. I left his employment at Allgas, after just 10 months. I left because of safety concerns and have repeatedly told any who would listen, including numerous MPs, Master Plumbers, Nelson Mail and industry. The only MP to listen and act was Nick Smith who wrote a letter on my behalf in 2006. Ironically, I also have a photo (amongst other photos) from 2006 the same year. It shows the “impartial” investigator who was later appointed to persecute me, a few Board members and my old boss. It is of a gathering of members of an industry group to which my old boss was a member, aswell as some Board members, the presiding Board member for my hearing and the “impartial” investigator who is actually a fellow of that institute.
One of the main contributing factors to my leaving Allgas was the remark, that a technical specification wasn’t required, I was told by my old boss to “just use poker face and make out you know what you are doing”. This was for a job where the owner has the same hot water in his central heating radiators as to that which comes out of his hot taps and shower, all known to the Board. The final straw was being told to fit an appliance contrary to the very large warning on the box….This shows the attitude I came across at Allgas.
Apparently the Board feels that as John Darnley is retired now, he is no longer a threat. Please bare in mind he worked for well over a decade, empowered with a craftsman ticket (that was granted to him by the “Impartial” investigator some years before after one oral exam, with no training). This licence allowed my old boss to sign off himself aswell as other less “qualified” people. That work is still out there. It was discovered at my hearing that he wasn’t against the signing off of unlicensed people too, who in all probability may be totally untrained at that.  The chip shop was about 7 years old when it exploded. Some times it can take some time for all the essential factors to congregate altogether at one point in time, which is the case more often than not.
I was unaware, at the time of making my initial complaints that some of the people to whom I was complaining to, including Board members, were members of the same industry groups as my old boss. The presence of these industry groups on an industry Board, according to the NZ Law commission, is against best practice and the Commission recommends against it because of the impartiality questions it raises.
I must add I am not a stirrer, grass or dobber, but when you see other peoples families put at risk, for profit….what are you meant to do???? I do not want to get someone in trouble for just trying to earn a crust to provide for his or her family. But if you are prepared to earn that crust while putting others at risk, then it is a totally different matter.


A Near Fatal Explosion
Then we had the explosion that nearly killed someone at the Milton St chip shop in April 09 at 9 30 in the morning on a school day, I had been complaining for six years by then. The chip shop was an old butcher’s type, glass fronted building. Where school children queue up in front before school, if the explosion was an hour earlier it could have been so very much worse, the potential still terrifies me. 
Still, this incident has ruined at least two family’s lives, mine and Ron Clarke’s, the chip shop owner. I was mortgage free in a very modest house with no debt what so ever, I lost everything. Initially my wife had to live in a caravan while I was forced to work away from her and my two young lads, I now live in the same caravan in a plumbers yard.
Ron and his wife have told me the huge effect it has had on them, not all physical either. It has been a financial, emotional train wreck for both families, I really feel for Ron and the effect it has had, not to mention the fact it nearly killed him.
The Inquisition
I came forward on the day of the explosion and volunteered to be interviewed by Mr Hammond. This was my first mistake. I answered all his concerns, to the point where none of his initial “concerns” made it into the final charges, but he still pursued me and asked for more jobs to be checked, I have a letter from the Board’s representative stating that 3 whole years of my installs were then checked, all the ones still in use.
I asked for an impartiality hearing because I could see where it was heading. Over the years, previous to the explosion, while making my complaints I had been threatened, and could see these people were going to make good on those threats, some high ranking Master Plumbers, I was shocked at this as I was a member and had served as a local president.
I was told by my lawyer and his QC colleague to plead guilty, take it on the chin and open a café. Opening a café was an idea my wife and I had had for her to do when the kids went to school full time. We now live in the very run down building on the site of this “dream”. The Lawyer had to that point cost me over $10 000.
This was where Wal Gordon entered the situation; I really would have been lost at this point and had thought I had explored every opportunity to defend myself……for something I had spent 6 years warning against.
I went to an impartiality hearing that I had requested before the actual hearing, to put forward my concerns about the impartiality of the Board and its appointed investigator. The Board had an opportunity, right there and then, to put a stop to this persecution. I provided photos and membership lists, etc but to no avail.
“They” judged that “they” were impartial…….. how can someone decide whether or not they are impartial? The question alone means you are involved. 3 of the 5 members of the panel, I had complained about, giving them the majority, over seen by Master Plumbers Mark Whitehead and Peter Jackson amongst others.

Licence in a box of cornflakes
To the best of my knowledge Mr Darnley had been granted his full craftsman gas fitters ticket by the very same person who was later appointed as the “impartial” investigator to my case, Mr Darnley did just one oral exam with no formal apprenticeship. Other gasfitters with full apprenticeships served and experience running gasfitting businesses, all be it from other countries, have had to re-sit and start from scratch. Basically reduced to an apprentice on entering the country, it usually amounts to 7 to 10 years of exams and practical assessments, as was my case. It is of note that John Darnley is also originally from the UK, as is Mr Hammond.
The Boards “impartial” investigator, the presiding board member for my hearing and John Darnley were members of the same organisations, industry organisations, along with other Board members, past and present. John Darnley resigned from one of these institutes the very month following the explosion.






It Is OK To Tell Lies.
Before my hearing I was rung by the caretaker of Motueka High school. The Board’s acting registrar, Kern Uren, had sent them a letter (unknown to me up until that point, along with 5 other letters, to my customers ranging from the West Coast, Nelson, Motueka to Havelock, basically the whole of the area I had ever covered with my business) implying I had issued certs illegally in Northland, a place I have never even been to. It was from this point that my business basically disappeared, overnight.

It was later admitted by Mr Uren that these letters could have been “better tailored”, but only did this after  months of letting it run, ruining my reputation. Kern Uren also phoned me to “warn” in a manner that I found very upsetting and unnerving, we were at the time corresponding by email, and judging by the content of the phone call not a good idea for him to commit to writing.

Mr Uren then later accused me of being vexatious when I produced copies of gas certs that had writing on them that was absent on the carbon copies. This meant it was added after signature.
Mr Uren also failed to act when shown a letter written to the Board, written in my name. It was sent to alter a  gas cert’s address; it was dated 3 months after I had left Allgas. It was not written by me, but it was written on Allgas letter head concerning an Allgas customer. All the gas certs at Allgas were filled in by the office staff, which were never questioned and still are not to this day. The office was manned by John’s Darnley’s wife and daughter.
Relationships
The presiding Board Member for my hearing and the impartial investigator have served together in numerous organisations, sometimes giving presentations together, sometimes running the same industry trusts. A quick Google of Tony Hammond (investigator) and Stephen Parker (presiding Board member at the hearing) proves this. Actually a Google search of all concerned and the word “gas” is hugely informative, along with the industry groups and legal people. If you Google my name and gas you mostly get reference to the explosion, it isn’t helping to repair my reputation, neither are the constant press releases by the Board. I have been quoted as calling my self a “mere plumber”, but no one can find where I said it, in context.

Protecting Their Own Creation
The 2 x “impartial” investigators, Tony Hammond and John DeBernardo, had helped write the NZ gas regs. Mr Hammond was also heavily responsible for deregulating the gas industry, for them to find fault in the gas cert system and gas regs would be like asking a sculptor to pick holes in his biggest and best creation.

The second “impartial” investigator, Mr DeBernardo, another high ranking Master Plumber, even though he billed for a large amount of time and costs, his notes were withheld. I still to this day not know the full extent of what he did or contributed, but he was paid quite a large sum, as was Mr Hammond. Other information was withheld under legal privilege.
 
Stooping To Any Level
My lowest point, without doubt, was coming home to find my wife sobbing hysterically, literally in pieces, emotionally. She had opened some correspondence from the Boards investigator referencing, very graphically, child sexual abuse. It was marked as past presidents for case law on probabilities, not just one case but three cases all including some sexual deviancy. I would include it, but it really is too sick, you can find it on the “NZ Plumber’s Forum” under posts from “Badger”. I am certain that there are other more palatable past cases to reference, and to send it in a “plain” envelope as it were, for anyone unsuspecting to open is just warped.
These people have done nothing short of terrorising my wife and had a huge effect on my young family….and by anyone’s measure they are undoubtedly totally innocent of anything.



It was sent when she was facing the prospect of having to sell her home and have her husband work away and raise her two lads alone in a caravan for the winter, this then later happened. We have lived in a very run down house (which was once a dream of a café) since. These people do not to care what they do to people and their families or the public for that matter. I am not the only one, far from it. There are literally heaps of unfortunates who have been put in this situation; they are just too nervous to come forward, usually after suffering at the hands of these people.
The “Fair” Trial
The 42 charges that I was found not guilty of were ludicrous. One of the charges was for fitting a califont that wasn’t even manufactured in Japan on the date of when I was supposedly to have installed it, according to the serial number, which is in full view on the side of it, easily seen by any one who wanted to see it.
The other charges were just as bad and the sites only investigated by Mr Hammond after he laid charges. Some of the charges were amended to better fit the facts discovered by Mr Hammond after his………………… re-investigation.
It is an industry perception, openly pushed by the Board, to plead guilty and the Board will only ask for a fine and not costs. They let it be known that the costs usually out way the fine quite substantially. The Board also boast of a 100% conviction rate, which is statistically impossible. Not every single person before them is guilty, but most plead that way to minimise the actual financial cost. All this can be found on their web site.
The Outcome
I was found not guilty of 42 of 44 charges and nothing at the site of the explosion; the last two were for –
Charge 1… The installing of a califont fitted 540mm vertically below an opening window. I have a British standard allows for a 300mm gap (see attached BS regs; pages 42 and 43). I also have an email from a senior building adviser from the Dept of Building and Housing. As I read it is saying I can use British standards, if they are relevant, see below in email to Boards CEO.
The same NZ reg referenced by the Board for a 1500mm gap is to a “passive” opening window. The same table/reg allows a 1000mm gap to an “active” mechanical inlet into the building (which would act like a vacuum cleaner, sucking in the fumes from outside to inside). So according to this same NZ reg you can have something mechanically in sucking air, into a building 500mm nearer than a window that just sits there, passively open.
It specifically mentions a spa blower, which would suck the fumes from outside and literally place them under the nose of the person in the bath. I checked the specification for these fans on a spa blower; they suck by the cubic metre per minuet, they would fill a normal sized bath room in a matter of minutes.
Perhaps this is why a 300mm gap is allowed in the UK and the same NZ reg was amended in May 05 to allow for a horizontal clearance of 500mm to an opening window, down from 1500mm previously.
Charge 2… This was for signing the gas certificate for that address mentioned above. So this last charge would fall over if the positioning of the califont charge fell over, leaving me after a near 3 year battle, after loosing everything……. 100% innocent of any wrong doing, which I still believe I am.
If you were to read the Boards public slating of me, made before my right to appeal, you could be forgiven for thinking I was dodgy and incompetent, as do all my customers apparently as my business is kaput, and you can’t blame them.
It is of note these last charges were the only ones where I admitted to doing all the work and I still stand by the work, in light of the email below and the British Standard reg.

Who do you ask for Advice?
See below the email I sent to the Boards CEO, it includes an email I received from the Dept of Building and Housing, after I asked about using a British Standard reg in NZ. It is of note that the author of the email below from the Dept of Building and Housing shares the same name with a panel member that wrote the NZ gas regs, a list of people appear inside the front cover of NZ 5261. If it is the same person, then I am sure he is qualified to pass comment. The Boards very limiting policy on appeals means I could not produce this email at the appeal either or the British Reg.


 
It is of note that the UK population and per capita use of gas is massively in excess to that of NZ, and would undoubtedly show any short comings or problems in the application of this British Standard written in the year 2000, pre-dating all this carry on by 3 years at least and is still in use.

I was asked at the hearing by the Board what document I had used to locate the heater and truthfully answered that I had referenced a tech note from another manufacturer. I have learnt over the last 16 years to start a sentence with “back in the UK” gets a lot of kiwis off side and so didn’t mention the British Standard. I really thought a tech note from one of the biggest califont manufactures sufficient. The only other gasfitter present was Scottish and I would have thought this British Standard specifically for a fan forced appliance below an opening window, in all probability would be known to him. His name is Graham Hardy another high ranking Master Plumber.
But as I hadn’t mentioned this British standard or the email allowing its use at the original hearing I could not bring it up at the appeal. The ONLY other gasfitter present in the room and on the hearing’s panel for the Board was Scottish and in all probability had used the very same standard in the UK, as it is dated for the year 2000. A person of the same name as the Scottish gasfitter has since been nominated for a place on the Board of the Master Plumbers.
I concentrated on all the other charges, thinking that a tech note for much larger models would have answered that charge. My mistake was not mentioning the British standard. If I had mentioned it, then the Judge could have considered it, even though it was in all probability known to both sides, i.e. the only gasfitters in the room at the hearing, myself and the Scottish Board member.
Any reasonably minded and experienced gasfitter will tell you a Bosch califont is extremely similar if not identical to a Rinnai one, and a Rheems one for that matter, in performance and design. Also the NZ or BS regs do not differentiate between brands, only appliances. They are the same appliance.
In the face of all this and against all odds we managed to prove my innocence of 95% of these trumped up charges, even when I had had notes and photos withheld and witnesses added two days out from the hearing. At least one withheld photo showed that what I had said for the previous 2 years was true. The forensic investigator for the police had taken over 100 photos; the “impartial” investigator for the Board only showed me about 11 or 12, the ones withheld showed what I had said for nearly 2 years and I only got to see them at the hearing.
Many of the witnesses refused to sign their own witness statements or changed their statements just before or on the stand or refused to show, such was the nature of the evidence. 
I believe that I am totally innocent, the British standard proves what I did was safe, as everyone in the UK aren’t keeling over dead when their fan forced flue appliances are fitted with this 300mm clearance to an opening window vertically above. This proves the mandatory part one of the NZ reg was adhered to, the part 2 “breach” I was convicted of is not mandatory, but a form of compliance, again please see email below and the actual reg NZ5261.
Still….. 95% result is a good pass mark, by any standard, in any exam.


Thank you Wal
My advocate Wal Gordon of the NZ Plumbers Federation deserves huge credit, as do all the people who have helped me. He still stuck by me when he was phoned up and threatened to “watch what horses he backed”, this was by a prominent Nelson master plumber, son in law to a life member of Master Plumbers and ex board member. I still think this coward owes Wal an apology, he could have done it in person the night previously, but chose to wait until Wal was leaving the next day….. and did it by phone, spineless. Apart from a few beers forced on him, Wal has received no monetary payment at all and has put in many many hours, not just for me, but for the plumbing industry as a whole.




The Cover up, covered up since 2003
On going concerns, while researching for my hearing and appeal I have discovered that at least 11 certificates, out of only a 150 cert search sample, has the gas leak pressure test results not filled in, and according to an insurance expert this could very possibly nullify people’s house and / or business insurance. The poor sods that have paid good money for services are being let down and deserve to know. These incomplete certs were processed and accepted by the Board, some showing highlight pen on the missing information, I kid you not.

Mr Hammond brought to one of my initial voluntary interviews… black ink photo copies of the certs concerned while I worked at Allgas. They were done on pink paper, this gave the effect that they were true photo copies of the master pink copies….helping mask the multitude of different colour inks all over the certs.  I only got to see true copies after a lot of trying. My first request to see them I was told, way back in 2003, there were over 1000 certs in my name and it would cost $25 per cert to get a copy. Then later I was told that the freedom of information act didn’t apply to the Board, and then finally allowed to see them after applying under the privacy act and after the 2009 explosion, which is when I saw all the different colour ink.
I had initially made inquires at the Board about 4 books of gas certs in 2003 and again just recently. These books of certs were ordered and bought in my name with out my permission by Allgas. They were ordered the day after I had told my old boss in no uncertain terms that I was leaving. I was told in writing that they had been returned and correctly filled in, all except 1 cert. I have been told this twice by a Board’s legal representative, by letter. Even though this cert is claimed not to have been received by the Board, this same cert has an electronic copy on the Boards web site, which is impossible if it wasn’t registered. This same cert just so happens to have the gas leak test results missing.
I have also been told in writing that the cert for a pizza oven installed a year after the initial install at the exploding chip shop wasn’t registered at the Board. The Board state that they were made aware of this 9 days after the explosion, yet again a missed opportunity to stop persecuting me. But this claimed to be unregistered cert according to the Board also has an electronic copy and the carbon copies that I have seen also have the gas pressure leak test results missing.
Legally, if the test results aren’t filled in then “legally” the install hasn’t been tested for leaks, it potentially nullifies the cert and in doing so can nullify the owners insurance and I should imagine building consents and council paper work. The expert from the Insurance overseers says this is of concern also.
According to Mr Uren and Mr Hammond, it is common practice to have someone order, pay for, fill out, sell and register certs in your name. This is OK’d by these people of responsibility, even though these legal documents, the certs, are marked “non transferable”.

A Reasonable Request
I ask you to warn the public to check their certs and contact the Board if they have any concerns. The Board have definitely been aware of this for quite a few months, may be much much longer. To the best of my knowledge they have not acted or notified anyone. 11 certs out of the 150 I asked for is a huge %, and include certs stated as being filled in correctly by a Board legal representative and include certs that are from the batch ordered in my name, with out my permission….and with the blessing of Mr Hammond and Mr Uren.
The Board want to charge me money to check this situation further. I have had quotes for $1000’s of dollars to check and police their own faulty system, faulty with their full knowledge. But it appears they are not prepared to do this themselves and act in the best interest for the public to whom they have been registered to protect as a charity…..yes a charity, a status now lost to the chagrin of Mr Bickers who will now have to charge more because he lost his tax loop hole . I have shown them a hell of a lot of information and evidence to warrant concern, but as far as I know they have done nothing. The people of Nelson, perhaps NZ, deserve so much more.
As the Board lost their charity status, they publically claimed that it would cost plumbers more now that they had lost their method of tax avoidance, unbelievable I know.





I was told by the CEO of the Board that the electronic copy of the gas certs on the Boards website was a representation of the original “paper” copy, the paper copy being the legal copy and that the Board kept these original paper copies indefinitely, but then I was told that they could not locate many of the paper copies I had requested. Some certs were “rediscovered” when I told them I had photos of carbon copies of 15 certs that I had obtained from the gas suppliers, some of which had test results missing. Some paper certs are still not available from the Board.

This electronic system for recording certs reportedly cost a large sum of money; I have been told 100’s of 1000’s of dollars but can’t verify this. So too, a  $90 000 Christmas trip to Melbourne for the Board which included their partners, nice work if you can get it, if it is true. Ultimately, all paid for by the NZ public. Also Kern Uren has his son and son’s father in law working at the Board’s secretariat, the one position had about 200 applications for the job. Perhaps someone with a bit more pull than me could ask? 

I have neither the will nor the resources to police and investigate this faulty system. The Board’s website for gas certs now carries a recently added disclaimer and the “print” button has been removed, the disclaimer says that the electronic copy may not represent the paper copy, but it ran for many years without this disclaimer and had a print button. The whole industry and the public have been misrepresented by this state of affairs. For example, people who have used this public source of official information to print off certs, incorrect ones, while selling a house, have relied on incorrect and false information, provided by the very authority entrusted to hold and protect that information. And also you have the problem with the insurance. I believe the public have a right to know this, and apparently the Board aren’t addressing it.
It is of note that the only certs that don't carry a disclaimer are the ones filled in by the gasfitters them selves, and have no paper copies and the Board don't hold any “signed” copies of these, which according to the Act, they should. They are now proposing that they don't have to hold any copies, at all. That'll work I’m sure.

Dodgy Work
Also ask the readers of this letter to contact someone, me, anyone, if the room their gas appliance is in has a blackening of the walls, this and many more potential death traps I have come across in my work in Nelson, but if you fix it no one wants to know. I went to one property that had blackened walls and told the customer I would have disconnect it, his reply was not to disconnect the fire, as his 6 year old daughter loved the fire and went out like a light on the settee, he was poisoning her without knowing. Authorities only want to know if it is “immediately” dangerous…. even “potentially” dangerous isn’t investigated and no one wants to know about it. If you find this unbelievable, as I do, check the publications by the authorities, utter madness. 
You are not to smell raw un-burnt gas, it is not ok. I have had people report a smell of gas, “because it has smelt for weeks”. Every appliance should be serviced at least every two years, usually annually and in a commercial situation every 6 to 3 months. Some appliances can give a small smell of gas upon light up or when you get your bottles filled, but on the whole you should not be able to smell raw un-burnt gas, ever.
There is more to this fiasco but, believe it or not, I am trying to condense it to the main points, but it has gone on for many years. It has consumed my life, ruined my business and put a huge strain on my wife's stress levels. I can see people glaze over when I start to talk about it because there is so much; it really requires a public enquiry, please before we have another incident.
I just want my life back; my only real mistake was trying to protect the public (I had nothing to gain by trying to warn about all this, believe it or not my business was going along great and I didn’t need the work)……. by telling the very people who were responsible for empowering the man who was causing me so much concern, and still does. Please don’t let it take a worse incident to get a truly independent inquiry.
I have been asked by a Board member, amongst others… why I just don’t leave NZ, one real easy answer……. I bloody love it here, and my kids are kiwis and so are me and my wife.... all of us NZ citizens…….…I ain’t going nowhere, why should I. The NZ public deserve so much more and a small few are spoiling it for others, just to line their pockets and get a power trip at the expense of others. Their actions show their intent.
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee


Please see below correspondence with Board CEO and the Dept of Building and Housing……..

from: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 6:24 p.m.
To: 'Max Pedersen'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'closeup@tvnz.co.nz'; 'Jehan Casinader'
Subject: Paul Gee
Max, 
Please can you tell me where and when I might be able to do the course that is my punishment for using a British Standard for the positioning of a califont, and when must I do this by.
Also please can you let me know if I can use the attached British Standard, especially page 42 and 43, in light of an email below.
It is very confusing, please can you clarify, thank you.
Paul and Emma,
Please find below a brief overview of gasfitting in New Zealand.
   “Gasfitting” is a defined term in the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006
   In order to do gasfitting you have to be licensed by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
   Gas work (gasfitting) must comply with the Gas Regulations and be certified by the gasfitter as complying with NZS 5261: 2003, part 1 which is the Performance based design and installation criteria
   Part 2 of NZS 5261 gives one way of complying with Part 1, but other ways of complying with part 1 can be used. Relevant Australian or British standards may be used if the gasfitter can demonstrate compliance with NZS 5261, Part1
As I understand it this differs from the UK where home owners are able to do their own gas work.
Other sources of information can be obtained from the Energy Safety Service (www.ess.govt.nz) and the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (www.pgdb.co.nz)
Please telephone if you wish to discuss
Kind regards
Bruce
Bruce Klein
Senior Advisor Building Standards

Department of Building and Housing
Te Tari Kaupapa Whare
DDI: (04) 8174812
Level 6, 86 Customhouse Quay
PO Box 10729, Wellington 6143, New Zealand
Web: http://www.dbh.govt.nz
 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 12, 2015, 08:12:30 PM
Believe it or not there is much much more to this, as this was written quite a few years ago, they have done even more since.....


who is being unreasonable??
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 12, 2015, 09:44:00 PM
From the "history" below.....

I have also been told in writing that the cert for a pizza oven installed a year after the initial install at the exploding chip shop wasn’t registered at the Board. The Board state that they were made aware of this 9 days after the explosion, yet again a missed opportunity to stop persecuting me. But this claimed to be unregistered cert according to the Board also has an electronic copy and the carbon copies that I have seen also have the gas pressure leak test results missing.

Guess who "didn't register" this cert......known 9 days after the explosion......yep you guessed it Mr Darnley.

It is probably what Maurice Williamson was on about when he wrongly (and had to retract it in Parliament), said about the dire explosion at a certain Pizza retailer.......just days later he gave his big "gay rainbow" speech.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 12, 2015, 10:43:41 PM
Now bear in mind that no one has been found responsible for the explosion(right up to today), even though over $200 000 was spent and Darnley faced a charge for the explosion, but it miraculously disappeared with no trial, and all the evidence pointed to either him or someone at Allgas, but the Board ignored it or didn't bother to ask the staff at Allgas. I got all the signed correspondence about this too!!!! Issued by our old mate Max Pederson.

According to the Board's own words and signed correspondence.....


The last person to work at the site of the explosion, this same person altering the start, middle and end of the install (with over 100 photos withheld from me until the hearing), with all copies of the gas cert missing pressure test results.......and didn't register the cert for this work(even though there is a corresponding cert with the same cert number on the boards now defunct register......you guessed it.....Mr Darnley.....who may be stood next to Mr Jackson in the photo below.....

With the one bogus charge left a bullshit one at that.....

AND I AM UNREASONABLE FOR NOT WEARING THIS AND LOSING MY HOME AND BUSINESS.......REALLY?????

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 13, 2015, 10:46:46 PM
I ask you this.................... how can anyone be sure of a fair go by these people..........perhaps those who face these corrupts could cite my case before going through the motions with these people.

If the credibility and integrity of the process is flawed then you can't reply on it, not until it is fixed, and you can't fix a problem until you address it and own it.

Now don't get me wrong,  I don't want dodgy guys getting away with anything...... Jesus I tried to get it looked at to protect the public....but I also KNOW you can't rely on them for a fair hearing.......and I definitely don't want to see anyone who is innocent go through this, like what they put my family through.

So if your innocent, only if your innocent......mention my case, and say you can't rely on a fair and unbiased hearing.

Instead of using past presidents on probabilities and using child sexual abuse case notes just like the Board did with me.....use my case as a president to prove the lack of integrity.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 14, 2015, 05:34:17 PM
And here a reply from the Ombudsman.......Fairness for all......except if your a plumber......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 14, 2015, 06:13:00 PM
There is a lot of discretion being used...I mean the Board used their discretion in ignoring evidence and setting me up and the investigator used his discretion in ignoring how well he knew Darnley.

Just needs publicity, because these people wouldn't do this if Joe public knew, like I said be gone by lunch time....what have I got to do to get a fair go?

Anyone know a good lawyer who would work pro bono?

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 16, 2015, 09:50:05 PM
How can some one face a charge then have it disappear, in Mr Pederson's own words, see attached.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 16, 2015, 10:08:31 PM
Can someone explain to me how this is considered reasonable behaviour?, even legal?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 17, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
Now is it reasonable for the Board to have been aware just days after the explosion, that the cert for the work that changed the cylinder station and an added an extra appliance half way along the install, not to mention the altering of the other end of the install (as proven by the with held photos, by the board) and the sale of a third hose for two fryers.....as the first hose split, the same one that caused the explosion, was replaced (after I left)?

Explosion happened April 09, look at the dates in an email below.....cert 345138 is for the last work at the site of an explosion that nearly killed someone, the same last work that was also missing the leak test results....also see attached the double speak from Mr Pederson concerning this cert 345138....now both certs mentioned were entered on the same day but are over a year apart in signature?....WTF?




From: Melanie Phillips [mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 4:13 p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Cc: Wal Gordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee 
Hi Paul
Please see attached Belinda’s file note of her request to John Darnley for a copy of certificate 345138.  This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street.   
Also attached is a copy of the certificate received which, as you will see, is of quite poor quality.
Please let me know if you need any more information. 
Regards
Mel
 
From: Melanie Phillips[mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 3:22p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee; WalGordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee
Hi Paul
I have just gone back through the file and can confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138.  The only copy the Board has is a photocopy of the certifier’s copy, which you produced as exhibit PG007 together with a copy of the gas suppliers copy.
I see notes from Belinda Greer on the file that the Board copy of certificate 345138 was received after the explosion in 2009, I think from the Department of Labour.
I’m sorry I can’t help you further.
Regards
Mel
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 17, 2015, 10:12:19 PM
Just read 4.57 from the attachment below.....is this reasonable?

They knew just days after an explosion, that the last person who worked at the site of an explosion "didn't register" the cert and was in all probability responsible for altering the end, the middle and beginning of the install, even replacing the hose that later caused the explosion, he even faced a charge for the explosion........but it never made his final hearing.

This same guy...got given his licence by the Board's appointed investigator after one oral exam.....is this reasonable.....

Read the Board's own policy on "dealing with unreasonable people".....now apply it to them.....

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU SHOULD REALISE THAT THIS COULD BE ANYONE OF YOU, EVEN THOSE WHO "THINK" THEY ARE CONNECTED, I WAS  A PRESIDENT OF MY LOCAL MASTER PLUMBERS.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 17, 2015, 10:21:01 PM
Now I personally think this smacks of corruption.....what do you think?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 18, 2015, 10:22:21 AM
Remember the Board ignoring an elderly couples complaints about fumes entering their home because of a califont installed closer than the one that I fitted issuing into an enclosed area, the one I fitted having no complaints and issuing into a large unenclosed back yard.....


Now apply this attachment and their take on my actions, then compare it to their actions.....sorry inactions.

I am far from finished with this little issue.....got a way to prove that I have done NOTHING wrong......just holding on to this for now.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 18, 2015, 10:30:21 AM
Now apply the reasoning on this attachment to the "non registration" of the cert for the last work at the site of an explosion.


All copies of this cert including the one issued to the owner that nearly died in the explosion, were signed........but not registered.....or more likely registered but when they noticed they had excepted an incomplete cert for the site of a near fatal explosion, missing of all things the bloody "gas leak test".

How can the Board say the only evidence that they received the cert is that the thing was entered into its system, with the same cert number, same appliances and same address and dates.....d you need any more f****ing evidence.....

Sorry I swore, and am being unreasonable in not assuming the position and accepting this....which I will never do
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 09:16:16 PM
.....here's yet another ignored problem......at an address, where the Board were accusing me of installing cylinders on a deck, which I did not do.

Whilst going through this charge I proved that someone had manipulated the cert system, this was proven way beyond a shadow of a doubt, by billing and the serial number on the califont......so when the Board became aware of this....... they did absolutely nothing, even up to this day as far as I know, the only letter sent to the address was the letter that is mentioned in my other post, which was sent before my hearing this letter was the one that prejudiced all the witness's. The Board only found out at my hearing.....so did nothing when they found out....is that reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 09:31:24 PM
Here is how the charges panned out for the Board, I have the attachments and have just copied and pasted something I wrote a while ago.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 09:32:42 PM
They doubled up the charges at each address to make all up 44 charges, these were laid and I answered 42 charges. Being found 95% innocent of any wrong doing is a very good result, but if this other 5% of charges were “up-held” (and were aided to be up-held by the investigators mate chairing the hearing, who then stopped the hearing just as we were questioning the investigator specifically about this very 5% of the charges). And it was all done as a last grasp at keeping a 100% conviction rate (openly boasted about), and done to save face and justify a $220 000.00 price tag, with still no one held accountable for a near fatal explosion….. Well it is reprehensible and a true reflection of the arrogance and the lows these people will stoop to protect their ego's, positions, salaries and reputations.

Please before you read this summary of charges below, please read and bear in mind these points and then the 3 documents listed below and attached.

•   Nearly 50% of the charges were amended at the last minute, application for amendments made on 1/2/11, the hearing on the 3/5/11, after over 2 years of investigation.

•   Evidence, photos and notes were withheld and misrepresented.

•   Huge conflicts of interest ignored and witnesses added just days out from hearing.

•   Mr Bickers, the soon to be Board Chair (now left) was on the panel for my hearing and he witnessed what I am about to tell you about in these charges first hand. Of note Mr Bickers runs a course called the “Role of the Processional Witness”, specifically about a hearings procedure and its goal of achieving a proper and fair outcome.

Doc 1. Mr Bickers further sullying of my reputation in my local news paper, just days after the hearing. See attachment B1, (B1).

Doc 2. The so called “apology” from the Board, signed by Mr Bickers. This letter referred to in the apology, in my opinion, prejudiced all additional sites prior to my hearing, all sites other than the site of the explosion, with a very “un”- truth, implying that I was capable of acting in an unlawful manner. It was sent to areas spanning my whole business history, with the Mot high school, right in the middle, which I believe was no mistake.(B2).

Doc 3.  All or at the very least 3 years of my work was audited, this is evidenced by the time gap in the investigation and also a letter from a Board lawyer and a comment on an MPs letter, but the investigator states only 10 % was audited. (B3 & 4)

See below for the Charges and how they were dis-proven. I ask you will this “justice” help our country, industry or protect the public. I kept my licenses, but lost my reputation, home and business, and now nearly 50% of licences are being uplifted for this year, almost half tradesman not bothering.
 


Please note, it is not an exhaustive list of proof and concerns, and I have tried to be brief.........
Milton Street chipshop.

1.   This is the site of the explosion that started this whole affair. I proved that the initial install of pipe work had in all probability been altered along its entire length from how I had originally installed it. I installed a “pre-pipe” under instruction from my then boss John Darnley. All evidence for the person responsible for these alterations I believe pointing to Darnley or someone under his direction, but he was never asked about it.

2.   The bayonets were lowered, as evidenced by the withheld photos showing screw holes of previous position and the pipe falling from the corner of the room to the position of the Bayonets which is contrary to all the other “audit” photos of my work. These withheld photos were taken by the forensic expert, these photos only became apparent to me at the hearing, but were available to the investigator very early on and reaffirmed what I had maintained for two years. Over 120 photos were taken with only about 11 made available.

3.    I had completed my involvement with the installation on the 15th, as evidenced by the date of the leak test date (of note the 15 of this test date being in a different colour ink to the rest of the cert, and not in my hand), but the offending fryers were delivered on 24th . (B5 & 6)

4.   There was a pizza oven installed half way along, one year later. The cert for the pizza oven being the one that wasn't registered by Darnley, as per the Board. This “pizza” cert lacked any information entered into the gas leak test field on all available copies (all copies available are totally in Darnley’s name). The Board were aware of this “non” registration, just 9 days after the explosion. Of note there appears a copy of this cert on the PG&DB electronic register, a total impossibility if not registered. (B7 & 8)

5.   Three hoses were sold for two fryers, the offending hose had split so near to completion of the job that it was part of the original invoicing. But when the owner told the investigator, he told him it didn't interest him, Mr Clark told me this. (B9)

6.   The cylinder station/bottle bank had been altered to feed off both gas cylinders simultaneously, in all probability to accommodate the added extra load of the pizza oven. This is evidenced by the fittings sold and invoiced for in the initial billing and the different fittings present in the photo's taken just after the explosion.(B10 & 11)

7.   Not one part of my initial install went unaltered, from the start at the cylinder station, the middle where the pizza oven was installed, to the end where the bayonets were lowered (not by me) with the fryers added (not by me) after my initial “pre pipe” job.

8.   It appears to me that the bayonets were lowered to allow the fryers to sit further back to the wall, as the fryers have a cavity underneath, and this lowering and turning of the fitting was why the hoses failed after pinching against the floor. And probably would have been done when the fryers were installed, not by me. My involvement is also evidenced by the job card, showing no fryers, and with the words “install bayonets and test”, in my hand. (B12). The entry for the fryers on the front of this Job card, not in my hand, but same as the hand writing on the certificate . All this known to the investigator very early on when I told him in my voluntary interviews, in all probability when he had the withheld photos.

9.   The comment that the sheath had been cut away from the hoses, again not by me.(B13)

10.   Still to this day one has been held accountable for this explosion, with all, if not most, of this referenced evidence available to the investigator. (B14)

Main Rd, Havelock

1.   Even though the investigator had said to me at interview that the site had been unaltered since my initial install of a fryer in 15th Jul 03,(the appliance at the focus of the charge), there were a further two certs issued for this site. Both these certs 629404 and 623527 were for work in the kitchen, with one dated 4th Sept and 29th Jan both in 09.

2.    The audit being done on 3rd Sept 09 (C1). The cert date for 629404 was the day after the audit. The work signed off in this cert 629404 for 4th Sept is considerable and would not be done in a day and would involve moving all my work.

3.   Of note the hand writing of the word “fryer” on this Allgas job sheet is identical to the word “fryer” on the Milton Allgas Job sheet and the appliance is drawn in, which isn’t drawn in the Milton St job sheet. Of note this would probably have been written by an office worker who passed out the work, but no one from the office was interviewed. (C 2, 3 &4)

4.   The work in these certs, in all probability, would have involved moving my original install, but I was unable to check because all work had been removed when I had the gone there to check after I had the charges laid.

5.   All this information of certified work would have been available to the investigator if he had done a cert check on the address, which I think he should have before making any comments about it being unchanged or pressing any charges. In all probability the work was either still in progress or very recently completed.


Greenwood St Motueka

1.   I had installed the water heater and gas cylinder station, but the cooker was installed at a later date and added to the certificate, not by me. But in saying this, the kitchen wasn't there when the cooker was installed and the customer stated his friend had removed the restraining chain on the cooker (the basis for the original charges), when this was pointed out to the inspector he requested and was granted for the charges to be amended to focus on the pipe in the wall and not the clearances to the worktop and the absence of a restraining chain. (D1)

2.   Then at the hearing the owner said on testifying, he remembered someone else coming back to fit the cooker. (D2)

3.   The blue carbon copy shows a differing of pressure on the carbon sheet for the line written for the cooker and when taken into account the other certs with writing present on the pink master copy, but absent on the carbon copies and other alteration (all available to the Board prior and dismissed as vexatious by Kern Uren (D 3 & 4, also see H.B. 9), I believe the cooker was added after my initial install to both the site and the certificate.

4.   Someone else at Allgas had no problem acting in my name, as evidenced in the letter issued in my name to alter a cert, 3 months after I had left (H.B.5), ironically this letter has “never seen this or authorised it”, written across the top of it in my hand writing, done when I became aware of it.

5.   Basically if I was found not guilty of installing the cooker, who did? The Board did not pursue this either.

6.   I was told, by Darnley, from day one to fill out a job sheet, the office staff would then take the info from the job sheet to fill out the certs, for me to then sign.

7.   I was told by Darnley that they would file the copies and register with the Board. It was the biggest mistake of my career, if not my life. I trusted them to do what they had said. When I handed back the certs signed and with all 4 copies still together, the 3 carbon copies still attached to the master copy, with no handwriting of my own, only my signature, I had made the gravest judgment and regret it to this day. I believed the company would do as they said. From my time of leaving Darnley’s employment, I spent the next 6 years trying to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work, up until the explosion nearly killed someone.

8.   I know of another contractor who had a similar experience, when he notified the Board, HE was audited!!!,


8 Ball Unit Motueka High School

1.   Another set of charges amended just prior to the hearing. (D1) Amended to better fit after I had told the investigator that I did not know the cage was to be fitted, the cage that was fitted not allowing enough ventilation, which was the basis for these charges.

2.   When the charge was amended to “I should have known it was to be fitted” because of the exposure to cars, I showed an aerial photograph that proved the car park had been altered considerably since the original install, which led to the witness, brought in just days out from the hearing, to exclaim that had she seen this aerial photo she would never had signed the statement. (E1).

3.   This photo graph was obtained by me from the Tasman District Council and proved beyond doubt what I had told the investigator.

4.   Of note the witness statement was prepared by the investigators lawyer after he had in his own words, briefed the witness, also of note is some of the other witnesses refused to sign their “own” statements.


Dommett St Westport

1.   The letter from the owner reflects the attitude of the investigator, and is quite damning about the investigators behaviour. (F1)

2.   But regardless of the window being secured, I still believe it to have been safe even with the window being open; the charges were for the clearance to the opening window to the flue of the water heater. (F 2, 3 &4)



Powick St Westport

1.   This is one of the charges that concern me the most, other than the site of the explosion, not because of the persecution of my self.....but the total inaction after the hearing. (and yet another set of charges amended to better fit just before hearing)

2.   I was charged with placing cylinders on a deck, as I was the last person there, which I was not.

3.   This charge is quite complex, but can be boiled down to just one set of facts and invoices. Ignoring the reasoning offered by the investigator as it is nonsensical because the unit wasn't even manufactured when he says it was installed (as evidenced by the serial number on the side of the unit) and the original cert, not issued by myself.

4.   The set of facts are born out by invoicing from the local Caltex who sold all the water heaters involved.(G1) 3 units, with only 2 being accounted for in the certs.

5.   This invoicing shows that, initially, a 24 ltr model was sold and fitted on the 26/7/2001 as collaborated by the cert 207367  issued at that time (not by me) and this Caltex invoicing (G1 & 2)

6.   But then 9/10/2001, some two months later, the 24ltr was returned and a 32 ltr sold, replacing the unit insitu, but with no other cert issued for this new 32 ltr unit.(G2)

7.   Then further 24ltr unit sold 14/1/05, 6 months after my visit mentioned below, which corresponds to the serial number on the unit on site, but makes the first original cert for a 24ltr unit redundant, I believe this was when the gas cylinders were placed on the deck. (G1)

8.   Now bear in mind that I was brought in only to relocate the 32ltr unit and not move any cylinders, on the 20/7/04 (6 months before the second unit was sold, mentioned in point 7 above), as is backed by my invoice, job sheet and cert 319000, marked as alteration only.(G3 & 4)

9.   My concern is that, as with the explosion at Milton Street and the adding of a cooker at Greenwood St, no one has thought to pursue this potential fraud and find anyone accountable for this substandard work and manipulation of certs.


Malvern Ave, Nelson

1.   This is the one and only site where charges were found to be substantiated; of note it is also the only site to where I freely admitted to all work and certification. The charges were for clearance to an opening window from a power flued water heater.

2.   I believe this was the charge that they held on to just to keep their 100% conviction rate boasting rights and their attempt of justifying a $220 000.00 prosecution cost.

3.   I drew a diagram of how I knew the fumes to act, blown away from the building some 3 metres before rising (H 1)

4.   Please see also available at the hearing –

•   My 2 x diagrams from the Hearing (H 1).
•   Photo of the “offending” heater (H 2)
•   Rinnai Doc (H3)
•   Statement of owner, saying no fumes entering the building (H4)
•   Hammonds comment if the fumes were not entering it was safe(H5)
•   Contradictory nature of table 16, with amendments. (H6)
•   Numerous statements from NZ 5261, stating the use of overseas regs and the non mandatory and mandatory sections.(H7)

Of Note this is the charge that the Chair (Mr Hammond’s long time colleague) stepped in and called the hearing to a close, it is the one last remaining charge and the sole reason for further sullying my name and still to this day with the Board’s website inferring that it is me that is incompetent.


And since the hearing….. None of which was allowed to be adduced at high court (although the Investigator applied and was allowed to adduce a document giving weight to the Board’s “expertise”), I was restricted by Board policy, but this below further proves it was safe-

•   British Standard, known to me but not mentioned at my hearing (H8)
•   Hardy’s British history, being the only certifying gasfitter at my hearing and on the panel for the Board at my hearing (H9)
•   Email from co-author of NZ 5261 (H10)
•   Emails of explanation of other gasfitters. (H11)
•   Email from the owner, after my hearing. (H12)

1.   If it is safe, it is safe and I still, to this day, believe this job was safe, I offered far more proof of this safe operation at the hearing, the only evidence offered by the investigator was the amended table 16 from NZ5261, which is contradictory in application, re- spa blowers and amendments.

2.   NZ5261 was co-authored by the investigator, and he would in all probability, not want it to fail.

3.   If this charge had not been held to have substance then I would have been 100% innocent. I think it wrong that you are guilty until proven innocent.

As well as the 3 points I asked you to read above before reading the charges, points 3.1 to 3.3 under heading “Summary of Charges”, please also bear in mind-

•   I did an “assessment” and not the, proscribed by the Board, “course of instruction” as my punishment and I was found to be in the top 10% ever assessed by the Board appointed assessor. Out of principle I did this with no preparation, revision or study.
•   I had also for 6 years before the explosion warned about dodgy work being covered by dodgy certs.....warning against none other than Darnley, the man who was empowered by the “impartial” investigator, Tony Hammond, after just one oral exam.
•   It was Hammond who was appointed impartial investigator to attend a hearing overseen by his very well known colleague Stephen Parker Executive Director of GANZ, who he presented seminars with under the GANZ banner, as a technical adviser to GANZ and nominated by GANZ to co-author NZ5261 and organising the Kennedy Trust together with Parker.
•   Hammond AND Parker being appointed AFTER my protests to Hammond’s impartiality at a stay of proceedings hearing. The old excuse, that a small plumbing community is bound to have people who know each other…..which is an insult to capabilities of the other 4 million kiwis.
•   I have been told that Darnley was a member of numerous gas industry groups, as is Hammond and Parker. Darnley, Parker and Hammond are members of NZIGE, Darnley “resigning” just weeks after the explosion.
•   Hammond having a very long history in NZIGE, which is an arm of IPENZ, and he also previously served on the PG&D Board for 15 years.
•   Mr Bickers has a long history in IPENZ. These long histories of both men are similar in length of time and the standing/position achieved in their respective Institute in that time as members.
The worst part about this, apart from the very destructive and stressful effects on my family, it emboldens those with “contacts” to thumb their nose at the safety and responsibility entrusted them.              This will not help the industry or protect the public going forward.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 09:53:57 PM
Now please take the time to read all this and apply the "dealing with unreasonable people"........yes I totally agree the Board are unreasonable, please explain why we should deal with them? why we should pay a hefty fee to deal with them?

Don't you think the people responsible for this bullshit needs a bit of CPD and some licence restrictions?

Or do they deserve to rort money from us and not pay tax as they are a charity......they don't seem very charitable......charity case yes......

Or perhaps a clean slate......answers on a post card to Dr Nick Smith MP.....

This could be anyone of you, believe me they will have polished their act by now, and not for fairness or the better either......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: gordyplum on January 19, 2015, 10:05:24 PM
hi badger.  you've got lots of guests today. hope they all brought a plate! ;D
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 10:07:43 PM
Now add to this all the sterling work the Plumber's Federation has done proving all that they have......chip in anyone because I only know my case for sure, list it all here......

How much crap do we need to put up with.....


They even (totally out of order) blamed the UK plumbers for the horrendous foot and mouth disease out break in the UK......tossers.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 10:09:48 PM
LOL Gordy.....

Come on in people pull up a pew.....have I got a story for you.....Once upon a time there was an out of control Ogre who lived on the Terrace, he was mean and greedy....and he liked to dine on plumbers......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 19, 2015, 10:12:03 PM
21 guests, that's a record
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on January 19, 2015, 11:04:04 PM
Hi guys,Badger,read all the posts a lot we have known for some time, I'm,sure justice can be gained but what is to be done. You have a lot of support so what can we as a collective group do to nail these turkeys, cheers and good luck.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 20, 2015, 06:48:27 AM
Publicity, publicity, publicity.......if the greater general public knew, not just how I was shafted, but the way they choose who to shaft at the risk to the public's health and safety.

An incident will happen if all the ducks line up, if you have the right mixture of gas and a source of ignition.....its going to blow up, whether your mate sits on the Board or not.

I know of and have told the Board about a central heating job that has the potential to kill, they play on words and double speak not to look at it.....if I was in their position I would be around there in a shot, but they don't.....it is to gamble with peoples lives to not go look at this, this is reprehensible.

Guys it all about numbers, numbers firstly to get the media to look at it (so that's us contacting a TV show), then when the general public know.....they will be gone by lunchtime.

That or a full page spread in a national news paper, letting people know the basic FACTS, then direct them to a website with the details. I don't think they would even make lunch time.

Its about numbers and votes......if you think its is about truth and righteousness, then you're going to have a long wait until you get the exposure.

If you play them behind closed doors, on their pitch with their ref, they will contain you and flannel you.

We can PROVE and have Proven their huge short comings, but the ministers who can fix this do nothing, why? ........because they got more chance getting voted in if they contain it and say, "nothing to see here".....well there is heaps to see, we just got to show as many people as we can.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 20, 2015, 07:02:11 AM
I am pretty sure if all the people who read this contacted a show like Campbell live or something similar, then someone would pick it up, if more people came forward with their stories about these goons, someone would pick it up.

If the general public knew that the reason a plumber/gasfitter/drainlayer/ and soon to be builders, etc are so expensive is because of the costs incurred on us, the reason that there aren't as many (leaving those who remain to have a small monopoly) as there once was, because they are being shafted, while others are protected.....they would be up in arms.

It is so wrong to let these people do what they do, so very wrong. The thing is they can't survive in full sunlight, in the public eye they would embarrass themselves, can you imagine Mr Pederson repeating the bullshit mentioned below concerning the "missing cert"......

"Well Mr Campbell the only evidence that we had received the cert at the site of  the explosion was that it was entered on our system, I can even tell you the date, but you see we can't find it, so we could never have had it, it wasn't registered"....."Well Mr Pederson that sounds like bullshit and I think someone put it in the shredder"
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on January 20, 2015, 09:18:51 AM
hi guys, Badger, we/you would have to drag these people into court to answer charges because the board or others will not be interviewed by tv3 Campbell Live, they will just ignore and close ranks. Legal advice would be a good start put all that evidence to a good lawyer and see what he comes up with, those are my thoughts so maybe others will have better advice,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 20, 2015, 05:49:50 PM
I am more than happy to, if we can source a lawyer count me in, I'll travel up, I have tried but you mention pro bono and they loose interest, money talks mate and I got cleaned out, I have only my bare hands left to use....

I reckon we could pick a top ten, and I don't mean just mine, but all of it...the RRC, CPD, all that, any others who have a horror story like mine,  look at all the amazing work the Feds have done, proven them all wrong so many times.

Perhaps, just something to consider.......they got Al Capone on tax evasion, perhaps the total witch-hunt they put on me could be used, I am more than willing to join in.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 20, 2015, 05:52:53 PM
I still do think it would be enough to get it on Campbell live, their "not fronting up" would speak volumes mate, I still believe whole heartedly if the public knew what I KNOW, they would be up in arms.

Publicity would be just the start, then go to court....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:23:21 AM
Well I just heard Nick Smith vow to lower housing costs.....a house price now in Auckland is higher that L.A. I am sure the Feds can show you a few ways mate...


Anyway back the "thorough investigation".....well according to Max Pederson anyway, and as everyone (Ombudsman, MPs) points to his opinion in a 33 page report (excerpt below on the ludicrous opinion on the "non registration of a cert at an explosion)......here is some more ignored blatant evidence.....

This letter was sent by Allgas, all in the full knowledge of the investigator and the Board, I left in the December before, this was sent the following March....it shows a willingness by Allgas to act in my name, to change the details on a cert.....

Properly investigated my arse....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:27:31 AM
I got this letter from the Board when I finally got, after many attempts to get copies of the certs.....I immediately told them it was not mine....I got a letter back saying I was being vexatious... f****in right I am vexed...fuming actually, but I didn't say it to stir trouble I said it to bring a fact to your attention, to show you blatant evidence....you bunch of cocks.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:33:06 AM
remember cert 299760, mentioned in Mr Pederson's 33 page report, the one where he says that they can't locate this cert as well as the explosion cert....

Well heres a copy of a photo of the suppliers copy.....taken at the suppliers......notice the accepted cert has no test results......(shredder alert)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:41:52 AM
oops sorry that's the electrical cert copy from the Boards website.....notice the cert has no leak test results......


When I brought this to their attention, they added the disclaimer(read again about responsibility regarding certs)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:47:23 AM
actually there were several certs that they couldn't find, check out their lack of test results......now remember they were ACCEPTED by the Board.......and it is us that need CPD....cocks.

This one is a backpackers where you might send your kids on a holiday, there were about 11 like this I only asked to see 150, not a good test selection, but Maxy boy reckons there is no problem because their selection ,the ones they picked randomly (lol) showed nothing of concern...what a crock of shite....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:53:45 AM
They couldn't find 11 out of the 150 that I requested......which was really helpful because it highlighted to me which ones to photograph at the suppliers......have a guess what they were all missing......go on have a guess......


But it is me who has no comprehension about the importance of the cert system......I got copies of more which have the missing info highlighted with vivid.....still accepted, by highlighted.....

Now you wonder why they have lost the cert system.....

I got heaps of shit like this, but I am the one living in a run down house with no business.....slagged off in my local paper......now lets look at that "dealing with unreasonable people" policy again...hmmm ?????
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:57:44 AM
Apparently the Ombudsman has no problem with this......remind me why we have an Ombudsman again, is it containment or fairness....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat on January 21, 2015, 02:51:35 PM
How can Allgas sent letters in your name when you no longer work there.  Isn't that fraudulent activity?  Why didn't they simply alert the Board to the error in address under their own name, saying they were the company that did the work?  I do not understand why they would so something so silly as to sign the letter with your name when you were clearly not there?

Also I do not understand how these certificates are valid without the test results.  Any other gasfitter working on these properties cannot be sure that they were left legally safe at the end of the job given that no test results were filled in.  How can these have gotten through the system?  So simply the Board are a repository for Gas Certificates, not the safeguarders of the public?  I accept that probably they do sampling, but if your assertions are correct, and I have no reason to believe they aren't then 11 out of 150 seems an unacceptably high number of a portion of certificates that have no test results, and I would think warranted a further look at the work at these addresses, simply to see what else might have been "forgotten".

I also would be concerned about a company that fraudulently produced a document in the name of someone that no longer worked there, no matter how innocuous the contents.  It does not speak well of them and their business practices.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 05:31:51 PM
Tip of the ice burg Jax...I have many many copies that have been accepted, probably why the investigator turned up with photo copies done on pink paper to hide the multitude of different colour pens used with different inks.....

Now here's one for you, look at the names on these certs and correlate the cert numbers, you'll find the cert numbers are the same, but let me direct you to the fitters and certifiers names.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 05:39:57 PM
Here's some more, look at the license number that is started then crossed out.....I an told me they did to him what they did to me, when he told the Board....they audited Ian......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 05:50:00 PM
And some more, now add to the fact that they loose convenient paper originals....how safe do you all feel relying on this bullshit????



I got heaps of these, perhaps this is what Routhan took with him as insurance? and probably why they took the system off the Board, now pick a side you can have the truth and integrity or a cover up and incompetent ineptitude with a dash of corruption....

Oh and by the way the certs that have my name on below are from the four books of certs ordered in my name when I told him to shove his job, been complaining about this since 2002.....do they really think I am going to give up after 13 years and what I been through.....cocks.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 05:52:19 PM
Now how do you see the missing cert for the explosion people? with no test results?

How would these goons look to the lawyer for the chipshop owner when he asked for ALL copies of certs for the site where some one nearly died?

Now how do you feel about the reasons for the government taking the cert system off these dicks?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:20:29 PM
Now bearing in mind that they have ignored an elderly couples complaint about a califont fitted nearer than the one they did me for (which I contest and believe I can disprove, using evidence from hearing) and the shambles of their administering the cert system, (see below for a tiny fraction of the evidence that I have to show the shambles).....


Here's a comment from the Board in my local newspaper, released before I could appeal, (the investigators lawyer tried to block that appeal too), they still can't show me where I said I was a "mere plumber"

PRESS RELEASE | 12 July 2011
A Nelson gasfitter has been found guilty of professional shortcomings and unacceptable conduct. The Board has found that Paul Gee breached the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act when he carried out gasfitting work on a house in Malvern Avenue, Nelson.Mr Gee incorrectly installed a gas water heater by not allowing sufficient clearance between it and an openable window. It was installed by Mr Gee too close to an openable window, which created a risk that products of combustion and carbon monoxide could have entered into the house.
The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board decided the case against Mr Gee in relation to work carried out on six other properties in the Tasman Bay and Westport areas including the Milton Street takeaways shop in Nelson was not established. The takeaways was the scene of an explosion in April 2009.The cause was found to be a gas leak, which developed at the rear of two gas fires.
The case against Mr Gee was not established at properties at Main Road, Havelock, Greenwood Street, Motueka, Pah Street at Motueka High School, Dommett Street, Westport and Powick Street, Westport.
For the charge Mr Gee was found guilty of, the tribunal said: “Mr Gee is not a mere plumber as he referred to himself, but an experienced gasfitter. For a practitioner of Mr Gee’s status, these applied professional shortcomings are seen as being very serious and his conduct unacceptable.”
In considering the charge, the Board noted Mr Gee’s lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when signing gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.
The Board also said there was a demonstrated lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.
The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the PGDB about the Milton Street matter and the PGDB undertook its own investigation. As a consequence, a further six properties were also identified as potentially posing a risk to the health and safety of the public.
The Board deals with the competency of gasfitters and any disciplinary actions that arise from that. For compensation, any affected parties need to lodge a civil claim with the courts.

The Board will now arrange a meeting between the parties to decide on penalties, after which time Mr Gee will have the right of appeal.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 06:25:49 PM
They are delusional....look at the hypocrisy......from below.....

In considering the charge, the Board noted Mr Gee’s lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when signing gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.
The Board also said there was a demonstrated lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.


LOL they couldn't even do data entry right......and I have professional short comings........good luck guys in relying on this system if any of your previous work has an incident or kills someone (even if it is not your fault)......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on January 21, 2015, 08:58:17 PM
Hi guys, mate I have fixed a window shut only to discover that a painter had removed the fixing so as to paint then not refined it shut. I discovered this while at the property doing something else, this could easily have happened to you did you chech it.? cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 21, 2015, 09:02:35 PM
I've done a revised press release for a laugh.....this is a joke (based on the bullshit below)....


PRESS RELEASE | 21 Jan 2015

The Board has been found guilty of professional shortcomings and unacceptable conduct. Paul Gee found the Board had breached the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act when they ignored gasfitting work on a house of an elderly couple, They ignored an incorrectly installed a gas water heater ignoring insufficient clearance between it and an openable window. It was ignored yet it was too close to an openable window, which created a risk that products of combustion and carbon monoxide could have entered into the house.

For the charge the Board was found guilty of, the kangaroo court said: “The Board is not a mere plumber's board, as they referred to themself, but made up of an experienced gasfitter and plumbers. For these practitioner's of the Board's status, these applied professional shortcomings are seen as being very serious and his conduct unacceptable.”

In considering the charge, Mr Gee’s thought that the Board showed a lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when accepting and registering gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.

The Board also had demonstrated a lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.

The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the PGDB about the Milton Street matter and the PGDB undertook its own slanted investigation, ignoring blatant facts and evidence. As a consequence, a further six properties were also identified as potentially posing a risk to the health and safety of the public. But no one was held accountable, and still haven't.

The Board deals with the competency of gasfitters and any disciplinary actions that arise from that, when it suits them and only for those who aren't their mates. For compensation, any affected parties need to lodge a civil claim with the courts. (oh I feckin will)


The Board will now arrange a meeting between the parties, to party in Melbourne, with partners, to decide on penalties, after which time Mr Gee will have the right of appeal. LOL


This is a joke and was written by applying their own words to themselves, (No Board's were harmed in the making of this joke)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 23, 2015, 06:52:32 PM
Hi Robbo, missed your post in my haste, just working on something and I will answer it all together and hopefully by then the Board might have answered who is in the photo below and my other requests, that is they don't deem me unreasonable in the mean time, hope you all have a great weekend, be happy.

We live in the best country in the world, working as a very important part of the machinery that greases the wheels of our culture, they really could not do poo's with out us, we just need to take it back and make it all make sense, openly and transparently for the greater good.....isn't that reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 09:48:20 AM
Here's a copy of the "impartial" investigators affidavit where he signs a legal document to say he only has limited knowledge of Mr Darnley......


The other three photos I have seem to make this legal document inaccurate, some may say that he lied? These are dated 2005 and 2006....have read of the affidavit......do you think you'll get a fair go with these goons.

I have a lot of this evidence, but no one wants to acknowledge it, even the Ombudsman, is it fairness for everyone.....?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 10:18:36 AM
The explosion happened in April 09, here's a copy of the NZIGE newsletter, dated May 09....where Darnley resigns.....hmmmm funny that.

I wonder if we asked Mr Darnley why he resigned.....what would be his reply?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 10:23:27 AM
Isn't it a worry that a person who, by Mr Hammond's own affidavit, was given his full certifying/craftsman status by means of one oral exam....was also allowed to make out he was an engineer, a member of a prestigious engineering group, as well as other gas groups, I was told by Darnley he was a member of the LPGA too.

But then Mr Hammond was given his craftsman status with no apprenticeship as well.....these people must have some contacts eh?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 10:51:30 AM
Now back to the horrendous administration of OUR cert system, now bear in mind the master copies were unobtainable from the Board, until I photographed these suppliers copies, then they miraculously re appeared, notice the missing test results and my favourite the twink.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 10:58:22 AM
I'll give you a "for instance"....

Now you'll probably be told that the Board don't administer the system any more, but you need to understand that they still have the records and what ever was in play at the time of the install will be brought up at your hearing, down to the date of the regs in play at the time.....

Imagine, you install an appliance, and you sign it off....the customer decides he wants it on the other side of the room and moves it.....it blows up.....you got no photos and the person responsible for the moving of the appliance isn't about to own up.....but they got your name on the paper work.....can you rely on the system or the people running the system?

Assume the position.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 11:15:24 AM
Here is Max's take on pressure testing a supply and documenting it.....the WTF is my comment, please see attachment........

This is what happens when you have non tradesman, look after tradesman.....its all about the paper work to these people, they are not interested in preventing a problem, just making sure they have a name to pin it on if it goes a wry.....


it isn't an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff it is a hearse....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
Has this Board any credibility?

Now if it was just me, then ok, but look at all the things the Feds have proven them wrong, so very wrong on!, but its ok we'll change the law!

It is a joke, sadly a joke on us, that we pay for and finance, that they pay no tax on! because they are a charity.....its embarrassing.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 08:40:19 PM
Something that has bothered me for a while now, it is the predetermined, almost willed, outcome of a hearing.....but if it don't go the way they want it, they just stop? Is this reasonable? Is it safe? Has a duty of care been observed?

For example, if the police go after someone and it comes out at the trial that the guy on the stand didn't do it.......do they just leave it at that?

No one has been held responsible for an explosion where someone nearly died, with all the evidence, especially the evidence at the hearing (although it was with held by the investigator, until the hearing) points to someone at Allgas, in all probability Darnley, you remember the guy who faced a charge but it disappeared....is this reasonable?

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 08:53:55 PM
Have a read of the transcript of my kangaroo court, it is long, but there is some humour in there and you can have a look at what you might expect from these people.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 09:10:02 PM
here's my letter to the Ombudsman




Apparently all this below appears to be fair according to the Ombudsman.....


Dear Mr Donnelly,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 3rd Sept 2013, reference # 310809.

 

I disagree with the Board’s own findings, on their own impartiality, which is an oxy-moron of a sentence if nothing else. How can they ask themselves, the very people involved, if they are impartial and then issue their own findings on their own impartiality? It is nonsense.

 

It is of note they then went on to make my actual hearing even less impartial, all done with scant regard for these initial concerns that I openly tried to raise.

 

They have gone to great lengths to cover up and protect their cronies, their own reputations and the reputations of the organisations that they have invested so much of their time and effort in, sometimes investing a life time in.

 

I thank you Mr Donnelly for this opportunity to clarify.

 

In reply to your first question………

 

As you are aware, the “impartiality” hearing was held on the 22nd Feb 2011, it was held in the face of a motion to dismiss and personal statements by myself and by Wal Gordon and an objection made on the 3rd of Feb 2011. (Please see attachments 1 to 4).
 

A memo was sent by the investigator in response of this motion to dismiss. I find this memo a strange and confusing submission. Strange and confusing, because it was made by someone who I had already complained about, specifically about his impartiality and involvement. If a serious conflict of interest is present, as I believe it is, then this investigator’s memo is an attempt to sway the Board. To sway the Board in the investigator’s own favour, urging the Board to dismiss my complaints about his own impartiality, which apparently the Board listened to. Of note, Mr Hammond specifically opposes the Ombudsman’s office looking into this matter in this memo to the Board. (Please see attachment 5 i ).
 

I was told to allow three days for this hearing on the 22nd Feb, but it took just two hours. I was left stranded in Wellington for three days. I had booked flights and could not change them. (Please see attachment 5 ii for dates and attachment 6 for the hearing’s duration).
 

We were told, by the legal assessor for the Board, Mr Corkill QC, right at the beginning of the impartiality hearing that “we're not having oral evidence in the course of this hearing” this prevented any cross examination by me or my advocate Wal Gordon, we could not voice any opinions or disagreements. This can be found on page 8 line 21 of the attached transcript. (Please see attachment 6).
 

It is of note that this hearing was held to find whether the people involved were impartial, but several people were later replaced when it came to the actual hearing. One of these people included Mr Bickers. Whom I believe had an even greater potential conflict, which I will address below. Mr Bickers was then, and still is, the Chairman of the PGD Board.
 

I believe this replacement of people, people who had been by the Board deemed to be impartial; to then be replaced by others even less impartial makes this impartiality hearing null and void, redundant…. and a bit of a farce, as was my actual hearing.
 

There is a statement read out at the outset of this impartiality hearing by the Board that deserves some scrutiny.
 

The statement I refer to begins on page 5 line 5 of the transcript (Please see attachment 6). It addresses Mr Parkers “impartiality” and omits a lot of very relevant and pertinent facts. Of note Mr Parker was later made Chair of my actual hearing and had “the” leading influence of this later hearing. This all done in the face of my complaints and concerns.
 

This statement, made by the chair of this hearing, states that Mr Parker is a member of NZIGE and that he has no relationship with Mr Darnley, but is contradicted as he appears in at least two of the three photos with Mr Darnley at NZIGE seminars, the last photo isn’t quite clear. Ironically the photo taken in 2006 is the year my letter of concern/complaint was sent to the Board on my behalf by Nick Smith (please see attachment 7).
 

Other Board members and Mr Hammond appear in this 2006 photo and the 2 other photos, contradicting statements in Mr Hammond’s affidavit Doc 13 in attachments, (please see attachment 8 for photos).
 

It also states that Mr Parker’s relationship with Mr Hammond is only on a professional basis, when Mr Hammond was a “contractor” from “time to time” with the Gas Assoc, this is hugely misleading.
 

This statement fails to include that Mr Parker has conducted many presentations/seminars, together both representing several different gas groups as a duo with Mr Hammond, with Mr Hammond usually fulfilling a “technical advisor” role.
 

Both have run the “Kennedy trust” which appears to be closely involved with GANZ. Mr Hammond actually chairing the trust.
 

Mr Hammond was very involved with GANZ, not just as a contractor, Mr Hammond actually serving as Mr Parker’s technical adviser at GANZ while both of them were on the secretariat, Mr Parker being the secretary and the Executive Director of GANZ.
 

In fact ironically in a PGDB newsletter on Page 2, (please see attachment 9 vi). In a Board member profile, “Stephen Parker, Executive Director of the Gas Association of New Zealand since 1998” (and I am guessing that someone just don’t walk into a position as important as a Executive Director and in all probability worked his way up to that position for many years). This official PGDB publication is, very ironically dated for March 2009, the month before the explosion.
 

And in ever increasing irony, in this same issue on page 8 Mr Hammond also appears, again in a technical advisory role, on the importance of certification, certification of all things the …..
 

“Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations. Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the operation of the installation”.

 

I now ask you to consider the fact that Mr Hammond and the Board ignored the “non registration” of the “pizza oven cert”, a non registration that still managed to find its way into the Board’s electronic cert register (how this occurred defies any reasonable scenario, other than the Board accepted an incomplete cert, that later blew up), with all known copies lacking the leak test results AT THE SITE OF AN EXPLOSION! ….with Mr Darnley apparently not even questioned about this nor charged over this non registration, the Board being aware 9 days after the explosion of this “non registration”, but decided to go after me.
 

Also the fact that the Board and Mr Hammond ignored that the hose that caused the explosion was a replacement, replaced a year after the initial installation, as proven by the invoicing by Allgas, for a third hose (this invoice actually part of the evidence at my later hearing). Of note this hose was sold to the chipshop owner long after I left Mr Darnley’s employment. This is the very hose that ruptured and caused the explosion, as told to me by the owner of the chipshop. The owner told me that he told Mr Hammond about this, but Mr Hammond was not interested. And Mr Darnley was never asked about it or accused of any connection, as far as I know.
 

This is the “pizza oven cert” mentioned in my initial complaint to your office. Please consider this non registration in light of this official Board release, above, by Mr Hammond. And I also ask you to wonder why this was never chased up by the Board or Mr Hammond? Why doesn’t Mr Hammond’s “tech note”, made in an official PGDB newsletter above, apply to Mr Darnley?
 

Attachment 9 vii is a NZIGE Newsletter dated 2005. It shows a presentation by Mr Hammond and Mr Parker representing GANZ. Ironically with Mr Darnley shown in the photo, all three being members of NZIGE, along with several Board members. What would a fair minded lay observer think of this and it’s potential for a huge conflict of interest? This all made available to the Board, but dismissed by the Board, with Mr Parker then appointed to chair my hearing in light of all this. (Please see attachments 9 i to 9 vii). 
 

In any case, by the Boards own statement in its own findings for this impartiality hearing that a professional relationship is a conflict, this is found on page 9 of the Board’s findings (please see attachment 10). This I believe would also apply to Mr Darnley being given his full craftsman ticket after just one oral exam, held by Mr Hammond.
 

 I have reason to believe that there are also connections with the NZ LPG Assoc, and this is where Mr Darnley may have potentially met Mr Hammond, as he was a gas salesman, running a business selling gas, i.e. Allgas, a company specialising in LPG gas supply at the time, there being no Natural Gas in the South Island.
 

Mr Hammond’s relationship with both Mr Parker and Mr Bickers is a “professional” relationship and has an “apparent” bias if the Board’s own findings and arguments/past presidents are used from this findings document by the Board.
 

This same document is actually based on perceived impartiality and makes frequent use of the term a “fair minded lay observer” and how they might reasonably apprehend that the decision maker would bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question. I have told many, many lay people my story and they are, without exception, of the same opinion as me about the blatant partiality of the people concerned.
 

Mr Hammond was a president of GANZ for a two year term in 1993 please see an excerpt from a “deregulation paper” below, which says that way back in 1994 he had already been involved in GANZ for 12 years.
 

I ask this, would Mr Parker who appears to have a long history of working along side Mr Hammond for many years within several gas groups, with Mr Hammond acting as a technical advisor to Mr Parker at GANZ…..well would Mr Parker put more weight in Mr Hammond’s opinion than that of anyone else? Did he put more weight in Mr Hammond’s opinion at my later hearing? I believe he did……What would a fair minded lay observer think?
 

Also a question of what a fair minded lay observer might think of a potential professional, perhaps even personal relationship is between Mr Bickers and Mr Hammond. I think this is very relevant.
 

What would a fair minded lay observer think of Mr Bickers being a president of IPENZ in 1991 and Mr Hammond being president of NZIGE in 1991? These two organisations “collaborating”, with IPENZ providing NZIGE its admin services and NZIGE being a technical arm of IPENZ (please see attachment 11). Both organisations even sharing the same PO Box number……. Is it fair to think that Mr Hammond and Mr Bickers would know each other? Seeming able to put an “apparent” bias and conflict before the integrity of the hearing. What would a fair minded lay observer think?
 

Perhaps a better question would be….. How could they not know each other and not have a relationship, both personal and professional?
 

Also Mr Bickers served on the standards council between 1993 and 1997, please see below. Mr Hammond claims to have worked on Standards in NZ for 12 years the 1994 deregulation paper please see excerpt below and attached.
 

Mr Hammond making this statement in 1994, a definite one year over lap with Mr Bickers, with potentially a 4 year relationship overlap as Mr Hammond continued on to be heavily involved with NZ Standards, right up to the present day.
 

Mr Hammond actually, amongst many other NZ Standards, co-authoring and actually Chairing the Standards Committee for NZ5261 (yet another conflict of interest as he would not want this to be shown wanting, which I believe the standard NZ 5261 is, as it is contradictory, particularly the table 16 which is the very table so strictly adhered to by Mr Hammond and the Board in substantiating my remaining 2 charges out of the initial 44 charges).
 

Incidentally Mr Hammond received an award for his work done on NZ Standards from, amazingly and quite ironically IPENZ (please see attachment 12).
 

What would a fair minded lay observer think about the potential relationship between Mr Bickers and Mr Hammond?
 

 

Public Statements attributable to Mr Bickers below, please bear in mind that the usual Modus Operandi for both these institutions (IPENZ and NZIGE) is for the previous years President to be involved with the meetings and AGMs -
 

Mr Alan Bickers (chairperson)
Mr Bickers is currently a Director of Catalyst Management Services offering management consultation services to public and private sector clients. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and is a Chartered Professional Engineer. He is an Associate of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute NZ and a Justice of the Peace.
Mr Bickers has worked for four local authorities with the last position as Chief Executive of Tauranga City/District Council (1987-1995). Mr Bickers has served on the Standards Council of NZ (1993-1997), Bay of Plenty Health Board and on the board of Transit NZ (1997-2004) with the last three and a half years as Chair. He has spent the last two decades involved with the Institution of Professional Engineers NZ (including President 1991-1992) and is current chair of their Disciplinary Committee. Mr Bickers has been appointed for a three-year term.

 

 

Alan Bickers

Professional Commitment Award 1997

Alan Bickers was President of IPENZ in 1991 choosing The Engineer in the Community as the theme for his year as President. Alan was indeed beginning the process of encouraging the Institution to be more outward looking. Alan left the position of chief executive of the Tauranga District Council during 1995 and his newly established consultancy in management services is now experiencing strong demand. Alan is Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and in this role he provided valuable guidance in a recent significant revision of the Disciplinary Regulations. The Waikato Bay of Plenty Branch had no difficulty in convincing the Awards Committee that Alan Bickers is a most worthy recipient for the IPENZ Professional Commitment Award in 1997.

 

36.   From Mr Hammond’s affidavit, (please see attachment 13).

 



 

1.       From a deregulation paper actually lobbying for deregulation and the gas self certification system on behalf of GANZ, written by Mr Hammond in 1994, (please see attachment 14).

 



 

37.   How would a person who lobbied for deregulation look if the self certification system failed, resulting in an explosion? Mr Hammond for this reason alone is not impartial. How would a fair minded lay observer view this? Please can I urge you to read fully both attachments 13 and 14.

 

In this “deregulation” document Mr Hammond talks of the importance of training in the gas industry, and yet issues Mr Darnley his full craftsman licence after just one oral exam, why did he do this. Mr Darnley being one of only ten people he granted licenses to in this way, this is as per Mr Hammond’s own affidavit.
 

Please think of it in the light of others who are made to jump through hoops and crawl over broken glass for this same licence. Why was Mr Darnley different from the hundreds, if not thousands, of people denied a craftsman licence? I have had to, as have many others (I have met them), endure rigorous retraining, sitting written exams and proving my practical ability. This took me many years, and I was a time served City and Guilds Gas Service Engineer.
 

Please see licence numbers for IPENZ, below.
 

17998
 Bickers, Alan Dist FIPENZ
 Waikato-Bay of Plenty - Tauranga
 
46920
 Hammond, Anthony MIPENZ
 Wellington
 

 

If IPENZ membership numbers run sequentially then Mr Hammond and Mr Bickers have been members of this same group of people for decades, well over 30 years, Mr Hammond claiming to have joined in 1977 with Mr Bickers number issued some considerable time before even that.
 

It appears they have been members sharing the same ranks and accolades of their closely related/collaborating respective institutions for over 3 decades, longer than my whole 25 year career.
 

 Mr Bickers recently stated at a meeting in Wellington that he did not know Mr Hammond as there were over 10 000 members, but I must ask of these 10 000 members, how many members would share all these facts, time and common ground, proof of which is readily available on the internet?
 

I believe Mr Bickers should have removed himself from the hearing as he was not deemed by the Board to be impartial at this initial impartial hearing, and then went on to ignore these conflicts, above, by attending my actual hearing.
 

Mr Bickers should be very informed and aware about all the protocol and procedure as he runs an up-skilling course on “the role of the professional witness” and chairs disciplinary panels.
 

Another bone of contention and a potential cause for apparent bias are the IPENZ rules, which can be taken as NZIGE rules also, that encourage members to protect other members reputations and that of IPENZ/NZIGE, (please see attachment 15). From the rules, Upholding the reputation of the Institution and its members, this rule would apply to all concerned.
 

So, I believe, we have an unfair and very partial situation, where a fair minded lay observer could be justified for having concerns about impartiality because Mr Hammond, who of note is also a past PGD Board Chairman to boot, and a co-author of NZ5261, and a lobbyer for deregulation and the failed self cert system, and a high ranking member of NZIGE, IPENZ, GASA, GANZ (past 2 year president of GANZ), and working extensively within the NZ standards committee and chairing the Kennedy trust, and also being the very person who empowered Mr Darnley (another NZIGE member) with a craftsman license, after just one oral exam and no formal training of an apprenticeship.
 

Would he have his reputation (and potentially any organisation’s reputation he was a member of) tarnished.
 

I believe his reputation would be tarnished, if his license granting to an untrained member of a gas engineers group came out after a gas explosion nearly killed someone, at a site where the self certing system (lobbied for by Mr Hammond) was found to be wanting and badly administered by the Board, so badly administered that it required a disclaimer on its electronic register, see below.
 

Disclaimer: The details as they appear here are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the details on the original hardcopy certificate. For this reason, should you wish to obtain a copy of this certificate, please complete the form on the previous page or email gascerts@pgdb.co.nz for more info.
 

 This self certification system lobbied for by Mr Hammond and Mr Hammond is the person who empowered Mr Darnley, who in all probability was responsible for the explosion, or knew who was responsible. Did Mr Hammond have a reason to protect Mr Darnley, to make me the scape goat…..I believe he did.
 

Both Mr Hammond and Mr Bickers have served as chair on the Standards Committee.
 

A fair minded lay observer could also be forgiven for thinking that Mr Hammond would be assisted in protecting his reputation and that of IPENZ and NZIGE by the Chair of the Board Mr Bickers, also high ranking member of IPENZ and on the Standards committee for 4 years. And assisted, even more so, by Mr Parker, the Chairman of my actual hearing and an IPENZ-via his NZIGE membership, GASA, GANZ, Kennedy trust member…..Could they be influenced by the IPENZ rules to protect another member’s reputation and that of the many institutions that they were all members of.  I believe they could. What would a fair minded lay observer think?
 

I have good reason to believe that these “gas” people, including Mr Darnley, are connected by yet further groups but lack the resources to confirm…… and this is why a proper investigation is required, preferably done on oath.
 

Mr Bickers publically slated me and my ability in my local paper, this was done before my appeal, and solely on the basis of the Board enforcing a non mandatory section of the NZ5261, in effect making it mandatory. This further undermining my credibility, both in the industry and in my area.
 

The Board also audited 2 jobs of most, if not all, gasfitters in my area at the time, telling them it was because of complaints I had made about the standard of gasfitting in my area. I had only ever complained about Mr Darnley. This action made me a pariah in my industry and in my area.
 

I believe a fair minded lay observer could be forgiven for thinking all the above was done to cover up a badly administered gas “safety” register of certs. With a site, with an incomplete gas certificate, EXPLODING!. Something that I had tried to warn about for 6 years previous to the explosion, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy work.
 

I was put through a procedure where both the “leading influences” i.e. Board Chair and Hearing Chair were potentially very conflicted and were prepared to ignore those potential conflicts, all done against my open concerns and complaints.
 

In light of all this I believe that the “test of egregious behaviour” mentioned on page 7, point 30 of the Board’s 3rd March findings, (please see attachment 20)….is now satisfied.
 

This is probably why the NZ Law Commission says that-
 

5.36, a difficulty arises here in that occupational regulatory and disciplinary bodies are often funded by the relevant industry, which may adversely affect perceptions of their independence. However, this funding is necessary. We suggest that it may be acceptable for these bodies to be funded through mechanisms such as licensing fees and industry levies provided that they are independent from industry associations and other purely industry groups, and that other mechanisms are in place to safeguard their independence. For example, in its recent review of the real estate agents act 1976, the Ministry of Justice suggested that the body responsible for licensing and disciplinary matters ought to be “independent from the industry,” meaning that the real estate institute of New Zealand should not be able to exercise control over it. This body would be constituted as a separate body that would be required to report annually to Parliament. Finally, it was seen as important for public perceptions of independence that the Minister of Justice should appoint members, rather than the industry appointing the members.337 We note that these recommendations arose in a context of public concern about the real estate industry. However, we suggest that the underlying principles reflect a wider trend towards greater independence for occupational bodies, and that the recommendations can be considered as an example of best practice in any event. (Please see attachment 16 for the full document).

 

As Board members Mr Bickers and Mr Parker are not time served tradesmen and fall in to the category of “lay persons” as Board members, the application of the “small community” argument (mentioned on page 10 of the Board’s 3rd March findings, please see attachment 20) shouldn’t be relevant because, in light of the NZ Law Commission recommendations they should not be there.
 

Their absence would allow their places to be filled with actual impartial lay people from the general population, all 5 million people that share these fair islands of New Zealand. It is an insult to each and every one of these kiwis, to think that within this large population, of over 5,000,000 people, there is no one capable to preside on this situation, other than these connected and entangled people.
 

Page 14 of the Board’s findings 3rd March 2011, please see attachment 20, state that the letters sent were not part of the “investigative/disciplinary process” (which begs the question, why were they sent and on what basis?) and that they would not prejudice a fair hearing. This is contrary to the findings of Helen Cull QC, and is also reflected in the apology from the Board signed by Mr Bickers that these letters “could have wrongly given your customers the impression that you were involved in unlawful behaviour in other parts of the country”.
 

What this “apology” does not include is that these were sent to all sites of the charges laid for my hearing, all sites other than the site of the explosion. (Please see attachment 17). This I believe was an attempt to prejudice all the sites of 6 other charges. To make people think that I was capable of being involved in unlawful behaviour in other parts of the country.
 

I apologise for having no legal representative/council (although a complete stranger (at the start of this fiasco) Wal Gordon has done an outstanding job for me for no monetary payment, for no other reason than his need to see fair play), but I have been left in a position of not being financially in a position to pay for a lawyer.
 

Of note the lawyer I did use at the beginning of this witch hunt (someone I paid well over $10,000.00 to) advised me just before I stopped using his services before the hearing, to plead guilty to all charges and pay a $50 000.00 dollar fine. This advice for the charges which I later proved at the hearing that I was innocent of any wrong doing on 95% of the 44 charges, and I believe 100% innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever, especially if the hearing was allowed to proceed. The Hearing being stopped by none other than Mr Parker.
 

These last charges 2 out of the 44 laid, that were “found to have substance” by the Board was an attempt, I believe, as a last ditch attempt to save some claim to credibility and justify the huge cost to persecute and frame me.
 

Of note, a concern about cost is mentioned in Mr Hammond’s initial memo to the Board, (please see attachment 4i).
 

The Board, on advice from the “impartial” investigator, basically enforced a non mandatory section of the NZ 5261, disallowing a valid alternative. The hearing being drawn to a close just as my advocate, Wal Gordon, was attempting to clarify if any wrong doing had actually occurred, we both still believe these last charges are bogus.
 

It is of note that at the hearing, presided over by Mr Parker, the “Impartial” investigator had just stated that if nothing was entering the building then no offence had occurred and that he did not know that any fumes had entered the building as he had not carried out any tests, the owner of this house previously stating that fumes were not a problem, it was at this point that the hearing was shut down by Mr Parker the chair of my hearing. (Please see the last pages of the hearing transcript already provided).
 

This cutting short our opportunity to answer the last of the charges, the only charges “found to have substance” by the Board. The rest of the charges answered so well that they were dismissed, including the charge for the exploding chip shop which was proven by, amongst other proof, photos that Mr Hammond with held for two years, and still goes with no one held accountable to this very day.
 

Also see the request to amend charges. Amended to make the charges better fit the statements. Done just two weeks out from the hearing after re-investigating the sites. Of note, these statements were either reneged on at the hearing or were refused signature by the “witnesses”. What would a fair minded lay person think of a witness (or the method applied to gather these witnesses’s statement) that he/she refuses to sign their own statements? (Please see attachment 18).
 

In reply to your second question…….

 

I have looked high and low for the transcript of the High Court appeal, but sadly can’t find it. I am happy for you to obtain a copy of the transcript, if that service is available to your office; it is case number CIV 2011- 485-2407. Of note, my right of appeal was opposed by the investigator’s lawyer.
 

I distinctly remember I was told by Justice Kos that I was to talk about the measurement of the distance of the window only, he was very clear about this, and that I was not to adduce any further evidence, preventing me from airing my concerns about impartiality.
 

I remember the investigator’s lawyer requesting to adduce that the Board should be given weight to their opinion as they were “professional”, I think this was allowed.
 

Justice Kos was in receipt of the statement that I was trying to adduce, including the British Standard that proved I had done nothing wrong, (please see attachment 19).
 

 

 

I have attached your letter and the Board’s findings of the 3rd of March for your convenience and clarity, (please see attachment 20).

 

 

I do have a few questions of my own……

 

In the Boards findings of 3rd March 2011 (please see attachment 20), point 36 states that Mr Darnley faced a charge in relation to only one of the seven charges that were laid against me, but on a different basis…..

 

Which charge was this? I believe this could only have been the site of the explosion.
 

On what basis was this charge laid?
 

What was the outcome of this charge?
 

Why didn’t it appear in his final charges?
 

 

I apologise for not being more prompt with my reply, but I have had to start afresh in my career path. I am now a trainee at 41 years old, and have committed to proving myself at my new job, a job outside of the plumbing and gas industry, an industry I had invested a quarter of a century in.

 

My business re-launch failed miserably and even though I am highly qualified in my field and was told I would be in the top 10% of gasfitters the Board’s own assessor had ever assessed,  I am finding it hard to find a job with in the plumbing and gas industry.

 

I was mortgage free with no debt whatsoever, but I have lost my home, my wife and sons, 5 and 7 at the time, spent 14 weeks of a winter in a caravan with no running drinking water and a chemical toilet, while I worked away. I lost also my business, reputation and two years out of my son’s young lives, and at times my sanity, all for a situation I had spent 6 years trying to warn about, warning about someone who was causing me great concern in his ability and attitude and its effects on the public’s safety, with my worst concerns proven, by actually happening. He acted as though he was untouchable, and apparently he was………Do you think this is fair? Who put the safety of the public first and foremost in their actions?

 

 

Thank you for your time. I understand you are a busy person, but may I respectively ask that you can confirm receipt of this email and its attachments, just for my piece of mind that it has come through ok.

 

I would welcome any further questions if it will assist your investigation.

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 24, 2015, 09:15:42 PM
And my second letter.........I have waited two years to be fobbed off................

FAIRNESS FOR ALL........umm.... that's not my experience

Dear Mr Patterson,

 

Ref 310809.

 

 

I am in receipt of your two letters dated 30 May and 13 June 2014. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank you for extending my date of reply.
 

I fear that I may not have made myself clear to you and your office. My complaint is not about the outcome of the biased and flawed hearing and slanted investigation.
 

My complaint is about the flawed and biased investigation and the subsequent stacked hearing that I was subjected to by the Board and it’s so called “impartial” investigator, the Board’s words not mine. This same Board who are willing to ignore blatant conflicts of interest and firm evidence that points to my old boss and are quite happy with the withholding and misrepresentation of evidence by their appointed so called “impartial” investigator. This is my complaint.
 

It concerns me greatly that your office appears to be putting so much emphasis and weight on the 33 page report written by the Board and Secretariat, who of course will have put a great deal of effort into excusing themselves. This is confusing to say the least. It is a kin to they themselves judging themselves impartial, (an oxy-moron and very bad grammar to say the least), which apparently no one has any concerns with either.
 

In point 1 of your letter dated 30th May, it appears there is some confusion over my situation, I did not sit a prescribed course of “INSTRUCTION”, which implies, even demands, the learning of new skills and knowledge, skills and knowledge that I was deemed by the Board to have lacked.
 

I was in fact ASSESSED…. learning nothing new. I am sure I could have learned a lot from the assessor as he was very knowledgeable, but the “course” prescribed by the Board wasn’t available, and so I was assessed. As this "punishment" imposed by the Board did not exist, I was forced to pay someone to assess me and this then imposed yet further additional costs.
 

Of note I was told by this assessor that I would be within the top 10% of people he had ever assessed, this he discovered after my assessment, when I had not been taught anything new. I was assessed on my already attained knowledge and skills (I did this assessment with my arm in a full plaster cast; perhaps this is where I dropped 10%). This is the same knowledge that I had used to position the califont. Your office is charged with seeing fair play served; do you think this is fair?
 

Are double standards fair? Is it fair to have been financially forced to sell my home, to have lost my business and reputation and been subjected to a witch-hunt when it appears that there is no consistency in the actions and findings of the Board? They appear to apply certain rules for some and ignore the same rules for others.
 

Of note, and this is why I requested an extension in my time of reply, I have recently been made aware that the Board has received a complaint from an elderly couple who complained about an installation of a califont, this califont was positioned much nearer than the califont in my one and only standing charge, by some 6 inches to two openable windows.
 

I have been told that the Board’s advice to them was to “close the windows when you use it” and did not pursue it any further. I have requested a clarification of this to the Board in the form of an OIA request, Doc 1 in attachments. I have copied your office in to this OIA request, as well as another OIA request to see if they have taken any action in the case which involved the very sad situation of a young lady losing her life; her horrific situation is to be found on this link, http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/native-affairs-lesleys-legacy. Doc 2 in attachments.
 

I ask you Mr Patterson is this Board effective? Which way do you think the Board will lead our industry and protect our public with these mixed and conflicting messages? What messages are they sending the people of this country when in one explosion they are willing to let it go with no one held accountable, even though there is evidence that indicates someone? And in another explosion, that actually took the life of an innocent, as far as I am aware, do nothing.
 

I am told that this distraught elderly couple, mentioned above, have since withdrawn their complaint and are on anti stress medication due to this terrible situation. Do these people in their twilight years deserve this? I have promised to leave them out of this until it is vitally necessary because of this stress that they have been subjected to. This double standard shown by the Board, do you think it is fair?
 

This goes toward showing that the Board haven’t changed since my hearing and are still using one rule for one, and ignoring other rules for others; this double standard has only just come to light in recent weeks. Do you think this fair?
 

Of note the customer involved in my case, the customer who owned the dwelling that was subject to charges laid for a califont installation at Malvern Av, had laid no complaint and had never in 6 years smelt any fumes, this is because the position of his califont was more open to a cross air supply and had a greater clearance to the floor, their califont was placed under one restrained opening window (only opening to 100mm as it was restrained by safety chains). This window opening into a very large open plan room and with its powered flue issuing into a much larger, clear and open garden, this was all taken into account when I positioned it. Fitted 40 mm over the 500mm minimum from the window, as per the tech note I had.
 

But the califont where the Board has apparently told the people to “close the window when you use it”, these poor people who have actually complained about fumes entering their home, their califont is positioned in a more enclosed area and is much nearer the floor, fitted under two windows that open, unrestrained, to much smaller rooms, (which is a concern due to the availability of free air, i.e. volume, for the dilution of these flue gases), and the elderly couple’s califonts power flue is issuing into a more enclosed and partially covered area with a deck and railings to one side. Is this Fair Mr Patterson? Is the Board’s apparent blasé flippant hypocrisy fair? This apparent attitude of the Board is where my complaint lies, right here. Doc 3 in attachments for photos of the califonts positioning.
 

In point 2 of your letter of 30th May, you speak of my lack of attempts in airing my concerns and the use of a “British Standard” at the High Court Appeal. I ask you to look at the recent reply I have received from the High Court, a reply to my request for a transcript of this appeal.
 

Please also see my extensive written submission to the High Court, already supplied to your office.
 

This recent application for a transcript for my appeal was made to enable me to show you that I was told categorically to talk only about the distance from the window to the califont by Justice Kos and had actually tried to air my concerns. The reply to my recent transcript application is below.
 

 

 

From: Stack, Michaela
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12:09
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: hearing transcrpit.

 

Mr Gee

Thank you for your email.  As you are aware this matter was an "Appeal" hearing before the High Court.  No witnesses were called to give evidence at the High Court hearing and the parties relied on written submissions to present their arguments to the Court.   Therefore no transcript would have been made. It is usual procedure that no transcripts are taken for civil  appeal hearings.

Therefore I am unable to provide any transcript.

 

Kind Regards

 

Michaela Stack

Deputy Registrar

Wellington High Court

email : michaela.stack@justice.govt.nz

 

 

My highlights in red above. As you know, I did make an extensive written submission for my appeal, which I have provided to your office, detailing my concerns that you say I did not try to submit. So in effect I did make a valid attempt to address this and other issues, and as I can take it was read by Justice Kos I do not know why it isn’t in his summing up.
 

All the testimony, evidence and opinions issuing from my impartiality hearing and my actual hearing. All given so much credence by the Board and by Justice Kos appear to be based solely on the foundation of the integrity and reliability of the Board’s appointed so called “impartial” investigator and his opinion, even down to the strict enforcement of an acceptable solution, a NON COMPULSORY acceptable solution, the investigator offered no physical evidence to make his point, it was based solely on his opinion and translation of the NZ 5261 and a contradictory table that he helped write.
 

I was told at my impartiality hearing that as Mr Hammond hadn’t been shown to have acted egregiously, that he was deemed to be suitable and the right person for the job, even in light of all the conflicts of interest I had raised.
 

I ask you Mr Patterson, is this investigator, who withheld forensic photos which proved my point that I had maintained for two years, these same forensic photos taken before he was appointed as the investigator, the same photos which were in all probability in his possession as and when I told him at interview that it was my opinion that the pipe work had been altered after my initial pipe installation…. the same investigator who misrepresented evidence and was prepared to ignore his own huge conflicts of interest, is he suitable? Has he acted egregiously? Has he any integrity? Do you value his opinion? This where my complaint lies.
 

Is it fair that Mr Hammond’s colleague of many years, a Stephen Parker who was chair of my hearing, the same Chair who closed down this very hearing, just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the califont measurement from an openable window and trying to get the investigator to clarify and give his reasons for his “opinion” on the clearance of the califont? This is the basis for my complaint.
 

It is the reliance on this one mans “opinion” by the involved authorities’, to base the whole ruination of my life, business and reputation, that I base my complaint.
 

I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. which I suppose is understandable, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who had lobbied extensively for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system to be introduced, this same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley who was gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and why these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.
 

For your office to apparently be so willing to rely on the Board’s own excuses while they are ignoring the unsuitability of Mr Hammond is reason for concern. You are relying on the Board’s own spin for your reasons to not investigate, I believe this is unfounded and I will ask the human rights commission and perhaps even the leaders of our Commonwealth if they think this is reasonable. This same Board, who have misquoted me, prejudiced all the witness’s to all the sites of charges and told untruths about me and sent vile perverted case notes to my home. I will never let this lie and am in communication with a law firm to pursue this further if you decide to go on the path you appear to be following.
 

Is this conflicted and biased man, Mr Hammond, a reliable person for both the Board and Justice Kos, even the Ombudsman, to totally base their judgment on, up holding this last and final charge out of 44 trumped up charges? Is it fair for your office to listen to this man, to give him credibility? He has acted egregiously. This is my complaint.
 

Think on this, I feel it is relevant because of papers you have written. As you are aware, I had spent 6 years warning about my old boss, about him altering my certs after I had signed them, not forging my signature as your letter of 30th May has said.
 

As you know at one point I had a letter sent on my behalf in 2006 by Nick Smith MP, amongst many other attempts by myself to highlight the short comings of my old boss. Ironic, because I also have a photo of several Board members and the “later to be appointed” investigator pictured in 2006 along with my old boss at a NZIGE meeting, all of them paid up long serving members of the same interest groups.
 

Basically I was, in 2006, complaining about my old boss, to the very same Board members pictured with him in the very same year, all members of the same club, also present in this photo is the man later appointed to investigate the explosion AND who had awarded my old boss his full licence…along with the chair of my hearing Stephen Parker…..all in the same picture, all paid up members of the same group, three years before the explosion. I actually have more similar photos taken at NZIGE seminars.
 

All of this in contradiction to Mr Hammonds own signed affidavit, an affidavit written about how well he knew my old boss and how many times he had met him, is Mr Hammond the right person for the job? Is it fair? This is where my complaint lies.
 

Nick Smith MP stated in a letter that if the Board had heeded my warnings then the explosion “could have been averted”, written two years after the explosion. Is it fair that I lost so much? Doc 4 in attachments. And the Labour MP, Maryan Street believes I was served an injustice Doc 5 in attachments.
 

 This is why I believe it may be relevant to you as I think you said it best in these comments attributable to a Prof Ron Patterson; I take it this is you.
 

In reading Doc 6 in attachments, please replace doctors with tradesman and the Medical Board with this Plumbers Board when rereading these notes, excerpt below:-
 

First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.

 

And from another paper….
 

 

Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas?) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters?) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it!

 

* My additions in black.

 

 

How about adding to this statement above…..That these “raisers of concern” are being set up and made a scapegoat when all that they had warned about comes to pass, nearly killing someone. Isn’t the Board denying and resisting my complaint, just as they did with my warnings, made 6 years prior to the explosion.
 

I ask you Mr Patterson. What is the difference between a patient’s health and safety to that of paying customer of a tradesman? Or are the rights of a gasfitter and his customer to be deemed less than that of a health professional and his patient? After all we are licence holding practitioners and have in the past been over seen by the health system. I was set up as a scape-goat, this is my complaint.
 

Doesn’t a patient pay for a service from a health professional and in doing so they should be able to expect to be kept safe and healthy after procuring these services, please explain to me the difference? I say this because a man nearly died in an explosion and NO ONE has been held accountable but I have been made the scapegoat. What message does this send?
 

Here’s an analogy for you. How does it sit with you if…….. a “health professional” was to be gifted his full practicing licence because he was a pharmaceutical salesman?........Then a well meaning, fully trained health practitioner had aired concerns about the obvious lack of ability of this untrained “gifted” licence holder for 6 years, and was later proven right in his concerns when a patient nearly died………but as the well meaning, fully trained person had signed a prescription (which was manipulated after signing) was then made the scapegoat, by the very person appointed to investigate, this same person who had also gifted the licence to the pharmaceutical salesman, and was in several interest groups with this salesman. Now apply this rational to mine and Mr Darnley’s situation, in light of your publications. Is this fair? How would the author of the above presentation feel about this state of affairs? A presentation about, of all things, “self regulation” and Board’s ignoring evidence.
 

All the evidence points to my old boss, he actually faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared with no relevant questioning or a hearing. Is this fair? Doc 7 in attachments. You’ll notice that this letter mentions 3.7 of the report (the 33 page report that is mentioned above and in your correspondence). Point 3.7 makes no mention of the charge at the site of the explosion. Also a list of the charges laid against Mr Darnley has no mention of the explosion at Milton Street. How can someone face a charge then have it disappear with no trial/hearing or relevant questions? Is it fair?
 

I ask you, is it fair to base your opinion that my old boss was investigated thoroughly and adequately just because the investigator said he did? This same investigator who was also my old boss’s fellow member of NZIGE and the same person who had gifted my old boss his licence…..the same investigator, who withheld forensic photos, misrepresented and ignored evidence?
 

This same Mr Hammond who was willing to ignore, amongst other ignored evidence, a third hose supplied to supply the two fryers, this third hose sold well after, months after, I had left Allgas’s employment and a long time before the secondary work covered by cert 345138 for a pizza oven….this same hose being the very one that caused the explosion, the same hose that, in the opinion of the forensic investigator, David Neale, had had its sealing outer rubber coating cut away, the same outer coating that makes the hose gas tight. Is this fair? This is where my complaint lies. Doc 8 & 9 in attachments.
 

You mention the Board’s 33 page report. As you appear to have a copy please look at page 31, point 4.6, Doc 10 in attachments. I believe this double speak spin doctoring is part of the cover up and one of the root causes for making me a scapegoat, its plain to see for those willing to see. Cert 345138, a cert for the last, most recent work carried out at the site of the explosion, the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Board’s 33 page report, this is also the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Dept Of Labour (DOL) original complaint. Two pages of Doc 11 in attachments.
 

The DOL author of this letter of complaint told my lawyer right at the beginning of this fiasco that, at no point, was my work of concern to DOL. I have since personally talked to the author Mr Windleburn; he has no problem with my work either. To ignore this. This is where my complaint lies.
 

I ask you to read the DOL complaint and ask yourself who in this letter of complaint would a fair minded lay person think was more deserving of a thorough investigation.
 

·         The fully trained Gas Service Engineer who had complained about Mr Darnley, specifically about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years and came forward freely.

 

·         Or the person gifted his licence with no formal training, whom the Board had received letters of concern about, specifically dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, who was the last person to have worked at the site of the explosion but didn’t register the cert for this last work, but saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, i.e. a dodgy cert covering not only dodgy work…. but an explosion? The same person who ran the company that sold the third hose and this same company also showing a willingness to act in my name when Allgas requested to alter a cert 3 months after I had left its employ? Doc 12 in attachments.

 

I find it bizarre that a copy or cert 345138 was entered into the Board’s own website, but they claim not to have received a copy. In the Board’s 33 page report it mentions that a “fox pro” entry is there for this cert I should imagine that this system would require a log in pass word for the person entering the certs information and this person could attest to whether the Board had in deed received a copy. How on earth does all the information on the carbon copies get on to the fox pro system, even down to the correct cert number…..without receiving a copy of the original! To deny receiving this cert alone deserves an investigation. 
 

All available copies of cert 345138 lack the legal recording of a gas leak test, even the electronic version. The only copy missing…. the original! This is the only copy which was, in all probability, received by the Board.
 

I put it to you that it is possible that this original copy of 345138 was, in all probability disposed of and shredded when the Lawyers acting for the owners of the exploding chipshop asked for a copy of all gas safety certs for their gasfitting work carried out at their chipshop. Perhaps you could ask Belinda Greer, a worker for the Board. Doc 13 in attachments. Look at Doc 13 and reread the 33 pages of excuses in their report, it is nonsense.
 

This Cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint. This is where my complaint lies.
 

I ask you in all fairness, if the person responsible for the last work installed at the exploding chipshop, the same person who according to the Board didn’t register this cert for this work with the Board. But he saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, and even kept a carbon copy himself as the supplier and another copy himself as the certifying gasfitter. With this same cert 345138 that appears in the complaint by DOL by actual number, the same cert mentioned in 4.6 on page 31 of the Board’s report……how can this man, the person responsible for initiating cert 345138, face a charge for the explosion, but then that charge disappears with no relevant questioning, trial or hearing? These are per the Board’s own correspondence. It is here my complaint lies, this “non registration” came to light 8 days after the explosion and months before the Board appointed an investigator. Is that Fair?
 

I ask you Mr Patterson……..how would the Board look if they had openly accepted an incomplete gas safety certificate for the last work done at a site that then later exploded…..lacking of all things a gas leak test? How would the Lawyers for the chipshop owners have acted on such findings?
 

In ever more double standards a person involved in yet another case, a situation where there was a pre-signing of some 560 blank certificates, which were on sold, including to unqualified lay persons, with 90% of the work covered by these blank certs done against regulation and non compliant…..with some 16 very dangerous, with the signatory on record as saying he signed and checked every job. What would you think if someone involved in this fiasco, probably the signatory of these blank certs…..still has charges before the Board some 5 years later? Is this fair? These double standards, this is where my complaint lies. Doc 14 in attachments.
 

The Board are also willing to ignore a potential fraud and manipulation of gas certs to cover dangerous work, this was discovered at my hearing, and the Board did nothing. Is this fair?  This is yet another double standard and is where my complaint lies. Doc 15 in attachments. The letters sent by the Board, that are mentioned in this letter of excuse in Doc 15 were issued well before the manipulation of the certs was revealed at my hearing, it is actually one of the letters that the Board had to apologise to me for, because it contained untruths about my ability to act illegally in other areas of NZ. Ironically this letter of untruths sent by the Board came about because of the situation where the man mentioned above signed 560 certs in the North Island, apparently I got lumped in with him, but he potentially still has charges before the Board, even right up to today. This farcical state of affairs is where my complaint lies.
 

The list of poor performance by this Board is long and deserves a proper independent investigation. It does not deserve for the Board to be apparently protected and sheltered by those, like yourself, who would take all that the Board say on face value and fall for their spin doctoring and double speak, this is a mistake.
 

I was told by Mr Christopher Littlewood that all you could do was make a recommendation……please recommend that a proper, fair and independent investigation is held, I will do the rest, along with the support of well over 1200 members of the Plumbers Federation, a group set up because of 15 years of mismanagement by this Board. Sadly my case is but one of many.
 

 

 

Thank you for your consideration and time. Please can you tell me when I might receive a reply, it has been nearly a year and a half since my original complaint.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 10:54:08 AM
Just some of the humour from my transcript in blue below, there are heaps,

this is the sort of crap we have to live with, but if they do anything its an oversight....is that reasonable.....

Now, I think there's just one thing we need to correct here, that in your statement it's stated that Mr Gee become registered in 1978, he would have only been five years old at the time, so I think -

A. 1998 I believe, yeah my apologies for that.

Q. I think that's the way it's recorded on the Board's website, that's possibly where it come from?

A. It obviously isn't correct, thank you.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 11:04:57 AM

Here's where the investigators mate, and chair of the hearing, both of whom I had complained about at the impartiality hearing, this is where we Wal is questioning the investigator on the califont clearance the only charge that stood.....

Itson the last page of the transcript, because this is where they wrapped it up before we could push the issue.....is this reasonable?



That's fine. Now, the second thing I have just to clarify and you're talking about Part 1 and Part 2 of the Act. Now Part 1 is what must be done, what you must comply with?

A. Part 1 is the mandatory requirement.

Q. Mandatory requirement, yes, and Part 2 is a way of compliance?

A. That's correct.
________________________________________________________________________
433
Q. Now, the reason I was asking about that, because on page 35 of the edition I have here, 1.5.7, it meanings about flue terminals and in the second paragraph of that section it reads: "Flue terminals shall be located to minimise entry of combustion products into any building and to minimise the effects of adverse draft on the performance of the gas appliances". So in reading that, if there's no gas entering into a building, then it complies with Part 1?

A. Yes, the aim of that is to make sure that gas does not enter into the building.

Q. So that's the aim of it, so if there is no gas, say in this case we've got two situations where people are saying there's no gas entering, then according to that paragraph then it complies with Part 1 of the Act?

A. No, I don't rely on consumers whether the gas was entering or not, it is the gas fitter's job to locate it in such a way that gas does not enter the building.

Q. But that's what it's saying here though isn't it, it's saying that if the flues aren't entering the building then it complies with Part 1?

A. Yes, but -

Q. And if the customers are saying fumes aren't entering the building then it's compliant with Part 1?

A. But in order to ensure that under all conditions products of combustion do not enter into the premises, then one way of complying is to ensure that the clearances are in accordance with Part 2. If you are putting in an appliance with clearances other than those in Part 2, then you need to demonstrate how the - how you have ensured that under all conditions the products of combustion can't enter the property. 

Q. That doesn't say "in all conditions" there. Does it say in here "all conditions"?

A. No it doesn't say all conditions, but that's surely a general inference from the requirements of the standard to meet all conditions.

Q. Well an inference is fine, but as per it says here the - that's located to minimise entry of combustion products and to minimise the effects of adverse draft et cetera. So those - if there's no fumes entering those two locations that we've been talking about, then they're actually compliant with the mandatory part of the NSZ 5261?

A. I don't have any knowledge of whether products of combustion are in fact entering or not. I have not carried out any tests to demonstrate. I am unaware of any tests that have been carried out to demonstrate that.

MR PARKER: Well I think we have reached the point where we are having submissions, so I think we can adjourn now.

MR BICKERS Q. Mr Hammond, I'm sorry I'm just thinking about what Mr Gordon had put, under what circumstances does 1.5.7 take precedence over 1.6.2? And 1.6.2 which is the manufacturer's instructions, which in turn is table 16, so what would be necessary to say that you've complied with 1.5.7 and you can override 1.6.2?

A. If the manufacturer had carried out some tests and designed a particular appliance in a particular fashion that he felt that it could be put closer to some other part of the building or whatever, then presumably he would provide that information to the gasfitters so they could see that it was appropriate to do so other than was specified in the means of complying.

MS INESON Q. Supplementary on that, so does that mean on page 101, is that the point of number 6? A. Sorry? Q. In page 101 is that the point of note 6 at the bottom of the page? A. Yes, that note is there specifically for. Q. To describe what you've just described? A. Yeah. (Witness excused)
________________________________________________________________________
435
MR PARKER: I think we'll adjourn and I thank you all. We will receive your written submissions on the agreed timetable, the 10th and the 16th. ADJOURNED [3.39 PM]
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 11:11:59 AM
The thing that isn't portrayed in this transcript is the emotion and frustration and the looks around the room, bit like a bunny in the headlights of Wal's questioning.

Wal was on fire and had this guy wrapped up in his own words, now bear in mind that this was the only and last charge to stay, we answered all the others, this is the one they had to hold on to, so they picked up their ball and went home, just before the last over was to be bowled, bit like the under arm bowl at the cricket.....is this reasonable?

Then and this is the best part ignored a califont that was fitted nearer than mine and had been complained about by the customers......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 11:15:45 AM
The thing is, there is enough of this bullshit in this transcript for me to do one a night for a few weeks.....is that reasonable.

Don't take my word for it, have a read, print it off and put it in the smoko room for the boys to look over what to expect from these guys.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 09:09:23 PM
127 photos were taken I got to see 17......from the transcript below in blue.....Mr Laurenson is the investigators lawyer, he wrote most if not all the statements for people to sign, after he "briefed" them, some refused to sign their own statements......hmm must have been something wrong with them?

Here Wal is questioning the forensic investigator for the police....some of these photos showed that the pipe had been moved there were holes in the wall that showed where I had originally fitted the pipe, before someone lowered it....I maintained this for the two years previous and only saw these photos at the hearing, I had told the investigator that the pipe was lowered right at the start of this fiasco......



How many photos did you take of the scene?

A. Hold on a second. I took 127 photographs of the scene.

Q. And who selected these 17 photos pertaining to this?
 
A. I was asked to give comment on those 17 photos by Mr Laurenson.

Q. So you didn't select them, Mr Laurenson selected the photos that we're looking at?

A. That's correct.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 09:28:21 PM
Here's another one, the lady swore that there was vehicular access to the cylinders after being "briefed" by the investigator....I knew there wasn't.....I sat in the council offices and went through a mountain of documents, then right at the end there was a A3 aerial photo, that yet again proved what I had said for the previous two years....

A. I just don't remember there being a fence there, that's all, but I mean let's face it, this is eight years ago that you're asking and it's not something that was a particular high priority ever, and I certainly didn't ever spend a lot of time there. So I'm just telling you to the best of my recollection, and yeah, I don't recall there being a fence. It's a shame I didn't actually get given these photos sooner before I was asked to commit things to paper and so forth, because I can see there is clearly potentially has been fencing across there somehow, but - yeah I just have this feeling that I was able to drive around through that entrance to the north of the building and access the students from that northern end, but like I say -
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 09:52:39 PM
Another from the transcript, remember the pizza oven cert, the one missing the test result, the one that Darnley didn't register, but there was a copy on the Boards website, the one that they knew about days after the explosion.....

Well here is Wal cross examining the investigator....

So that would happen anywhere along that pipe line, for example, we know that a pizza oven was installed and they teed in a pipe line halfway along, would that gasfitter then take responsibility for the other aspects of the installation?

A. The person who carries out that work is required to ensure that the entire installation is sound in terms of test for gas leaks and carry out the installation tests to ensure that the installation is safe and then he signs for the work that he has done which covers insertion of the tee, the branch line to the pizza oven and the pizza oven itself.

Q. So whoever installed the pizza oven, they have taken over responsibility for the safety of that job as far as gas leaks and pipes being attached to walls and all those other sorts of things?

A. They should have carried out a pressure test to ensure that the entire installation was gas tight.




Now marry this statement to Max's excuse for not recording the test result and the fact that it wasn't until after the hearing that I asked for the original pink copy, see the email below from the Board's lawyer,

I think you could safely say that all this was known.....is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 10:22:18 PM
All carbon copies showed it was signed,  signed by Darnley for this "pizza" cert, they just.....well they were missing the gas leak test results......for the site of an explosion......

Even Max Pederson says that the lack of these test results don't make the cert invalid.......

So we have a "valid" signed cert that lacks any record of a test for gas leaks and the Board have a copy on its website.....but the original "pink" copy has gone missing.......at the site of a near fatal explosion........is this reasonable? Is it legal?

How do you all feel that this is the measure for how you could loose all......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 25, 2015, 10:42:10 PM
Do these people have any integrity or credibility?

And remember they are still to this day backing all this, not fixing any of this.....

With no one held to account for an explosion that nearly killed someone, is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 06:36:55 AM
I am pretty sure that Allgas would have billed for this "unregistered" (more like shredded) cert......so what happens if you get paid to certify an installation and then you keep all the carbon copies but the original pink copy goes missing, The owner of the chipshop paid for this "service".

Now look at all the evidence, who would you go after the guy who warned about dodgy certs covering dodgy work, specifically naming this same guy who just days after the explosion came to light for not registering this cert (which is bullshit because there is a copy on the website).

OR

The guy who faced a charge but it disappeared, who ran the firm who was prepared to act in someone elses name to alter a cert after he had left his employment, was the last person to work at the site of the explosion and sold the replacement hose to the fryer that exploded, after changing the middle and start of an install, and in all probability the pipe work behind the fryers.....


Well it depends on which little clubs your in I suppose and if you were gifted your ticket by the investigator.....you couldn't write this shit....it is unbelieveable.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 07:54:38 PM
Please do not open this if any sexual sickness offends, I have thought long and hard before posting this, but it is what my wife was exposed to just before she had to live in a caravan for a whole winter with my two young sons while I worked away, when we were financially forced to sell our home, I guess on this forum we are all adults and the major majority of us are men (though this do not make it any more palatable).

I think I can only ask you all how this has any bearing on a plumbers tribunal and reflects more on those that use this filth just to prove a point,


PLEASE DO NOT OPEN IF GRAPHIC SEXUAL DEVIANCEY OFFENDS.

The Board and its representatives have no problem with this whatsoever, but they sent it to my home unmarked of its content and my wife opened it, she had no idea of what it contained, I came home to find her hysterical and sobbing, it is mostly because of this that I will never let this go. If I could ask your opinion in any other way, or was able to "show" you with out "showing" you I would.....but I have shown MP'S TV shows and the Ombudsman, they don't seem to care, please let me know what you think, I apologise in advance.


But I truly do not believe until the public know all, warts and all....will they grasp the level of these people, and I use the term people very loosely. From memory they sent three different sets of case notes to prove a point on probabilities, all of a sexual deviant nature.


Please explain to me the relevance, and please if easily offended do not open the attachment, this is more warning that the Board provided my wife, I agree with the Feds it is getting harder and harder to abide by the law when they do as they please.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 08:00:55 PM
this is just a small part of it there were reams and pages of it......it did nothing short of terrorise my wife.

These people are scum, what if their daughters or wives were sent such filth, well my wife is someone's daughter and she is my wife......you are filth
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 08:05:56 PM
WTF......there HAS to be more relevant and palatable past case notes.....or was their intention to terrorise......



Or is it that their own levels of decency are so low they see no wrong in it.

Max Pederson advised me to engage a lawyer to explain it to me, he has no problem with it......I told him I didn't need a lawyer to teach me ethics and common decency. People wonder why I nut off?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat on January 26, 2015, 08:06:10 PM
Ok - I am speechless - what the hell does this have to do with a gas about gas certificates, exploding fish and chip shops, clearances etc?  I'm lost.  What is the context?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 08:09:14 PM
Send Max Pederson an email to explain it.......or Nick Smith......or Campbell live.......because if anyone can explain it to me, then we will both know
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 08:13:12 PM
It nearly gave my wife a nervous break down, I swear on all that is holy if anything ever goes that far.....I will show them my distaste, it is so very ironic that the person they have terrorised the most, is the one keeping them safe.


Cowardly scum.....this needs airing, can you imagine Nick Smith telling me "on air" that its normal legal practice......the public back lash would give him whiplash.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 08:38:13 PM
Here is the Boards take on it.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 08:40:51 PM
Now add all this to the bullshit below.....do we need/want/deserve this kind of shit?


Which side are you going to pick......they are utter scum.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 09:16:16 PM
Here is a list of people who know, some have helped me beyond all I could have ever thought, some are yet to help and there are those that want this swept under the carpet, well I don't like lumpy carpets....in blue below




From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 25 January 2015 10:33 p.m.
To: 'Registrar'; 'complaints@pgdb.co.nz'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'
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

 

Please see the link below,

 

Max can you please answer my last requests and can you confirm that it is Mr Jackson stood next to John Darnley in the photo that I sent, I believe it is. Mr Jackson sat on my impartiality hearing and is the present chair of the Board. Is this reasonable?

 

I ask you if any of this is acceptable, reasonable…. even legal? It is all there in the public domain, what do I have to do to get this get looked at fairly?

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg9234#msg9234

 

I will not let this lie.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 09:29:25 PM
If your new to the forum, please take the time to read the posts on here, there is a lot, but there is a lot that we deal with.


Max Pederson Plumbers Board CEO, what is happening with the legionnaires risk that you have ignored for years, are you going to wait until someone falls ill.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 09:48:00 PM
Actually if your new to this forum, read all the posts by Badger, there is one hell of a story, a cover up, and an explosion that nearly killed someone, Parliament even changed the law to make what the Board did legal.


This could be done in your homes.....please share the best disinfectant is daylight, please share this to as many people as you can.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 26, 2015, 09:53:55 PM
if your an old hand to this forum share it on face book, share it around, print it off and put it in the smoko room, but please do use discretion with the sick and twisted case notes, they are twisted and should be only shown to consenting adults who are aware of the content, unlike my wife who had them sent to us unmarked.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 27, 2015, 06:43:38 PM
I am just wondering guys......so does any of this seem reasonable.....wait until I prove the last charge is wrong too, a physical impossibility, unless your on Planet Board where shit rolls up hill.....

Give em a few days until they answer my other queries.....if that wasn't Mr Jackson stood next to Darnley....I am pretty sure they would have sent me an answer by now, its their usual way, they only delay, mislead and flannel when there is something to hide.


So how do you guys feel about being lead by these type of people....I have been told that when I tried to warn about all this dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, that "I pissed some high ranking people off, one even tried to threaten Wal over the phone (after meeting him face to face the night before), very brave.

But who had the publics health and safety first and foremost in their mind.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 29, 2015, 06:48:59 AM
It gets better, here is my reply received last night, now I am more convinced than before, sometimes you answer by not answering, and the more flannel just shows your hiding something......apparently it isn't reasonable to ask someone you have worked closely with for years whether it is them in a photo, ever more flannel......here is an idea Mr Pedersen ASK Mr Jackson if its him in the photo. It is that easy.

And as Mr Pedersen has never met Mr Darnley??? perhaps he could ask the investigator, Mr Hammond, the chair of my hearing Mr Parker, or the other Board member's in the photo, what Mr Darnley looks like, he is the one circled.....is this a reasonable answer?

Now I asked the Board to show where I had "varied" on making my point in  my complaints about this hot water system (I can find no variations???, but this would help to undermine me yet again, bit like when they said I called myself a mere plumber, but can't show me where I said it). please if you can find any variations let me know.

...... but they have sent a full comprehensive list of when and how I have tried to get them look at a legionnaire's risk(its a big list), even the time I contacted the coroner, they mention twice contacting the local TA and that I would be informed of the result, still waiting to hear about this, as well as a pink copy of the cert for this place, you've seen how it is potentially plumbed, and according to the Board they have no letters (so they have sent no letters) to Darnley to inform him of these complaints, which they are meant to send on receiving a complaint, unless the complaint is dismissed as vexatious or frivolous, or even lately unreasonable, so it appears that they don't adhere to their own policies....should they adhere to their own policies??? wouldn't you want to get this potentially dangerous system looked at? Is this reasonable?

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 29, 2015, 07:09:56 AM
Sent this morning.....do they have any credibility?


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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015 7:06 a.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma Gee'; 'Registrar'; communications@pgdb.co.nz; complaints@pgdb.co.nz; 'Nick 4 Nelson'
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

 

To all those copied in, I ask you is this reasonable?

 

 

 

 

Mr Pedersen,

 

ASK Mr Jackson if its him in the photo. It is that easy.

And as you have never met Mr Darnley??? perhaps you could ask the investigator, Mr Hammond, the chair of my hearing Mr Parker, or the other Board member's in the photo, what Mr Darnley looks like, he is the one circled.....is this a reasonable answer?

I have asked the Board to show me where I had "varied" on making my point in my many complaints about this hot water system (I can find no variations???, but this would help to undermine me yet again, a bit like when the Board said I called myself a mere plumber, but can't show me where I said it).

 

You have not aswered my query, please if you can find any variations, please can you let me know what they are, I can’t find any.

You have sent a full comprehensive list of when and how I have tried to get the Board to look at a legionnaire's risk (its a big list, and a very real concern), you have even included the time I contacted the coroner.

 

You mention twice in this correspondence that you have contacted the local TA and that I would be informed of the result, I am still waiting to hear about this, as well as recieving a pink copy of the cert for this address, which has the risk. Please can you forwards me this.

 

I find it totally unreasonable that you've seen how it is potentially plumbed (see correspondence), and according to the Board they have no letters (so they have sent no letters) to Darnley to inform him of these complaints, which the Board are meant to send on receiving a complaint, unless the complaint is dismissed as vexatious or frivolous, or even lately unreasonable, so it appears that the Board is selective on adhering to their own policies....should the Board adhere to their own policies??? Shouldn’t the Board want to get this potentially dangerous system looked at? Is this reasonable?

 

I will ask again…..Why do you protect Darnley?

 

Please ask Mr Jackson if it is him the photo, I think this is a reasonable request.

 

I direct you all to the link below, I ask you all to add this altogether and ask your self if this Board has any integrity, competency or credibility?

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 09:24:21 AM
So here's a quote from a news paper, attributable to Mr Pedersen...


“Don’t risk your family’s health and safety or your insurance by hiring unauthorised people. Any defective sanitary plumbing work has the potential to cause disease and serious, costly damage to the home.”

Now read the correspondence below in the attachments and ask your self why doesn't this quote apply to this address.

Wouldn't you just send someone to check if what I am saying is true or untrue, wouldn't it be reasonable to make sure that this address is safe? Instead of palming it off to others?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 09:41:45 AM
So any way back to the ignored blatant evidence..........I left Allgas the December before the THRID hose was sold to the exploding chipshop........this is I am told by the owner who got exploded that this is the hose that caused the explosion........is this reasonable.


Have a look at the attachments......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 09:46:55 AM
You'll notice that the receipt for the exploding hose has come from a binder....its the binder from the evidence bundle from my kangaroo court, sorry " hearing ".......which is ironic because no one was " listening "........dodgy as....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 09:54:29 AM
Now add that to the withheld 117 photos.....So I proved at the " hearing ".......that the cylinder station was altered (invoicing of materials contradicted the forensic photos) then we have the pizza oven installed half way along (installed by Darnley) with the "unregistered" cert (unregistered by Darnley).......then the hose that supplied the offending fryer sold a month after I left....


Who would you go after if you were the inquisitor, sorry investigator.....especially if this letter was sent by the MP......see attached......look at the dates......the chippy blew up in April 09, the letter is dated June 06........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 10:00:44 AM
Here's a funny one here is the Boards response to my queries about a certain brand of pizza, I made this after old Maurice Williamson said in Parliament that there was an explosion, the poor guy got his wires crossed with the "pizza oven with held cert" and a very good purveyor of fine pizza, he had to retract it......then he got bollocked for sticking up for a guy who beat up his missis and mother in law......you couldn't make this shit up......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
The charges that were brought against a tradesman (that's one) ...... well that was me......



So where did the charge that Darnley face.......well where did it go?


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 10:08:34 AM
Does this smell of corruption to anyone?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
So here we have a letter from our present minister........so now he is in a position to look at this.....well he asked to see me....I went......he told me his personal advice to me was to let it go......


Is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:01:51 PM
Now bear in mind that this was written just months after the explosion in 2009.......BEFORE  I found all this other blatant PROOF and EVIDENCE........


So what changed......except it is now in HIS portfolio......funny that!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:10:23 PM
So here is a very similar situation that I believe is the same sort of set up as the legionnaires risk....this guy got done (as he should) but....well you've seen Mr Pederson's reply.....


What is the difference Mr Pedersen? I know you read this site...perhaps you would like to publically comment.....that's reasonable isn't it?

Except of course the job your ignoring is Mr Darnley's job.....its the Teflon fitters job isn't it!! Is any of this reasonable, acceptable, even legal?

Well if you can face a charge at the site of an explosion, have that charge disappear and not register the pink copy of the cert, but give the carbon copies out......but there is a copy on the Board's own web site........well I suppose you can do anything.......

Remember the "dealing with unreasonable people" policy........what a bloody laugh......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:15:15 PM
the Board's credibility is about as strong as the roof on the chipshop just after the explosion....



How do you all feel about getting told by these goons that it is YOU that needs upskilling......and you got to chip in to their charity to fund them to treat us like this.......it could be anyone of you.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:29:54 PM
Here is how close, how well, the chair of my hearing is to the investigator......the investigator who gifted Darnley his full craftsman licence based on one ORAL exam, basically a chat.

The investigator was the chairs technical adviser too.....is this reasonable......the same investigator who gifted Darnley his ticket.....is this reasonable?


Would the investigator want to look at someone who he GAVE a certifying licence to......would he want to face the fact that he may have empowered some one to sig off a job.....when the person he gave the licence to, was a clueless moron.....with no training or apprenticeship.

And in turn would his mate, the chair of my hearing let that happen......perhaps that is why he shut down the hearing before I could totally clear my name......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:34:33 PM
Is any of this reasonable?


How would you feel about it.....I lost my home and business and two years with my two lads.......I had to work away while my wife lived in a caravan and had to collect drinking water and empty a chemical toilet......while ironically her husband was working away fitting toilets and taps in other peoples homes.....is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:36:34 PM
The Boards excuse for this to all be ok.......they refer to Mr Hammonds investigation.....a circular and crap argument....which is nothing new.....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 12:54:01 PM
Heres the transcript of the "impartially" hearing.....the hearing that the Board had originally set aside for the actual hearing, they told me to allow three days for this....then when we turned up, they said no verbal evidence was allowed and after two hours sent me packing.....I was stuck in wellington for three days because I couldn't afford to change my flights....I was skint.....Wal let me stay at his home for free, he stood by me in this hearing, the next hearing and in high court....for free.

Never once has Wal asked or even hinted for anything, I think I might have bought him a beer, which he begrudgingly took....top bloke.

have a read of all the names present......now look at all the connections to Mr Darnley.....

Perhaps this is why Mr Pedersen can't ask Mr Jackson if its him in the photo, perhaps he wouldn't like the answer......you'll notice that it is stated that the present chair "has never been a member of NZIGE......so (if it is him) is he stood next to Mr Darnley in the photo that Mr Pedersen, hasn't thought to ask Mr Jackson if it is him.......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 01:02:52 PM
Sorry I have that much info, evidence and photos that I get confused some times.....lol


This is what I meant to attach......

Before the internet I would have been screwed.....its all up there in the ether....on a cloud.....everything I have has been sent around the world, isn't technology amazing..... ;D
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 01:06:31 PM
You really should read the transcript, especially on the relationships.....what is it if you tell fibs in a court or in a legal function.....


Remember if they stay they would have learnt a lot from this, and now think if someone moves that gas fire to the other side of the room and you have signed it off, took no photos and it blows up........good luck with that, now assume the position.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 04:37:18 PM
Here is an excerpt from my submission to the select committee.... apparently there is no problem in someone ordering books of certs in your name, with out your knowledge......why would someone do that?

Bare in mind the "impartial" investigator had lobbied heavily too for the self cert system, see attached. Now how would a person look if they lobbied for the self cert system and deregulation, empowered a guy with his full licence.....that later "didn't register" a cert for the last work.....AT THE SITE ON AN EXPLOSION......I reckon he would look a bit of a cock.



1.   On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with the Manager. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board and appears in my Hearing’s Bundle (HB).

2.   On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law, (HB). In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable.

3.   On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge, (HB).

4.   On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company, (HB).

5.   I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on, (HB).
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 05:09:38 PM
Here's the orders for the 4 books of certs......looks like they went to order just one book then thought well we might as well have another three books......this all came from the Boards own records.......

Is this reasonable......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
On the last page the sum is made out for just 250 bucks and the quantity has been altered.....

God I bet they miss being able to charge 1000 dollars for four books of certs.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 07:29:23 PM
So how do you feel to be overseen by a Board who frame innocent people, while they ignore guilty people, even ignore dangerous installations that could kill and prosecute for one appliance when no one has complained but ignore a job where a poorly elderly couple complain, that is fitted nearer than the one I fitted......

How do we feel about that......and it is us who need to sit in on CPD bollox courses and prove we are fit and proper people.....is this reasonable?

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 07:46:43 PM
There is something that has always niggled me about this form, attached, if you look at the top it was faxed on the 14th, the certs were sent on the 17th.......wouldn't the additions/alterations have been done at the Board, perhaps after a phone call?, if you write up a form and make a mistake, then you just throw it away and start again.....but if it been received, sent by fax.....how do you alter/add stuff?

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 07:49:00 PM
And why is there two different types of hand writing on it? Strange eh?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 07:52:45 PM
......and what's with the ordering of one book then another three books?


Apparently all this is normal....really? because to me it looks dodgy.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:00:04 PM
........and doing it after I told him in no uncertain term that he could shove his job up his arse......why would someone buy these certs, not just one book but 4......just before I leave their company?



Paid for on the 15th....look at the cert numbers.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:07:50 PM
This is why these certs have the paper copy I am not mentioned.....but the system shows it as me.......this is why it is not ok to buy certs in someone else's name with out them knowing that your ordering them, especially if they have told you to shove your job up your arse.....

But Mr Hammond thinks its ok......starting to see the trend......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:19:35 PM
These are the certs, mentioned below, these are the ones that resulted in the disclaimer......


Disclaimer: The details as they appear here are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the details on the original hardcopy certificate. For this reason, should you wish to obtain a copy of this certificate, please complete the form on the previous page or email gascerts@pgdb.co.nz for more info.


Can you imagine if one of us mere plumbers made a cock up like this......



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:21:56 PM
Fit and proper, unreasonable people.......perhaps a mirror might help Maxy Boy.....go have a hard look.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:26:01 PM
Now how about these photos.....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:53:52 PM
Here's some irony for you, a Board news letter the month before the explosion, remember the cert not registered, the altering of the whole gas install, from the lowering of the pipe, the addition of the pizza oven, and the altering of the gas supply set up.....talk about one rule for one and one rule for others......is this reasonable?


Tony Hammond, is the investigator and have a look at Mr Parker, in the newsletter attached.


Replacement for
Gas Appliances –
Tony Hammond
The Gas Regulations (REG 24) define, amongst others, that the
following require certification:
Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations
Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the
operation of the installation
It is worth noting that an installation is defined in the Gas Act as
“including a gas appliance”.
Therefore, replacement of one appliance by another, even if very
similar, requires certification.
Further weight is added to the argument when one considers that
even a “like for like” replacement needs to be adjusted to ensure
gas pressure and aeration are set appropriately, the connections are
gastightness and the safety devices operate at the right levels; that
is, the appliance needs to be commissioned in accordance with clause
1.6.7 of NZS 5261.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 08:58:36 PM
So Steven how long have you known Mr Hammond?



Stephen Parker
Stephen Parker, Executive Director of the Gas
Association of New Zealand since 1998,


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on January 31, 2015, 09:06:34 PM
so how well do the investigator and the chair of my kangaroo court know each other....compare this to their statement from the impartiality hearing......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 09:46:15 AM
Right now you have seen some, and I mean some of the evidence that points to someone at Allgas, in all probability Darnley, altered the whole install. You have even seen some and I do mean some of the times I had tried to get this looked at for YEARS before the explosion.....



Now lets have a gander at the Dept of Labour complaint, it is the whole basis for the investigation, 100% (I have checked and asked the Board).

Let me direct you to the second page, although the first page says a lot, and also let me remind you that the cert number 345138, is the "unregistered cert", the one where there is an electronic copy, but the Board claim to have not received it....look at the date of the complaint, then match that to the date that the Board told the owners lawyer about cert 345138, the last work at the site of an explosion.

Now I have heard a phrase, "what would a fair minded lay person think".....well would he think this is corrupt.......

NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR AN EXPLOSION, look at the time too 9:40 in the morning, 1 hour earlier it would have been surrounded by kids on there way to school, it had a large glass window.....it would have been horrific. We are very lucky it nearly only killed just one poor person (WTF)......

You have seen these goons pontificate about the need for safety and the good of the public.....is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 09:50:35 AM
So on the 17th April they confirm to the lawyer that they have never received a copy of 345138, the complaint from DOL comes in on the 8th of July, and specifically mentions this cert, and concerns over my complaints made previously....

Is it reasonable to persecute me?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 09:56:50 AM
While looking for this other stuff I came across another of the twisted sickness that they sent to my home opened by my wife, please do not open if any sexual deviancy offends and beware what is seen can't be unseen. It really is R18.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 10:31:52 AM
Anyway back to the one charge that they went in my local paper and said that I didn't know what I was doing, which wasn't when my business collapsed, that happened when the Board sent out letters to all the sites "of concern", the one letter I believe that nailed my business was the one to the one and only high school in Motueka.

These are the letters that they had to apologise for because they gave the impression that I could act outside of the law..... in Northland, a place I have never even visited, let alone worked there.

So, I am found not guilty on 95% of the charges, and just as we are going to go for the full 100%, Stephen Parker shuts down the hearing. Just as Hammond says.......

The "Q" is Wal, my advocate and the "A" is the inquisitor,


Q. That's fine. Now, the second thing I have just to clarify and you're talking about Part 1 and Part 2 of the Act. Now Part 1 is what must be done, what you must comply with?

A. Part 1 is the mandatory requirement.

Q. Mandatory requirement, yes, and Part 2 is a way of compliance?

A. That's correct.
________________________________________________________________________
433
Q. Now, the reason I was asking about that, because on page 35 of the edition I have here, 1.5.7, it meanings about flue terminals and in the second paragraph of that section it reads: "Flue terminals shall be located to minimise entry of combustion products into any building and to minimise the effects of adverse draft on the performance of the gas appliances". So in reading that, if there's no gas entering into a building, then it complies with Part 1?

A. Yes, the aim of that is to make sure that gas does not enter into the building.

Q. So that's the aim of it, so if there is no gas, say in this case we've got two situations where people are saying there's no gas entering, then according to that paragraph then it complies with Part 1 of the Act?

A. No, I don't rely on consumers whether the gas was entering or not, it is the gas fitter's job to locate it in such a way that gas does not enter the building.

Q. But that's what it's saying here though isn't it, it's saying that if the flues aren't entering the building then it complies with Part 1?

A. Yes, but -

Q. And if the customers are saying fumes aren't entering the building then it's compliant with Part 1?

A. But in order to ensure that under all conditions products of combustion do not enter into the premises, then one way of complying is to ensure that the clearances are in accordance with Part 2. If you are putting in an appliance with clearances other than those in Part 2, then you need to demonstrate how the - how you have ensured that under all conditions the products of combustion can't enter the property.

Q. That doesn't say "in all conditions" there. Does it say in here "all conditions"?

A. No it doesn't say all conditions, but that's surely a general inference from the requirements of the standard to meet all conditions.

Q. Well an inference is fine, but as per it says here the - that's located to minimise entry of combustion products and to minimise the effects of adverse draft et cetera. So those - if there's no fumes entering those two
________________________________________________________________________
434
locations that we've been talking about, then they're actually compliant with the mandatory part of the NSZ 5261?

A. I don't have any knowledge of whether products of combustion are in fact entering or not. I have not carried out any tests to demonstrate. I am unaware of any tests that have been carried out to demonstrate that.



MR PARKER: Well I think we have reached the point where we are having submissions, so I think we can adjourn now.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 10:39:36 AM

So in green below, Apparently not, because there is an elderly couple who have complained about this, to the point of having to take meds to relieve their stress, because they could smell fumes coming in their window, they complained and were told to close the window when they used it......that's consistent governance from the Board, lol......


A. No, I don't rely on consumers whether the gas was entering or not, it is the gas fitter's job to locate it in such a way that gas does not enter the building.


Now, Mr Hammond states that Part one is mandatory and part two is a means of compliance......hmmmm, so it isn't mandatory.....lets have a look at table 16 (which Mr Hammond co-authored), along with this gentleman below who said......see attached
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 10:51:09 AM
From my high court appeal.....


86.   Table 16 of NZS5261:2003 is in its self proof the table is only a recommended solution in that reference k the distance of a flue terminal from a mechanical air inlet, including a spa blower, is 1500mm for a natural draft flue and 1000mm for a fan assisted flue.  A mechanical inlet basically operates by mechanically sucking air in to the building.
87.   This is 500mm closer than the distance recommended by the same table for the distance from an openable window. Effectively a mechanical inlet sucking like a vacuum cleaner can be closer than an opening window.
88.   Note the two Investigators, Mr Hammond and Mr De Bernardo, were both on the Committee that was responsible for the preparation of NZS5261:2003 so would have an interest to ensure the standard did not fail.


So a fan, sucking from outside to blow inside, because the bubbles are in the spa.....I got the spec for these fans, your talking cubic meters a minuet , being sucked from out side to inside......so this can be 500mm nearer than a passive window.......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 10:57:27 AM
Here's the appeal submission.

The Board's lawyer tried to block our appeal, then we were told we could not "adduce" (add) any new evidence extra to the hearing.......but the Board were allowed to adduce that "they should be given more weight to their opinions because they are a professional Board"

Does any of the bullshit below, strike you as "professional"???
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 01:03:28 PM
Q. You'd have to agree wouldn't you that there is a real risk that if the window is open products of combustion from the heater will go in the window?

A. I would argue the point, no I don't think that would be the case. As I drew in my drawing earlier, the gasses act - it's hot air, it gets ejected from the water heater probably to about I'd say about four metres, under force, and then it rises. Now if a window is higher probably say two or three metres higher, it's going to eject out four metres and have more of a chance of drifting up isn't it? In my opinion, this is just my opinion, I would never do it because I've got to literature to back it up, but if that window was directly above that flue it would probably be safer, because the fumes would be ejected out no into the atmosphere and they would drift off. And I just must add, this window that was above it, according to the statement and according to what I remember, had a six inch gap. You'd have to have a hell of a prevailing wind to shove it up that window.

Q. Now, at 37 Dommett Street, or avenue, as a precaution you arranged you say, for the customer to screw the window shut?

A. As it was a bedroom.

Q. Surely if it's - if you need to do that when it's a distance of 1340 millimetres, you'd also want to do that when there's only 500 mm metres?

A. Did you listen to what I just said? Did you comprehend what I was just saying? I believe that a heater - a window higher - you've got more room for that forced out air to return back. In a smaller distance and I believe that I was complying with the tech note I have, which wasn't for a Bosch, but if I took the guts out of that unit and put it in a Rinnai unit, you wouldn't know. The - I made a judgment call, I believe borne out by it - I've been borne out by it. The customer said it's never been a problem. I distinctly remember ringing Colleen Singleton and I asked her for advice where to turn for any information, advice. She told me to refer to industry providers and industry member. I can only do what I'm told. I can only follow instruction. If my boss gives me something from a reputable firm I can ________________________________________________________________________ 392
only - why would I have kept that original fax? Because I thought it was relevant to my job and I thought it helped me perform my job better. I could have said to this guy "oh that unit mate got to go about 20 metres up the wall, it will cost you a bit extra in the plumbing and gas and all this", I tried to put if as near as I could to his bathroom, he's happy, there's no problem with fumes coming in. I made the call, my call and the tech note have been borne out to comply with Part 1 of the regular which is mandatory. Part of the 2 of the regs, is according to the regs, I'll have a look here, at the beginning - I can't be bothered looking it up, I know what it says, it says Part 1 is mandatory; Part 2 is a way - an acceptable solution for it to conform, it also mentions in there to reference of the regs, it tells you to - I've never seen a document so hard to understand and contradictory, what would you say if I could say I could point out what I think is an error in that document? Would you be interested in any of that? No? Won't bother.

Q. Okay now we'll move on to 5 Powick Street.

A. Yeah.
Q. And could you please go to paragraph 105 in your statement at tab 15. Tab 15, your statement, 105. Now you said that all you did there was to re-run the pipe to the califont that is from an existing supply to an already installed unit, not units?

A. Yep. That's singular.

Q. Yes. Now it's my understanding then that what you are saying that was to re-run the pipework from the existing Rinnai 32 upstairs?

A. No not from it, to it.

Q. Okay to it, from the existing bottles?

A. Yeah. Yep, that's what I'm saying.

Q. And do you say that at that stage the other Rinnai that was getting installed - or has been installed as we see in the photos wasn't there?

A. Has been since installed there. It was still in bits on a Japanese production line when I did the job.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 01:16:11 PM

So what if what I said was true and the investigator has already said he hadn't tested it to see if the fumes were actually entering the bulding, and he didn't like to listen to the people who live in the dwelling........I am the "A", Wal the "Q" below.....


EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR GORDON

Q. Exhibit PG 023?

A. Is a diagram I drew trying to show how being fitted inside the flush box would actually make the job - make the heater nearer the window than - it was a better job to fit the heater on the wall.

Q. Now you wanted to explain regarding the balance flues and force flues?

A. Can I - it's probably easier if I use the whiteboard.
________________________________________________________________________
312
MR CORKILL QC: Have we finished with that Mr Gordon?

MR GORDON: Yes, we have.

WITNESS: With a balance-type flue it works on gravity - this is just for the layman people here, the gasfitters will know all this, the hot gasses being less dense rise and they rise under their own weight as such. So if we add a wall like this, (indicates) with a window like that, and this being a vent, this would sort of come up almost like cigarette smoke and it would come underneath the window. Now, with the power flues and this is why I used the tech note, and I thought that the biggest supplier of califonts in New Zealand was - had a bit of weight behind them. You've got a wall like this with a unit with an exhaust, now if I fitted it in the flush box it would be further this way, that's what this dotted line is trying to show. It's not fumes as Mr Hammond said. Now from experience these fans, they're quite powerful and they shoot the gasses out and they sort of - they exhaust away from the building. Now I would never go inside the measurement I had from Rinnai, but in theory the nearer that would go to the window, almost the safer it would be, because it blows it away from the building and then it drifts up. Now with Malvern Ave they said that this is predominantly the prevailing wind which would push this back in. But it was on the back side of the house that was facing away from the coast; I would have thought that the prevailing wind wouldn't have come from the hill. So I believe I had a 500 mm clearance, because it was a little bit more, 540, and I thought that it would clear. I did not put it there thinking I'll just stick it there, it's easier. I put it there in good faith. But a balance flue, I think the Reg is dated more for this type of application and I would agree with that.




Not to mention the British Standard that proves what I said was true..
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 02:06:52 PM
Now the Board where they ignored the poorly old couple.....well theirs was closer than mine, but I don't think that was the issue.....

The one where I was publically admonished and ridiculed for......well that issued into a large open garden.

The poorly elder couple who were told to "just close the window when you use it"....well theirs was more enclosed with no cross wind.

Basically I got done for the Board enforcing a non mandatory part of the NZ5261.....why have we got two sections? Why not just make them all mandatory?......I asked this at a standards roadshow.......its because "some times the install falls out side of the normal application"......you mean just like at the job where I installed the califont???

Have a look at the photos.....

It is reasonable to ruin me for just one install that no one had a problem with, just on the say so of the investigator, who wrote the book of regs (and would be very protective of this document failing) and lobbied for deregulation and self certification and gave Darnley his full ticket? Same guy had never actually installed anything, as he was a chemical engineer,......but he was gifted his craftsman licence just like Darnley
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 02:14:38 PM
Apparently it is me who is unreasonable.....


Now you know some, and I mean some of what I know.......who do you think is unreasonable?

Who do you think needs investigating?

Who has the publics health and safety first and foremost in their mind?

Luckily your not being called incompetent and require on going training, and paying for the privilege......oh sorry... what there... you do.....

But its ok because they are a charity.....so get a warm fuzzy feeling that you support a charity that looks after NZer's.....paying no tax back into the system, just a thought.....perhaps this saving on tax allows for higher wages to be paid?




If something lives off another, contributes nothing back and does this to the detriment of the host..........it is parasitic........DDT anyone?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 02:28:09 PM
The Board based their whole decision on the testament of one totally conflicted individual (Hammond), an individual who had plenty of reason to want to go after me and protect Darnley.

..........is this reasonable???


The only other gasfitter in the room was British.....Mr Hardy...have a look a the British Standard, hmmm reasonable or unreasonable ......they stated that they were a professional board who should be given more weight in their opinions.....so I guess they think they know more, but the only craftsman gasfitter, who was British......didn't know about the British Standard.


The same guy sat in on my "impartiality" hearing......the make up of the impartiality hearing....

Mr Mark Whitehead - Chair
Mr Peter Jackson
Mr Stephen Parker
Mr William Irvine
Mr Graham Hardie

So Mr Parker sat on a impartiality hearing, then later chaired my hearing......I complained about Mr Parkers conflicts of interest, his statement contradicts all the evidence below.....


Now.....is that Mr Jackson in the Photo with Darnley?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 02:33:15 PM
In box me if anyone knows a decent lawyer, that takes pro bono cases......I would love them to defend this....



And Max, answer my queries please.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 01, 2015, 10:02:20 PM
So how do you feel about financing this charade, 

.....paying hundreds of dollars to practice a craft that you have learnt and earnt by sitting an apprenticeship,

.....while others get given their tickets after a chat,

......told to do CPD because your incompetent if you don't, while they make such a mess of the cert system (with a disclaimer reflecting the unreliability of the system they managed) well.... it gets taken off them,

......act illegally for years giving the finger to the industry and recommendations of the government, illegally taking 2 million buck off us all....so they change the law to suit,

....they pontificate about safety when they screw a guy over for not putting a strap on a cylinder, at an unfinished job, but then tell an elderly customer to shut their window when they use a califont fitted too close to their window,


I don't know how you all feel about financing this train wreck......but I am a bit over it
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: ford1 on February 02, 2015, 12:56:34 AM
These people have always been(in my opinion ) puppets of the m.p.a & bloody hard to deal with, but badger you have shown them to be a corrupt,underhand,uncaring,ass covering, malicious bunch of pricks pissing in each others pockets .I admire you for managing to try to sort this the correct way because if they had treated me & my wife & kids like this they would by now have a new policy on their own personal security. I don't know any lawyers I can recommend & feel a bit helpless to your cause but if you need anything picked up or dropped off in the Auckland area contact me .I have emailed cambell live ,stick with it ,don't let it lie & good luck you will need it
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 07:47:10 AM
Day light mate its the only way.....public scrutiny.

.....if any one wants to help just print off some of this crap and take it to work, the smoko room, the pub...any where. Start a discussion.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 08:24:50 AM
Just copy the link above and send it to MP's, media, TV any way that this can be aired...spread it on facebook or twiter, anywhere.

I have seen how they close ranks and risk the public's health and safety, just to protect their pals....anyone who thinks this is ok has a problem, FFS it could be your relatives or friends homes or just some innocent poor bugger who has bought a house and wants to keep his/her family warm and safe....and these people protect those that put all this at risk.....it isn't normal, to not have empathy for others and feel nothing when you put them at risk.....well according to the dictionary that makes you a psychopath or a sociopath....

Look at just the refusal to look at a legionnaires risk below and the elderly couples califont, it is sickening, I think it is bloody criminal.

They are charged with looking after the publics interest with regards to our industry.....but from my experience they don't.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 09:49:13 AM
I sent this to the Ombudsman

Dear Mr Patterson,

 

Ref 310809.

 

 

I am in receipt of your two letters dated 30 May and 13 June 2014. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank you for extending my date of reply.
 

I fear that I may not have made myself clear to you and your office. My complaint is not about the outcome of the biased and flawed hearing and slanted investigation.
 

My complaint is about the flawed and biased investigation and the subsequent stacked hearing that I was subjected to by the Board and it’s so called “impartial” investigator, the Board’s words not mine. This same Board who are willing to ignore blatant conflicts of interest and firm evidence that points to my old boss and are quite happy with the withholding and misrepresentation of evidence by their appointed so called “impartial” investigator. This is my complaint.
 

It concerns me greatly that your office appears to be putting so much emphasis and weight on the 33 page report written by the Board and Secretariat, who of course will have put a great deal of effort into excusing themselves. This is confusing to say the least. It is a kin to they themselves judging themselves impartial, (an oxy-moron and very bad grammar to say the least), which apparently no one has any concerns with either.
 

In point 1 of your letter dated 30th May, it appears there is some confusion over my situation, I did not sit a prescribed course of “INSTRUCTION”, which implies, even demands, the learning of new skills and knowledge, skills and knowledge that I was deemed by the Board to have lacked.
 

I was in fact ASSESSED…. learning nothing new. I am sure I could have learned a lot from the assessor as he was very knowledgeable, but the “course” prescribed by the Board wasn’t available, and so I was assessed. As this "punishment" imposed by the Board did not exist, I was forced to pay someone to assess me and this then imposed yet further additional costs.
 

Of note I was told by this assessor that I would be within the top 10% of people he had ever assessed, this he discovered after my assessment, when I had not been taught anything new. I was assessed on my already attained knowledge and skills (I did this assessment with my arm in a full plaster cast; perhaps this is where I dropped 10%). This is the same knowledge that I had used to position the califont. Your office is charged with seeing fair play served; do you think this is fair?
 

Are double standards fair? Is it fair to have been financially forced to sell my home, to have lost my business and reputation and been subjected to a witch-hunt when it appears that there is no consistency in the actions and findings of the Board? They appear to apply certain rules for some and ignore the same rules for others.
 

Of note, and this is why I requested an extension in my time of reply, I have recently been made aware that the Board has received a complaint from an elderly couple who complained about an installation of a califont, this califont was positioned much nearer than the califont in my one and only standing charge, by some 6 inches to two openable windows.
 

I have been told that the Board’s advice to them was to “close the windows when you use it” and did not pursue it any further. I have requested a clarification of this to the Board in the form of an OIA request, Doc 1 in attachments. I have copied your office in to this OIA request, as well as another OIA request to see if they have taken any action in the case which involved the very sad situation of a young lady losing her life; her horrific situation is to be found on this link, http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/native-affairs-lesleys-legacy. Doc 2 in attachments.
 

I ask you Mr Patterson is this Board effective? Which way do you think the Board will lead our industry and protect our public with these mixed and conflicting messages? What messages are they sending the people of this country when in one explosion they are willing to let it go with no one held accountable, even though there is evidence that indicates someone? And in another explosion, that actually took the life of an innocent, as far as I am aware, do nothing.
 

I am told that this distraught elderly couple, mentioned above, have since withdrawn their complaint and are on anti stress medication due to this terrible situation. Do these people in their twilight years deserve this? I have promised to leave them out of this until it is vitally necessary because of this stress that they have been subjected to. This double standard shown by the Board, do you think it is fair?
 

This goes toward showing that the Board haven’t changed since my hearing and are still using one rule for one, and ignoring other rules for others; this double standard has only just come to light in recent weeks. Do you think this fair?
 

Of note the customer involved in my case, the customer who owned the dwelling that was subject to charges laid for a califont installation at Malvern Av, had laid no complaint and had never in 6 years smelt any fumes, this is because the position of his califont was more open to a cross air supply and had a greater clearance to the floor, their califont was placed under one restrained opening window (only opening to 100mm as it was restrained by safety chains). This window opening into a very large open plan room and with its powered flue issuing into a much larger, clear and open garden, this was all taken into account when I positioned it. Fitted 40 mm over the 500mm minimum from the window, as per the tech note I had.
 

But the califont where the Board has apparently told the people to “close the window when you use it”, these poor people who have actually complained about fumes entering their home, their califont is positioned in a more enclosed area and is much nearer the floor, fitted under two windows that open, unrestrained, to much smaller rooms, (which is a concern due to the availability of free air, i.e. volume, for the dilution of these flue gases), and the elderly couple’s califonts power flue is issuing into a more enclosed and partially covered area with a deck and railings to one side. Is this Fair Mr Patterson? Is the Board’s apparent blasé flippant hypocrisy fair? This apparent attitude of the Board is where my complaint lies, right here. Doc 3 in attachments for photos of the califonts positioning.
 

In point 2 of your letter of 30th May, you speak of my lack of attempts in airing my concerns and the use of a “British Standard” at the High Court Appeal. I ask you to look at the recent reply I have received from the High Court, a reply to my request for a transcript of this appeal.
 

Please also see my extensive written submission to the High Court, already supplied to your office.
 

This recent application for a transcript for my appeal was made to enable me to show you that I was told categorically to talk only about the distance from the window to the califont by Justice Kos and had actually tried to air my concerns. The reply to my recent transcript application is below.
 

 

 

From: Stack, Michaela
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12:09
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: hearing transcrpit.

 

Mr Gee

Thank you for your email.  As you are aware this matter was an "Appeal" hearing before the High Court.  No witnesses were called to give evidence at the High Court hearing and the parties relied on written submissions to present their arguments to the Court.   Therefore no transcript would have been made. It is usual procedure that no transcripts are taken for civil  appeal hearings.

Therefore I am unable to provide any transcript.

 

Kind Regards

 

Michaela Stack

Deputy Registrar

Wellington High Court

email : michaela.stack@justice.govt.nz

 

 

My highlights in red above. As you know, I did make an extensive written submission for my appeal, which I have provided to your office, detailing my concerns that you say I did not try to submit. So in effect I did make a valid attempt to address this and other issues, and as I can take it was read by Justice Kos I do not know why it isn’t in his summing up.
 

All the testimony, evidence and opinions issuing from my impartiality hearing and my actual hearing. All given so much credence by the Board and by Justice Kos appear to be based solely on the foundation of the integrity and reliability of the Board’s appointed so called “impartial” investigator and his opinion, even down to the strict enforcement of an acceptable solution, a NON COMPULSORY acceptable solution, the investigator offered no physical evidence to make his point, it was based solely on his opinion and translation of the NZ 5261 and a contradictory table that he helped write.
 

I was told at my impartiality hearing that as Mr Hammond hadn’t been shown to have acted egregiously, that he was deemed to be suitable and the right person for the job, even in light of all the conflicts of interest I had raised.
 

I ask you Mr Patterson, is this investigator, who withheld forensic photos which proved my point that I had maintained for two years, these same forensic photos taken before he was appointed as the investigator, the same photos which were in all probability in his possession as and when I told him at interview that it was my opinion that the pipe work had been altered after my initial pipe installation…. the same investigator who misrepresented evidence and was prepared to ignore his own huge conflicts of interest, is he suitable? Has he acted egregiously? Has he any integrity? Do you value his opinion? This where my complaint lies.
 

Is it fair that Mr Hammond’s colleague of many years, a Stephen Parker who was chair of my hearing, the same Chair who closed down this very hearing, just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the califont measurement from an openable window and trying to get the investigator to clarify and give his reasons for his “opinion” on the clearance of the califont? This is the basis for my complaint.
 

It is the reliance on this one mans “opinion” by the involved authorities’, to base the whole ruination of my life, business and reputation, that I base my complaint.
 

I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. which I suppose is understandable, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who had lobbied extensively for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system to be introduced, this same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley who was gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and why these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.
 

For your office to apparently be so willing to rely on the Board’s own excuses while they are ignoring the unsuitability of Mr Hammond is reason for concern. You are relying on the Board’s own spin for your reasons to not investigate, I believe this is unfounded and I will ask the human rights commission and perhaps even the leaders of our Commonwealth if they think this is reasonable. This same Board, who have misquoted me, prejudiced all the witness’s to all the sites of charges and told untruths about me and sent vile perverted case notes to my home. I will never let this lie and am in communication with a law firm to pursue this further if you decide to go on the path you appear to be following.
 

Is this conflicted and biased man, Mr Hammond, a reliable person for both the Board and Justice Kos, even the Ombudsman, to totally base their judgment on, up holding this last and final charge out of 44 trumped up charges? Is it fair for your office to listen to this man, to give him credibility? He has acted egregiously. This is my complaint.
 

Think on this, I feel it is relevant because of papers you have written. As you are aware, I had spent 6 years warning about my old boss, about him altering my certs after I had signed them, not forging my signature as your letter of 30th May has said.
 

As you know at one point I had a letter sent on my behalf in 2006 by Nick Smith MP, amongst many other attempts by myself to highlight the short comings of my old boss. Ironic, because I also have a photo of several Board members and the “later to be appointed” investigator pictured in 2006 along with my old boss at a NZIGE meeting, all of them paid up long serving members of the same interest groups.
 

Basically I was, in 2006, complaining about my old boss, to the very same Board members pictured with him in the very same year, all members of the same club, also present in this photo is the man later appointed to investigate the explosion AND who had awarded my old boss his full licence…along with the chair of my hearing Stephen Parker…..all in the same picture, all paid up members of the same group, three years before the explosion. I actually have more similar photos taken at NZIGE seminars.
 

All of this in contradiction to Mr Hammonds own signed affidavit, an affidavit written about how well he knew my old boss and how many times he had met him, is Mr Hammond the right person for the job? Is it fair? This is where my complaint lies.
 

Nick Smith MP stated in a letter that if the Board had heeded my warnings then the explosion “could have been averted”, written two years after the explosion. Is it fair that I lost so much? Doc 4 in attachments. And the Labour MP, Maryan Street believes I was served an injustice Doc 5 in attachments.
 

 This is why I believe it may be relevant to you as I think you said it best in these comments attributable to a Prof Ron Patterson; I take it this is you.
 

In reading Doc 6 in attachments, please replace doctors with tradesman and the Medical Board with this Plumbers Board when rereading these notes, excerpt below:-
 

First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.

 

And from another paper….
 

 

Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas?) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters?) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it!

 

* My additions in black.

 

 

How about adding to this statement above…..That these “raisers of concern” are being set up and made a scapegoat when all that they had warned about comes to pass, nearly killing someone. Isn’t the Board denying and resisting my complaint, just as they did with my warnings, made 6 years prior to the explosion.
 

I ask you Mr Patterson. What is the difference between a patient’s health and safety to that of paying customer of a tradesman? Or are the rights of a gasfitter and his customer to be deemed less than that of a health professional and his patient? After all we are licence holding practitioners and have in the past been over seen by the health system. I was set up as a scape-goat, this is my complaint.
 

Doesn’t a patient pay for a service from a health professional and in doing so they should be able to expect to be kept safe and healthy after procuring these services, please explain to me the difference? I say this because a man nearly died in an explosion and NO ONE has been held accountable but I have been made the scapegoat. What message does this send?
 

Here’s an analogy for you. How does it sit with you if…….. a “health professional” was to be gifted his full practicing licence because he was a pharmaceutical salesman?........Then a well meaning, fully trained health practitioner had aired concerns about the obvious lack of ability of this untrained “gifted” licence holder for 6 years, and was later proven right in his concerns when a patient nearly died………but as the well meaning, fully trained person had signed a prescription (which was manipulated after signing) was then made the scapegoat, by the very person appointed to investigate, this same person who had also gifted the licence to the pharmaceutical salesman, and was in several interest groups with this salesman. Now apply this rational to mine and Mr Darnley’s situation, in light of your publications. Is this fair? How would the author of the above presentation feel about this state of affairs? A presentation about, of all things, “self regulation” and Board’s ignoring evidence.
 

All the evidence points to my old boss, he actually faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared with no relevant questioning or a hearing. Is this fair? Doc 7 in attachments. You’ll notice that this letter mentions 3.7 of the report (the 33 page report that is mentioned above and in your correspondence). Point 3.7 makes no mention of the charge at the site of the explosion. Also a list of the charges laid against Mr Darnley has no mention of the explosion at Milton Street. How can someone face a charge then have it disappear with no trial/hearing or relevant questions? Is it fair?
 

I ask you, is it fair to base your opinion that my old boss was investigated thoroughly and adequately just because the investigator said he did? This same investigator who was also my old boss’s fellow member of NZIGE and the same person who had gifted my old boss his licence…..the same investigator, who withheld forensic photos, misrepresented and ignored evidence?
 

This same Mr Hammond who was willing to ignore, amongst other ignored evidence, a third hose supplied to supply the two fryers, this third hose sold well after, months after, I had left Allgas’s employment and a long time before the secondary work covered by cert 345138 for a pizza oven….this same hose being the very one that caused the explosion, the same hose that, in the opinion of the forensic investigator, David Neale, had had its sealing outer rubber coating cut away, the same outer coating that makes the hose gas tight. Is this fair? This is where my complaint lies. Doc 8 & 9 in attachments.
 

You mention the Board’s 33 page report. As you appear to have a copy please look at page 31, point 4.6, Doc 10 in attachments. I believe this double speak spin doctoring is part of the cover up and one of the root causes for making me a scapegoat, its plain to see for those willing to see. Cert 345138, a cert for the last, most recent work carried out at the site of the explosion, the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Board’s 33 page report, this is also the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Dept Of Labour (DOL) original complaint. Two pages of Doc 11 in attachments.
 

The DOL author of this letter of complaint told my lawyer right at the beginning of this fiasco that, at no point, was my work of concern to DOL. I have since personally talked to the author Mr Windleburn; he has no problem with my work either. To ignore this. This is where my complaint lies.
 

I ask you to read the DOL complaint and ask yourself who in this letter of complaint would a fair minded lay person think was more deserving of a thorough investigation.
 

·         The fully trained Gas Service Engineer who had complained about Mr Darnley, specifically about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years and came forward freely.

 

·         Or the person gifted his licence with no formal training, whom the Board had received letters of concern about, specifically dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, who was the last person to have worked at the site of the explosion but didn’t register the cert for this last work, but saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, i.e. a dodgy cert covering not only dodgy work…. but an explosion? The same person who ran the company that sold the third hose and this same company also showing a willingness to act in my name when Allgas requested to alter a cert 3 months after I had left its employ? Doc 12 in attachments.

 

I find it bizarre that a copy or cert 345138 was entered into the Board’s own website, but they claim not to have received a copy. In the Board’s 33 page report it mentions that a “fox pro” entry is there for this cert I should imagine that this system would require a log in pass word for the person entering the certs information and this person could attest to whether the Board had in deed received a copy. How on earth does all the information on the carbon copies get on to the fox pro system, even down to the correct cert number…..without receiving a copy of the original! To deny receiving this cert alone deserves an investigation. 
 

All available copies of cert 345138 lack the legal recording of a gas leak test, even the electronic version. The only copy missing…. the original! This is the only copy which was, in all probability, received by the Board.
 

I put it to you that it is possible that this original copy of 345138 was, in all probability disposed of and shredded when the Lawyers acting for the owners of the exploding chipshop asked for a copy of all gas safety certs for their gasfitting work carried out at their chipshop. Perhaps you could ask Belinda Greer, a worker for the Board. Doc 13 in attachments. Look at Doc 13 and reread the 33 pages of excuses in their report, it is nonsense.
 

This Cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint. This is where my complaint lies.
 

I ask you in all fairness, if the person responsible for the last work installed at the exploding chipshop, the same person who according to the Board didn’t register this cert for this work with the Board. But he saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, and even kept a carbon copy himself as the supplier and another copy himself as the certifying gasfitter. With this same cert 345138 that appears in the complaint by DOL by actual number, the same cert mentioned in 4.6 on page 31 of the Board’s report……how can this man, the person responsible for initiating cert 345138, face a charge for the explosion, but then that charge disappears with no relevant questioning, trial or hearing? These are per the Board’s own correspondence. It is here my complaint lies, this “non registration” came to light 8 days after the explosion and months before the Board appointed an investigator. Is that Fair?
 

I ask you Mr Patterson……..how would the Board look if they had openly accepted an incomplete gas safety certificate for the last work done at a site that then later exploded…..lacking of all things a gas leak test? How would the Lawyers for the chipshop owners have acted on such findings?
 

In ever more double standards a person involved in yet another case, a situation where there was a pre-signing of some 560 blank certificates, which were on sold, including to unqualified lay persons, with 90% of the work covered by these blank certs done against regulation and non compliant…..with some 16 very dangerous, with the signatory on record as saying he signed and checked every job. What would you think if someone involved in this fiasco, probably the signatory of these blank certs…..still has charges before the Board some 5 years later? Is this fair? These double standards, this is where my complaint lies. Doc 14 in attachments.
 

The Board are also willing to ignore a potential fraud and manipulation of gas certs to cover dangerous work, this was discovered at my hearing, and the Board did nothing. Is this fair?  This is yet another double standard and is where my complaint lies. Doc 15 in attachments. The letters sent by the Board, that are mentioned in this letter of excuse in Doc 15 were issued well before the manipulation of the certs was revealed at my hearing, it is actually one of the letters that the Board had to apologise to me for, because it contained untruths about my ability to act illegally in other areas of NZ. Ironically this letter of untruths sent by the Board came about because of the situation where the man mentioned above signed 560 certs in the North Island, apparently I got lumped in with him, but he potentially still has charges before the Board, even right up to today. This farcical state of affairs is where my complaint lies.
 

The list of poor performance by this Board is long and deserves a proper independent investigation. It does not deserve for the Board to be apparently protected and sheltered by those, like yourself, who would take all that the Board say on face value and fall for their spin doctoring and double speak, this is a mistake.
 

I was told by Mr Christopher Littlewood that all you could do was make a recommendation……please recommend that a proper, fair and independent investigation is held, I will do the rest, along with the support of well over 1200 members of the Plumbers Federation, a group set up because of 15 years of mismanagement by this Board. Sadly my case is but one of many.
 

 
But apparently they are willing to use discretion in how I was investigated.......fairness for all, is their motto......hmmm really? They seem more like damage control.....they took two years to fob me off like this.......fairness for who?

You got to read their replies in context.....see the reply attached
 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 09:59:11 AM
If you play them on their pitch with their ref, behind closed doors, using their rules......well your going to get the same as you have had for the last 10 years.....


In a public forum, with NZ watching....well its just embarrassing.......they would be gone by lunch time.....please share this around as much as you can.....

Or later on in your life......get ready to assume the position if they ever feel like doing you over......and not just for a work mistake, you could offend one at a function or god forbid speak your mind......I had all three apparently.....

Vampires live off sucking other dry.......but drag them out in to the day light.......poooffff........ up in a cloud of rancid smoke.....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 10:34:00 AM
These are Mr Uren's own words, now bear in mind he has access to the files.....


Q. What about Mr Darnley?

A. I can't recall.

Q. When you were checking the files of Mr Darnley did you notice if he'd had previous encounters with the Board?

A. Ah yes, Mr Darnley has a fairly extensive file. 

Q. And do you know if there was anything on there about gas certificates being altered or created by Mr Darnley?

A. It's been a while since I've looked at the file, I can't say categorically so I'd need to have a look at it again.

Q. You are a wee bit hesitant there, do you think there was something in there regarding -

A. I'm just saying I can't recall.

Q. You can't recall?

A. Yeah.





Really Mr Uren......extensive?   A past history.....has he done this before. Please explain mate, seen you on here before, chirp up handsome.


Darnley was working in Nelson for well over 10 years might be nearer 20 years, I saw him at the end after he had had some "experience" and "cpd"......can you imagine what's out there.......it is a gamble not to look into this.



All you have to do Max is act on the legionnaires job, then investigate the other dangerous work.....or do he know where all the skeletons are...
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 02:02:15 PM
Think about it......... it all could have been sorted way back.......now if you match the cert numbers to the ones she is on about to the ones mentioned in the other letter......well they don't match. So was she misleading or was it a "mistake"....or did someone at Allgas have a habit of messing about with the certs?

I complained about a job I had refused to sign off as it was unfinished, but Darnley (or someone at Allgas) had issued the cert to the supplier and owner, with out my signature (look at the mess on the pink copy).....I saw a copy when I left and went to work else where. I also found out that there was 4 books of certs ordered in my name, have a look at the copy of the certs.....

So in Colleen Singleton's letter she refers to a batch being in John Darnley's name....batch 294351 - 294390 (a batch of 4 books of certs), this was my first letter, look a the date at the top. 23/2/04.

Then a year later I went to a job and saw another job, so I wrote again, this time they list another batch of 4 books of certs, identified by the numbers, this was a year later, 28/1/05


After well over a decade of this do you think I am just going to walk away, I have waited over two years to be fobbed off by the Ombudsman, is this reasonable? Believe it or not.....I have tried to be brief in all this.....I got heaps, and it is spread all over the world.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 05:27:16 PM
So guys I have used some kiwi ingenuity.....some No 8 wire and a smoke bomb.......


Now the top of the guttering is about 5mm lower that the 540mm, that was what the one last charge was....so its about 535mm to the guttering.......


Now also please bare in mind that the wall that the califont was fitted on was flat(the guttering in this photo protrudes quite a bit).....

And also bare in mind that the window had chains to restrict the opening to 100mm of the window.

Now have a look at my previous post and compare to this series of photo's, basically I lit a smoke bomb and kept my finger on the shutter.....

I did try a thermal imager, but the bloody gas moves too fast to register!!!!!! shot straight out at 90 degs to the wall AWAY from the window.

Now have a look at my testimony, I don't even have to "adduce" any new evidence.....and look at Hammond's statement.....that he had no idea that fumes were entering the building!


The pipe is protected and marked I assure you, properly sized and all to code.



This is what I mean by the Board thinking that shit rolls up hill......its against the laws of physics......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 05:28:40 PM
The garage is over 3 meters away.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 05:52:38 PM
Like I said on planet Board...the fumes can do a 180.....then even though they are hot they can sink down them go back up into a window 100mm open.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 05:55:08 PM
They said in high court they should be given my weight because they are a professional Board.......what weight do I get when I prove that what I had maintained for years was true and the Board are so very wrong......



Is this reasonable.........


Now read the dealing with unreasonable people policy and apply it the Board.......one rule for us and one rule for them.......


Is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 07:02:46 PM
So you have seen the evidence and the transcripts, and the testimony of the inquisitor, he had no idea if any fumes were entering the building.....

So here is the testimony of the owner, sorry the window was restrained to 7 inches past the sill, my mistake. (did it from memory), it was a typo.

Have a look at my diagrams from the hearing, and match it to the transcript I have mentioned below, I am talking about the difference between a balanced or gravity flue, and a power flue......look at the photos and the diagram....pretty close, if not identical......


What happens when an "expert" gets it so wrong, and the defendant gets it correct......do you go with the expert, because he's the....umm expert.....well he's not much of an expert if he don't know what he is on about....is he! Forgetting how he framed me mind!

......but apparently on planet Board the laws of physics don't apply........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 07:11:24 PM
Perhaps its a chance to right old wrongs......sent tonight.....lets see fair play.....


Mr Pedersen,

 

Please can you review the Board’s position on my last and final charge. I have done no wrong.

 

In light of these photos attached, which prove my testimony to be correct and the investigators incorrect.

 

Please base your reconsideration on my already entered testimony at the hearing, no addducement required….. all my testimony is true and my diagrams correct, please also see Mr Hammonds statement at my hearing that he had no idea if the fumes were entering the building.

 

The top of the guttering is 535 mm from the top of the flue spigot, and bear in mind that the wall would have been flat and the window restricted to opening 100mm, it is an impossibility for the fumes to enter. Photo attached…also attached is a photo where someone from the Board told the customer to “just shut the window when you use it”. For some scale the garage opposite is over 3 mtrs away.

 

It is an “Emperors New Clothes” scenario to hold on to this one last charge. The photos prove what the owner stated at my hearing and that my testimony was true, that it was never a problem.

 

The Board has based their whole decision on the “opinion” of one conflicted person……I lost my home and business because of this……is this reasonable?

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 09:10:04 PM
Any gasfitter worth his salt knows the large amount of smoke one of those bombs make.....there is not a wisp of smoke near the wall, from the califont flue spigot, all the way...right up to the sky........

I lost my home and business because of this one man's opinion, an opinion that is incorrect..........is that reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 02, 2015, 09:23:43 PM
So here is the press release...........

You'll notice they think it was two "fires", that caused the explosion......a typo, should be fryers.... :o

When you know what I know, look at them pontificating.....and they don't bother with the elderly couples califont.....I don't think they know what reasonable is.......its all about the context.....

PRESS RELEASE | Nelson gasfitter’s conduct found unacceptable12 Aug 2011 (Fri)
PRESS RELEASE | 12 July 2011
A Nelson gasfitter has been found guilty of professional shortcomings and unacceptable conduct. The Board has found that Paul Gee breached the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act when he carried out gasfitting work on a house in Malvern Avenue, Nelson.Mr Gee incorrectly installed a gas water heater by not allowing sufficient clearance between it and an openable window. It was installed by Mr Gee too close to an openable window, which created a risk that products of combustion and carbon monoxide could have entered into the house.

The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board decided the case against Mr Gee in relation to work carried out on six other properties in the Tasman Bay and Westport areas including the Milton Street takeaways shop in Nelson was not established. The takeaways was the scene of an explosion in April 2009.The cause was found to be a gas leak, which developed at the rear of two gas fires.

The case against Mr Gee was not established at properties at Main Road, Havelock, Greenwood Street, Motueka, Pah Street at Motueka High School, Dommett Street, Westport and Powick Street, Westport.

For the charge Mr Gee was found guilty of, the tribunal said: “Mr Gee is not a mere plumber as he referred to himself, but an experienced gasfitter. For a practitioner of Mr Gee’s status, these applied professional shortcomings are seen as being very serious and his conduct unacceptable.”

In considering the charge, the Board noted Mr Gee’s lack of appreciation of process, objectives and accountability when signing gas certification certificates and certifying gas installations.

The Board also said there was a demonstrated lack of understanding about the reasons for maintaining adequate clearances between instantaneous gas water heating appliances and openable windows and the risk that carbon monoxide presents.

The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the PGDB about the Milton Street matter and the PGDB undertook its own investigation. As a consequence, a further six properties were also identified as potentially posing a risk to the health and safety of the public.

The Board deals with the competency of gasfitters and any disciplinary actions that arise from that. For compensation, any affected parties need to lodge a civil claim with the courts.

The Board will now arrange a meeting between the parties to decide on penalties, after which time Mr Gee will have the right of appeal.


This is the press release BEFORE my right of appeal, which they tried to block........reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 03, 2015, 07:38:37 AM
Sent this morning to OUR minister......





Hi Nick,

 

 

Due to this proof of the fumes, NEVER, being a threat to the occupiers, and the Board’s blatant targeting of myself, right from the get go, from the first 7 sites that didn’t make it to the 44 charges, to the 42 charges that failed including the site of the explosion, and now the irrefutable proof that these photo’s provide.

 

All the ignored evidence, withheld evidence and lies.

 

Also the Board’s willingness to ignore several cases that my hearing raised, including a fraud and a legionnaires’ risk (in your constituency). Also the Board’s willingness to ignore an elderly couple who actually made a complaint about fumes entering their home.

 

I am formally asking for a judicial review, I believe the Board have failed the NZ public.

 

I look forward to your reply, if you can’t help, please direct me to someone who can.

 

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 09, 2015, 06:53:47 PM
lets see how we go.........




Dear Mr Gee

 

On behalf of Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Building and Housing, thank you for your email of 3 February 2015 regarding your dispute with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. 

 

Your comments have been noted and you may expect a reply in due course.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Kate Dixon

Ministerial Secretary

Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith

Minister for the Environment |  Minister for Building and Housing 

Ph: 817-6805  |  Fax: 817-6505

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 11, 2015, 07:08:28 AM
Below in blue, my Reply, all I have done to irk the Board is try to warn about the very real risk to the public that one man posed (not all the gasfitters in my area, as the Board tried to make out).

At the time of my first complaint....my wife was pregnant and this gave me a whole different perspective on life. Once I was told by the previous contractor that when he told Darnley he couldn't fit a type of heater in a bedroom, Darnley just crossed out bedroom and put study......this could be a child's bedroom, plus all the BS  I saw, made me sick.....so I complained to the authorities.

 I had to leave it for a while after my boy was born because he had two massive operations, I told Colleen Singleton about the ops (when I had to go to Wellington for two weeks, to resit all my plumbing licences, remember Darnley got given his full ticket).....Singleton said she wasn't interested in my private life (thought she was a nurse!)........then my father dumped my mother on my door step after 36 years of marriage and the stress revealed her emphascymia. My mum came right, just as the chipshop blew up.




Thank you Kate,

 

Please can you pass to Nick the link below, it is to a Plumbers Forum where I have posted some, and I mean some of the evidence that shows irrefutably how photos and Allgas invoicing was ignored, misrepresented or withheld at my hearing. Done I believe to facilitate a premeditated assault of my character.

 

Some of the people responsible are still at the Board or Secretariat and have continued to cover this up.

 

This cover up was done while very real faulty and dangerous work “backed” by a manipulation of the gas safety certificate system.

 

This has been ignored with very real risks to the NZ public. With the people of our constituency of Nelson bearing the brunt of this risk, I think it is reprehensible that these people have done this. I hope the Minister can see my point.

 

I understand that most of this was not done under his watch so to speak, but it has happened and requires fixing. I am happy to meet with Nick any time that is convenient to us both.

 

Here’s the link.

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg9335#msg9335

 

Kate, someone nearly died at Milton Street Chip Shop in Nelson, with a gas certificate intended to record details for safety….. “lost” by the Board, it is a certificate for the last work done…. that all available copies show a lack of testing for leaks at the site of an explosion (there is even an electronic copy on their website), and no one to this day has been held accountable, I don’t think that is right.

 

I am guessing that you might have friends and family that live here in Nelson, please Kate….. please….. ask each and every one of them if they have had any gas work done by a John Darnley, if so please tell them to get it checked. Please read my attachment for some background.

 

I made good money fixing this idiots mistakes, it was never about Darnley, it was about him being willing to put people’s loved ones in harms way.

 

All I have done to put the Board’s nose out of joint….. is to try to tell the powers that be, there is a problem and our neighbours, friends, family are/might be at risk.

 

Best Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 11, 2015, 07:21:15 AM
Obviously my mother still has emphyscemia (she collapsed when my father told her), it was her nervous breakdown that she has got over (she is a terrier). My wife sat with her first born with a shaved head, no hair and 49 stiches on his beautiful head, with my mum rocking back and forth picking her nails, crying. That's why I paid my charity donation to the Ronald McDonald House, instead of a tax evading corrupt Board.

Then the chipshop exploded, just as it all this other stuff came right.....then my wife had the sick and twisted case notes sent to her, while her husband got framed for nothing, then was financially forced to sell her home and live in a caravan for a whole winter, collecting drinking water and emptying a chemical toilet. I had to work away for two years. Before any smart arse says anything about hooking up water for her, we were forced to move into a shack in the country with no mains facilities, our old home had just been finished, before we had to sell it, we were mortgage free too.

For these reasons I will never let this go, and really hope they don't push me too far, we all have breaking points (and by breaking point, I don't mean I will be broken, just I will snap)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat on February 11, 2015, 09:59:30 PM
Paul
I can't begin to imagine how this has been for you.  Everyone, every single bloody tradesperson working as a plumber, a gasfitter or a drainlayer could find themselves in a similar position.  42 counts that were laid against you - all failed to fly.  How could they come up with 42 counts that wouldn't stick?  By this I mean why did they lay the charges when it appears the evidence just didn't appear to be there.  The shoddy and incompetent investigation is a shameful blight on the PGDB's copy book.  A man's reputation is all he has when everything else is stripped bare.  There hasn't even been an acknowledgement that they got it so wrong on so many levels.

To "accidently" send out letter to your clients implicating you in the fraudulent selling of gas certificates should have cost people their jobs - staff at the PGDB I mean.  And certainly who ever was overseeing it should have lost their job.  I believe it took six months for them to acknowledge the massive cock up this was - but of course then it was too late. 

Who watches the watchers?  Who indeed?  The Minister - he doesn't seem interested - the industry themselves - well maybe they are waking up a bit, but they seem too scared, the Federation - I hope so - but they need the backing of their members - because the one thing that counts is numbers.

Paul - if you could have the Board's attention for five minutes - what would you tell them you wanted from them?  What can put this right?  Can it ever be put right? 

And lastly, how are things going for you now?  Are you still in the trade or have you managed to go in another direction?  I sincerely hope that your wife, your sons and your mum are all faring a little better now. 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Enn on February 12, 2015, 02:59:09 PM
Well what can you say.
I hope that you have some positive response from the new minister Badger, He is not doing his job if he does not follow this up. where is his responsibility? or are they all just a pack of Muppet's after all.
So we all work in fear that this could happen  to us if it turns to custard. 100% liability and a punitive regulatory body that will take you to the cleaners with no right of redress it is just not right.
I believe that the board should put away their walloping stick and open dialogue with the industry in a positive and supportive way not a fear based culture. Perhaps more the way that they used to operate.
 I have no problem with manning up and admitting if i have done something that is not right & to put it right. It would seem that this is not the case with everyone....


When the Federation is recognised as a legitimate voice of the industry, not just  a bunch of malcontents then maybe something will change for the better.

my 10 cents worth, anyway I have to keep reasonably positive I'm too old to retrain as a balloon player  8)






Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 12, 2015, 10:13:30 PM
Thanks for your tens cents Enn, if no one replies I think I am shouting out into the wind on a dark night, cheers mate for taking the time. Means heaps to me.

Jax,

The thing is it was a premeditated set up job, to frame someone to cover-up a badly run gas cert system, that resulted in an explosion.... a system that was abused to empower a small group of people (mostly untrained incompetents’ with no formal training, but had the “contacts”) while hamstringing and excluding others (basically, the rest of the fully trained industry but with no "contacts")…….this was all done with a massive risk to the public, and still ignored to this day.

This I believe is reprehensible….if it is untrue then I will expect a letter from your lawyer Max (I know you all at the Board read this forum).

Before the 44 charges were laid, 7 sites were “of interest”, I answered these so well that they didn’t even make it to the 44 charges (which they went back out to get), then they amended (changed) over 50% of these 44 charges just weeks from the hearing….I (and all credit to Wal) totally blew 42 of the 44 clean out of the water……

And you have now seen the photos that blows this last BS charge out of the water too….so I did absolutely f**** all wrong, I told the truth with good intentions, with the customers safety first and foremost, even before profit or keeping on side with a bunch of bullies, I was threatened before explosion.

I got a letter from a Board lawyer that says they checked all my work for three years, not the 10% they claimed.

Think about it haven’t these people stolen our careers and our means of making a living; while pontificating about how incompetent we are, while they make “mistakes” and have “oversights” as a regular occurrence, bailed out…….not bloody reprimanded by their minister. Changing the law, rushing it through in urgency….what a crock.

Those letters that ruined my business….these were signed by means of an “electronic signature” signed and sent out by Kern…with out checking that the contents were correct (this is their sanitised version, I believe it was done intentionally)….…..the Board have lost gas certs and accepted certs with very important info missing (missing leak testing FFS), they have lost certs then found them again…… but I was publically humiliated, before my right of appeal….. for not seeing the responsibility in signing off a gas safety cert off………..really! is this reasonable or fair.

I am borne out by the califont photos for this last charge… that what I did was right and what I said at the hearing was true, the inquisitor (not a typo) did no tests and had huge reasons for seeing me ruined. But this one bullshit charge still stands, apparently his reputation is worth more than mine.

It was a search for a scapegoat, to hide how bad the cert system was run that resulted in an explosion, done at my expense whilst terrorising my wife.

I had to listen to other tradesman call me dodgy and knock me for dobbing everyone in (the Board audited two jobs of most if not all the gasfitter’s in my area), that’s if I was lucky enough to actually be on site, because the lying letters that were written……well they killed my business, and all the many other “press releases” thereafter drove home the final nails in its coffin.

Customers knew me as the “guy who blew up the chippy”…..after I had probably got into this mess trying to do right by the same customers/public trying to warn about dodgy work in their homes.

I was financially forced to sell our just finished home and leave my wife and our 4 and 6 year olds in a caravan for a whole winter, while I was working in another island…..before this I wouldn’t even go out of town with out them. I was mortgage free in a modest house with no debt, my van, tools and car all paid for.

But then….I had to listen to my wife cry in to her pillow while all this went on, then leave them all at the airport while I flew all over NZ for 5 to 6 weeks at a time, leaving them all crying, while I went and crawled under houses and worked in shit. If I was lucky I might be able to afford a week home with them, every 6 weeks. I did this for two years, sleeping the rest of the time in a caravan, the same one my family lived in.....anyone want to buy it, we don't like going on holiday anymore in it.

Paul - if you could have the Board's attention for five minutes - what would you tell them you wanted from them?  What can put this right?  Can it ever be put right?

•   An apology to my wife, hand written and with sincerity, hand delivered.
•   For the Board to put as much effort, money, time and publicity in restoring my reputation as they did in ruining it.
•   Leave me where they found me…in a mortgage free home with a business so I can feed my kids and spend time with them.
•   Return to me and my wife my sons missing “family” years, Joe’s years of 4 to 6 and Mike’s years of 6 to 8.
•   Remove from my memory of seeing my wife hysterical sobbing thinking that these goons were threatening us with the contents of the sick and twisted case notes, because I thought about that a lot when I was living in the same caravan that she had to live in the previous year, laying there wondering if they were ok.
•   And a charity boxing match with Kern.

And lastly, how are things going for you now?  Are you still in the trade or have you managed to go in another direction?  I sincerely hope that your wife, your sons and your mum are all faring a little better now.


I am with my family all I can be, my girl is doing very good at the local bank (I am very proud of her), I got to KNOW my wife is one hell of an amazing person, who for some strange reason thinks as much of me as I do her, my boys are amazing. We are all happier than we have been for a very long time. Since April 2009.

But I am a fully qualified certifying plumber and gasfitter, with a trade electrical ticket, 25years experience, able enough to face a directed assault by an industry Board....… who has had to start at the bottom in another industry, where I am reminded everyday that this is not my industry, but I will do it day in day out to be with my family.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 13, 2015, 05:53:20 PM
It like a bad joke, here is the response to a request, remember the one I made whether the present chair and panel member at one of my hearings Mr Jackson, is stood next to Mr Darnley at a meeting for NZIGE, the person who most if not all the evidence points to at the site of the explosion.....apparently it is frivolous for me to ask....Max is taking his ball home.....wouldn't be easier to clear it up and just say, its not him, if its not him....wait there perhaps it is him....the plot thickens....lol.

Max appears to think that a potential serious conflict of interest is a frivolous matter, or at least me asking to find out.....

It cracks me up, I always get his replies as late as he can on a Friday, is it because he thinks I might have a beer and might get rise out of me, I don't know why he would think this.....lol, its so blatant. The letter is dated 13th , but the email is dated 12 02 15 , which is done automatic? so perhaps he wrote it yesterday but waited to send it a day later. Nice Maxy.

Max your reluctance to answer this simple question speaks volumes....your non answer lets me know, what I suspect.......

Have a look at the two responses.....so what do you guys think......could it be Mr Jackson stood next to Mr Darnley....back in 2006 when I tried to get all this looked into, before a guy nearly died in an explosion........all reattached for your convenience.....have a great week end, even you Max...lol.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 13, 2015, 09:20:50 PM
This is a recent press release from Max.......now apply these words to how I got screwed over and how they have ignored certain jobs....its like a parallel universe....






Plumbing, gasfitting and drainlaying are regulated industries in New Zealand and it is illegal for anyone to do this work unless they are authorised to do so by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board.

The Board’s Chief Executive, Max Pedersen said: “The growth in building consent applications is positively impacting the construction sector nationwide, but this is particularly evident in Auckland.”

“As a result consumers should be on the lookout for illegal operators. History tells us that with the increase in jobs, there is always an increase in the number of illegal operators appearing.

“The health and safety risks associated with plumbing carried out by an unauthorised person are serious. Any defective work has the potential to cause disease and serious damage to the property.”

A recent industry working group calculated that 8000 more carpenters and joiners, electricians, plumbers, painters, bricklayers, drainlayers, gasfitters, insulation installers and motor mechanics will be required in Auckland by 2018.

“The Board will continue to keep a watchful eye in relation to unlicensed workers in the Auckland region,” Mr Pedersen added.

All authorised tradespeople are required to carry their current authorisation card. Consumers should ask tradespeople for this card before any work commences. This way they can be assured that the work is being done by an authorised and competent tradesperson.

If a homeowner believes that work has been done by someone who is not authorised, or has concerns about the competency of tradespeople, they can make a complaint to the Board.

Ends



With these figures in red above......how are we going to cope with people leaving in droves.........oh wait there.......there will be a monopoly.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 13, 2015, 09:24:06 PM
Oh wait there....... my mistake......Darnley was "authorised" after he was "given" his ticket...........so it was all ok. It is a joke.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Jaxcat on February 13, 2015, 09:47:35 PM
I've had a look at that photo and I wouldn't be prepared to say that was Mr Jackson - it's not clear enough.  Was he on the list of attendees?   The only person I recognise besides Mr Parker is Dr Palmer who was the Technical Manager for Master Plumbers back in the day and he would have attended these sort of meetings as he is a pretty knowledgeable guy with plenty of technical nous.  Sorry Badger, but this might be a real case of not being able to identify someone.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 13, 2015, 11:03:31 PM
But wouldn't you ask him if its him?

It just seems strange to not answer....I totally agree it isn't clear, that's why I asked......there are enough people in the photo to prove my point about how entwined Darnley was with Hammond (the investigator) and Parker (the chair of the Board and my hearing) alone, that's bad enough mate, I just wanted to know how many others were there.

Yes I recognise Dr Palmer and a few others, but these people didn't vote themselves impartial, just before they screwed me over, just looking for a bit of clarification Jax.

The thing is I was/and am still not against the Board, Master Plumbers, NZIGE or any other groups, I am all for proper CPD and think for us to loose an overseer for the industry a complete mistake.....I just think it should be run fairly with the public's safety put before mates and little clubs.

I genuinely thought I was trying to fix things, I could see something was going to happen so I tried to warn about it....

The thing is, and I was told this by a few people......a certain person only joined these groups/clubs just so they can do what they do, sometimes tarnishing the reputations of the groups they join, but they join just to further themselves......what I am trying to say is these groups should be more pissed off with these people for dragging these groups down.


Really and I am a big boy, I can take it......WTF did I do to piss off certain plumbers, let me know, even if it is what you heard.....because I haven't got a clue, except that I tried to warn about things I thought were dangerous.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 10:58:27 AM
I just want a fair go, and I don't think that the people who are entrusted with the public's safety should do their job, especially as they are a registered charity for this purpose...is this reasonable?









Mr Pederson,

 

Please can you let me know when I might receive a reply to the email below? These photos prove beyond doubt that my testimony at my hearing was true and the investigators unfounded. Thus leaving me 100% innocent of any wrong doing.

 

Also, and the reason for this email, by means of an OIA request please can I get a copy of John Darnley’s “fairly extensive” file mentioned below in Mr Uren’s testimony from my hearing?

 

I believe it is a reasonable request and assure you I do not do this to be frivolous nor vexatious, but do it in the public’s interest and for the public’s safety. I do not require any names or addresses, just the content so to speak. You must understand that even though the man has retired, the work is very much still out there.

 

Just like the legionnaires risk that the Board are prepared to ignore, this is a massive gamble. Not to mention the hypocrisy of ignoring a very similar case to that of the one that the Board have held on to, i.e. the one mentioned below.

 

Of note Mr Darnley was already retired when the chip-shop exploded. His punishment, for the 100% conviction rate can be summed up to a $10,000 fine and allowed to carry on in his beachside retirement. While my 100% innocence cost me my home, business, reputation and time with my family. I think this is unreasonable.

 

 

 

To all you copied in, this is the person who has been ignored by the Board, where most, if not all of the evidence points to his causing, or at the very least having a massive involvement in the actions leading up to an explosion that nearly killed someone.

 

I am sure there was at least one other incident, that would be in this file I have requested may be more.

 

May I point out that he worked totally unsupervised in Nelson for well over 10 years, empowered by a full certifying licence gifted to him without any formal training by Tony Hammond, who was also gifted his full certifying licence with no formal apprenticeship. Mr Hammond was awarded this during his investigation into me while acting as the investigator for my witch-hunt. 

 

I say to you all it is a cover up done at a very real risk to the public, it is wrong. The Board have ignored real concerns that are a risk to the public and trumped up charges to persecute me.

 

Please see below the testimony of Mr Uren,

 

 

Q. What about Mr Darnley?

A. I can't recall.

Q. When you were checking the files of Mr Darnley did you notice if he'd had previous encounters with the Board?

A. Ah yes, Mr Darnley has a fairly extensive file. 

Q. And do you know if there was anything on there about gas certificates being altered or created by Mr Darnley?

A. It's been a while since I've looked at the file, I can't say categorically so I'd need to have a look at it again.

Q. You are a wee bit hesitant there, do you think there was something in there regarding -

A. I'm just saying I can't recall.

Q. You can't recall?

A. Yeah.

 

What happens if we have another “chipshop” incident?

 

 

 

Best Regards Paul Gee


 

 


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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 2 February 2015 5:48 p.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma Gee'; '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

 

 

 

Mr Pedersen,

 

Please can you review the Board’s position on my last and final charge. I have done no wrong.

 

In light of these photos attached, which prove my testimony to be correct and the investigators incorrect.

 

Please base your reconsideration on my already entered testimony at the hearing, no addducement required….. all my testimony is true and my diagrams correct, please also see Mr Hammonds statement at my hearing that he had no idea if the fumes were entering the building.

 

The top of the guttering is 535 mm from the top of the flue spigot, and bear in mind that the wall would have been flat and the window restricted to opening 100mm, it is an impossibility for the fumes to enter. Photo attached…also attached is a photo where someone from the Board told the customer to “just shut the window when you use it”. For some scale the garage opposite is over 3 mtrs away.

 

It is an “Emperors New Clothes” scenario to hold on to this one last charge. The photos prove what the owner stated at my hearing and that my testimony was true, that it was never a problem.

 

The Board has based their whole decision on the “opinion” of one conflicted person……I lost my home and business because of this……is this reasonable?

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
*they should do their job.....another typo, lol.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 11:38:11 AM
Just to be clear, all the charges that Darnley faced.... he was done for, but although he faced a charge for the chip-shop (which just  "disappeared") nothing was pursued in the direction of the explosion.....you have seen some of the evidence supplied on this link.


Is this reasonable........




Of note Mr Darnley was already retired when the chip-shop exploded. His punishment, for the 100% conviction rate can be summed up to a $10,000 fine and allowed to carry on in his beachside retirement. While my 100% innocence cost me my home, business, reputation and time with my family. I think this is unreasonable.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 01:19:15 PM

So definitely, with out a shadow of any doubt….. Allgas Ltd, managed by Darnley, THE certifying gasfitter carried out the actions below....this is all available to the Board, they actually gave this evidence to me and it appears in the hearing bundle…..

No one from the office (Darnley’s Daughter and Wife) were ever questioned about it and Darnley faced a charge for the chip shop explosion but it disappeared before his hearing (all his “other” charges were substantiated)….is this reasonable……

The Ombudsman, has all this evidence too, but  has used his discretion to not look at how the investigation was carried out……Fairness for All?????? Perhaps the “for” should be replaced with another F word…..

•   Weeks after I had left Allgas and months after the initial install, Allgas sold the owners of the exploding chipshop another hose to one of the fryers, this was to replace a hose that had split; this replacement is the hose that caused the explosion.

•   It ruptured because someone had lowered the 2 x wing backs and turned one of these wing backs 90 degrees by straightening out a 90 degree bend in the pexal pipe that supplied this wing back. This lowering and straightening out of the pipe made the bayonet point directly to the floor, nearly touching the floor, instead of to the right and much higher up.

•   This lowering is also borne out by some of the 110 withheld photos taken by the forensic expert. These photos show old drill holes (the ones I did) and pipe that goes down the wall at about 30 degrees, in contrast to the rest of the install, and all the other photos taken of my work, where the pipe is level…. either horizontal or vertical, I use a level when running pipe work. I had supplied drawing to this effect before the hearing.

•   This lowering caused the hose to be stressed along the stretched outer wall and split.

•   The hose was also according to the forensic expert....minus some of its outer sheath, showing evidence of it being cut away.

•   Altered the cylinder station from the original. This is shown by the difference between what was invoiced for at the time (Allgas invoices) billed for the initial pre-pipe and what is shown in the forensic photos of the destroyed building, Allgas were supplying the gas when the pizza oven was installed, this was when it was probably changed to allow both sides of cylinders to draw, because of the extra load of the pizza oven.

•   Fitted a Pizza oven half way along, with all copies of the cert (345138, filled out by Darnley) showing the test results missing. The copy attached is the certifier’s copy, the one supplied to Dept of Labour…. after the complaint and after the explosion. This copy shows the leak test results empty. The Board claim to not have received a copy of this cert, this claim was made to the owner’s lawyer just days after he nearly died in an explosion and was laying in a burns unit in Wellington. Even though this was claimed, just days after the explosion, some one had, at the Board, entered a copy of this cert on to the “fox pro” data base not long after the time of the pizza oven’s installation.

•   You’ll notice on the back of the job card (attached) that in my writing it shows that I only installed the bayonets (there are no appliances drawn), and on the front it shows another hand who has added the 2 x fryers, the 2 x cylinder numbers and a second leak test (who ever wrote this, I believe added the fryers after I did the initial pre-pipe).

•   Also of note is the ink on the pink copy of the cert for the fryers is in two different colour inks, the “15” on the test date is in blue and the rest of the test date is in black along with the entries under “flue” and “ventilation”. The 2 under “quantity” has been changed, the only thing in my hand writing is the signature, the appliances being empty when I signed it.


Is this reasonable……do you have confidence in these people to go after you when it suits them, or if one of their mates is in trouble and they can go you instead of one of their cronies?

How many of you have done as you were told by your boss and not gone back to check that nothing has been added, according to the Board it is common practice for someone in the office to fill out your certs for you to sign……how are you going to prove you did nothing wrong?

Isn’t disturbing that I have this wealth of info, can make this many posts…..and the people in charge do sweet FA with the last bastion of fairness for all, using his discretion not to look at it……is this reasonable?

I was awarded a $500 cash payment from Helen Cull to go with my apology for the letters that lied about me, I told the Board to send it to The Ronald Mc Donald house in Christchurch, to the best of my knowledge they kept it, not very charitable behaviour for a charity.

How do you feel about financing this system?

No One seems to give a shit about us…..

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 02:18:29 PM
Have a look at the state of this cert.....all accepted by our Board, the same Board that said I had no idea of my responsibility when signing or words to that effect.....I have heaps of certs similar, some where they have highlighted the missing details...how many of you had certs returned because of this?.....but not Darnley.

Of Note....This cert 299755 was brought up for one of my yearly audits, before the explosion, one that the auditor put a claim for and got paid for(got the paper work for that too).....he did this after I told him that I didn't finish the job or sign it off..... I handed it back to Darnley because it wasn't finished and had told Darnley that I wasn't prepared to sign it off......Along with about 30 others.


NOW COMPARE THE WRITTING ON THIS CERT 299755.....TO THE FRONT OF THE JOB CARD FOR THE MILTON STREET FRYERS, both attached below for you convenience......

NOW ESPECIALLY COMPARE THE ADDED APPLIANCES ON THE FRONT OF THE JOB CARD TO THE PERSONAL DETAILS AND ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON THE PINK COPY OF THE CERT 299755.....THE FIGURE 6 IS TOTALLY IDENTICAL AND THE SIGNATURE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE WRITTING THAT ACCOMPANIES IT, TO MY EYE ANYWAY. What's the odds on that?



Now I am no hand writing expert (which is available to the Board) but they look mighty similar.......to ignore this ......is this reasonable?


All this known to the Board when Darnley's charge, that he faced for the explosion.....just disappeared.......

Don't you think they should have looked into it, perhaps asked the people who filled out the certs for me to sign????
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 02:31:33 PM
Print them both off and compare.........let me know your opinion.


I still have heaps......it is embarrassing.


THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANYONE OF YOU, AND STILL CAN BE ANYONE OF YOU...........


I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did nothing, how will you fare.....how confident are you in getting a fair go?



The Ombudsman's ruling on CPD......well CPD.......the investigator needs heaps of it......but its ok he got given his licence.......It is so very wrong......


Where is our minister, where is our Ombudsman?.....we are on our own (except for the Federation).....I know who gets my support every time.


Wal (and the committee) have been a stalwarts for the industry. Wal is one of the most fair minded people I have ever met.....when I have gone off half cocked he actually sticks up for the Board and others, but he also points out where they are going wrong, straight down the middle.

We need a fair minded neutral person to look into all of this.....or we can get the minister to change the law on collusion, corruption, nepotism and risking the NZ public's safety just to keep their mates safe.........that's reasonable isn't it?



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2015, 02:59:52 PM
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.....sent today.....




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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 2:53 p.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma Gee'; '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'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'
Subject: RE: Letter responding to 26 Nov email

 

Mr Pederson,

 

Please can you get a handwriting expert to check/compare the witting on these attachments?

 

Especially the writing in the top 5 lines of the appliances field on the Job card, please compare to the personal details and accompanying signature on the cert 299755, as this gives us an identified and signed example of handwriting to compare with the person who in all probability installed the fryers at the site of an explosion.

 

I believe them to be the same hand and am sure you as the registrar would want to get to the truth on this matter, as no one to this day has been held accountable for nearly killing someone.

 

Thank you

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 16, 2015, 06:59:33 AM
Had a mate, who is a very experienced investigator look at the handwriting for me, his findings in the attachment, also see the email sent to Mr Pederson and all the MP's and tv stations mentioned in the previous email stream.... below in blue,

Mr Pederson and others,

 

I ask you to look at comments made by an experienced investigator, if our opinion is correct then the two samples are written by the same person, which puts who ever wrote it at the chipshop and in all probability fitted the fryers, this hand writing is signed off as John Darnley.

 

I did not install the fryers and my photos of the smoke prove I did no wrong at the Malvern Ave job, 100% innocent.

 

This is so very wrong in what you have done to my family; you are and have protected this man.

 

By way of an OIA request….why did the charge for the chipshop disappear for Mr Darnley?

 

FYI, this is posted on the plumber’s forum.

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 16, 2015, 07:05:45 AM
Now I was threatened with a handwriting expert........perhaps they will get him to give his professional opinion......and actually do their job.......

Have a look at the legionnaires job and do their job......I am 100 % innocent......where is our Ombudsman, our minister.........


NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS EXPLOSION......IS THIS REASONABLE?

I have done no wrong, but lost so much is this reasonable?

To protect this person.....is this reasonable? Does this help the Board's credibility? Do/can you trust them?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 16, 2015, 07:10:01 AM
So hypothetically speaking the police arrest the wrong person and at the trial they discover it wasn't the poor sap on the stand who is guilty......do they just stop looking because the guy they wanted to pin it on didn't happen?

Or do they do their job and get to the bottom of it all...........what is reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 16, 2015, 07:15:07 AM
I think the writing is on the wall..............with all this blatant evidence is it fair to ignore it and shaft an innocent party.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 16, 2015, 11:12:10 PM
One rule for us and another for them.....remember the cert 345138....apparently the investigator saw a copy, or at least claimed to have seen it....hmmmm dodgy....





Mr Pederson,

 

Supplementary to my recent emails concerning the samples of matching handwriting. Writing identified by Darnley’s signature on an altered certificate for 8 point road which appears to match the hand writing for the “added” appliances on the job card for an explosion.

 

Please can I draw your attention to a possible untruth told on page 7 of 25 of the investigators report, please see attached. It appears that Mr Darnley doesn’t recognise his own hand writing. I have good reason to believe that it is Mr Darnley’s writing, how could he “not recognise” his own writing?

 

Also……

 

Please can you explain to me how the investigator could “reference back to the originals received by the Board” in relation to cert 345138 in this same report, on page 5 of 25? It states in this report that the investigator was appointed on the 24th July 2009. Which is after the date (well over a month) mentioned below, from an email in correspondence with myself and the Board, you personally have also confirmed this in your 33 page report on my concerns.

 

I have attached copies for your convenience, with the email below. It appears some untruths have been told.

 

From: Melanie Phillips [mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 4:13 p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Cc: Wal Gordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee 

Hi Paul

Please see attached Belinda’s file note of her request to John Darnley for a copy of certificate 345138.  This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street.   

Also attached is a copy of the certificate received which, as you will see, is of quite poor quality.

Please let me know if you need any more information. 

Regards

Mel

 

From: Melanie Phillips[mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 3:22p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee; WalGordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee

Hi Paul

I have just gone back through the file and can confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138.  The only copy the Board has is a photocopy of the certifier’s copy, which you produced as exhibit PG007 together with a copy of the gas suppliers copy.

I see notes from Belinda Greer on the file that the Board copy of certificate 345138 was received after the explosion in 2009, I think from the Department of Labour.

I’m sorry I can’t help you further.

Regards

Mel

 

 

Which copy of cert 345138 did Mr Hammond see, perhaps he still has it?

 

I have only told the truth with the publics best interest in mind, what have these other people done?

 

 

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 17, 2015, 06:39:16 AM
So who has been telling porky pies.....

Mr Darnley, Mr Hammond, Mr Pederson or the Board.....or all of them.

I tell the truth.....loose everything......is this reasonable?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 17, 2015, 08:36:51 PM
Is it reasonable to expect fair play, with people telling the truth and acting in the public's best interest......

Or do you wait, hoping that they never come for you, waiting until a dodgy system singles you out for treatment while the same system is prepared to gamble with the publics well being?

People have got to see, it is only because we let these bullies go after us behind closed doors that they can do what they do, in full daylight, with full disclosure, with the public watching...... they got nothing......

I am no anarchist, I am all for regulation and can't abide cowboys and would never willingly gamble with another persons safety, especially to make a profit and I think it is best to contribute and give back......just wish we had a Board that acted the same.........




These people are only there because you follow them..........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 17, 2015, 08:40:37 PM
Look at the shear weight of evidence that I have put on here............doesn't it bother you that those in power aren't outraged by this sort of carry on......which way does this lead us, the industry, the country?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 17, 2015, 09:49:24 PM
Now....... apart from all the untruths, lying letters to my customers, the shocking child sexual abuse case notes, the nepotism, ignored conflicts of interest, ignored evidence, withheld notes & photos and re-amending of 50% of the charges, 42 charges blown out of the water, British standards not known by the only certifying gasfitter there (who was British), threatening phone call, enforcing a non mandatory part of the act, the owner saying it wasn't a problem, ignoring a legionnaires risk.....etc. etc.   blah blah blah...... you seen the blatant evidence and paper trail I have put on here ......forget all that.....

Just answer me this......


How is it possible for these fumes enter the building see attached, just this one thing......

I was criticised for not taking an expert to the hearing to back my point.....I did...... his name was Paul Gee, with well over 20 years of experience and who had earned all his tickets.......TWICE....once in the UK and once in NZ.....an expert who knew how these fumes would act......because I had fitted so many.........but the Board have ignored one that is, in their own words (because proximity is a concern to them)...... worse because it is nearer......hypocrites.

But the board believed a conflicted investigator, who was also given his certifying status (along with Darnley) who wouldn't want to see the system he had heavily lobbied for (the self cert system) and had given Darnley his ticket........the same duo with one of them who got to see the missing original copy of cert 345138 (even though it had disappeared and never registered at the Board...lol) and Darnley who "hadn't registered" the cert 345138 and he can't recognise his own hand writing......



Now look at my drawing at the hearing, drawn on the white board at the hearing as I was explaining how the fumes would act.......fumes are hot and rise.......the higher the window the more chance for the wind to blow it back in......


I lost my home because of this, they terrorised my wife and ruined my reputation......ignoring real safety concerns......is this the way we want to go, are these the people we need telling us we are incompetent unless we do phoney CPD courses........


Is any of this sane....let alone reasonable........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 18, 2015, 04:03:53 PM
So here it is......even when they get it wrong.....they are right.....


There is no way what I did was dangerous and the investigator had every reason to go me and was far from impartial.....

So just like when they are proven to be wrong by photos and the laws of physics and in the Feds case of the RRC and all the other stuff, which was made legal so they could take 2 million from us illegally, made legal.......

You have seen the photos and infra red images........but it is me who pays the price to bolster their egos.....just wrong, plain wrong.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 18, 2015, 04:10:47 PM
They say I exercised my right of appeal.......

which they tried to block at the appeal......

then I was shut down at the appeal apparently with the content of my submission ignored and was told I could not adduce any new evidence......

while they could adduce that they were a professional Board and should be given more weight to their opinions...because they know better......


You seen the photos .........do you think they know better?

You've seen some of the ignored evidence.......do you think they should be given more weight to their opinions?

What a crock......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on February 19, 2015, 03:53:38 PM
hi guys, Badger some good news perhaps. This statement about the David Bain Compensation case.
..("The New Zealand public rightly expects the Government to make a decision with the full set of facts and reliable advice in front of them.
"A fresh look will safeguard the integrity of the process and reassure the public that Cabinet will act on the best advice available
).
  Could we apply it to the Board and your case? cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 05:53:03 PM
I totally believe we could apply it to my case.........

We just need some straight shooting politicians who want to get to the truth and put the public before the little cabals of dodgy bastards who screw over innocent people while risking the publics safety.......I haven't met many yet but I live in hope......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 06:25:25 PM
How much integrity has this process that we are to be hit with, and hit with and hit with......

How much integrity has a system that will stoop to any low to get what they want, ignore what they want and risk who's safety they decide on, just to protect themselves and their little dodgy gang........you have seen what YOU can expect....

I agree that the public rightly expects the Government to protect the " integrity of the process ".....there isn't a scrap of integrity in my case or the process we were terrorised with........but the public got to know......its that easy......out in full daylight these people got nothing......

I just hope I don't have to do anything "unreasonable" to force it out in the open....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 07:41:55 PM
Its a feckin bad joke........





Mr Pederson,

Please see a photograph of how the fumes would behave in relation to an opening window, my additions in biro.

I have kept the perspective of the photo and made the wall flat. This mirrors the Malvern Ave Job dimensions, your letter reflects the total arrogance of the Board, basically the Board “knows” more than the laws of physics based in reality. I am sorry but I can not see this Emperors new clothes, it is farcical to hold on to this.

This decision has no credibility or integrity……especially when someone at the Board told a poorly elderly couple to “shut the window, when you use it”, on a califont fitted NEARER! They COULD smell fumes!!!!!!



Any way……



So how are you going with Mr Hammond’s referencing of the original copy of the  “missing” cert 345138, after it was “lost”?

And not forgetting Mr Darnley not recognising his own handwriting for the additions to the job card for the site of an explosion? How’s the handwriting expert going? Let me know how you go, as I am sure you, as the Registrar of the PGDB charity, would want to know who nearly killed someone in an explosion.

Surely Mr Hammond……(who lobbied for the self cert system and gave Darnley his ticket “after a chat” and was in a few industry groups along with Darnley)……wouldn’t cover up for the “missing” cert…..that was missing the leak test results….showing weakness in his system that he lobbied for, by none other than the same man he empowered “after a chat”. Surely not……

By Means of an OIA request, please can you send me (other than Mr Hammond’s opinion) the basis for this decision by the Board, for the charge that the Board are so bloody-mindedly holding on to,  in regards to the proximity of the califont.

Perhaps the Board totally based their decision on this one man’s “opinion”, an opinion based without any tests by Mr Hammond, and by his own admission he did not know whether the fumes were entering. I would have liked to press harder on this point……but his other mate Mr Parker shut down the Hearing.


Integrity and credibility……perhaps you should look them up in a dictionary.

Best Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 08:26:41 PM
What confidence do you have in these people?

Are you content that those that tell us what to do.... and tell us to abide by the rules.... and tell us that we must up-skill so we can do a job that we did an apprenticeship for.....

Then they go award a full certifying trade qualification to themselves and their mates with no apprenticeship........ ignore all their own rules and common decency ..........and get their CPD given to them just for attending meetings (I been to these meetings and got the points).

Democracy......really? Not seen much my self.........

Why are we as tradesmen treated like a lower class of person......

I bet if I made remarks about race or gender there would be a huge out cry.....but an average Joe Bloggs, just trying to feed his kids and look after his wife.....well f**** him he's fair game...........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 08:29:41 PM
Not to mention we fund the dodgy bastards......that's reasonable...... :o


Still not finished still got some more.......stay posted....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
I agree with everything Mr Pederson says below from my local paper today.....funny enough.....that's why I tried to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work....



The board's chief executive, Max Pedersen, warns consumers: "Don't risk your family's health and safety or your insurance by hiring unauthorised people. While New Zealand law allows anyone to purchase gasfitting appliances, it is illegal to undertake any associated gasfitting work without authorisation.

"There are big fines associated with illegal work. This type of dangerous work carried out by unauthorised people can cause injury and even loss of life, as well as damage to property."



But when you take the time to read this huge steam of posts below from the beginning, looking at all the evidence....well you wonder if this statement is just hypocrisy, a slip of sanity or a parallel universe......I am not sure myself......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2015, 09:28:46 PM
All you guests please share this link around, it needs airing for the safety of the public, we have had a cover up, at the expense and risk of the NZ public......don't believe me?

Read all that I have posted on this stream and the other topics, check out 3 open letters to the Minister.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 21, 2015, 09:32:07 AM
So its not just me who thinks that the handwriting on the job card is Darnley's.....

See an email sent this morning.....


Mr Pederson,

 

Please see below the opinion of the only professional graphologist in NZ, he believes that….. It is highly probable that the 2 scripts were of common authorship, please add this to my opinion and that of an ex investigator from the commerce commission. The Board had all this available to them before they framed me.

 

Supplementary to my previous emails, I believe that this adds weight to someone at the Board or working for the Board, or even the whole Board covering up the badly administered system of gas safety certification and the flippant handing out of certifying licences that resulted in someone nearly dying in an explosion.

 

The Board are protecting Darnley and have framed me for something I did not do, terrorising my family in the process and being prepared to risk the public’s safety.

 

In the attachments it shows the samples of handwriting, it shows Darnley “not recognising” his own hand writing on the job card for the explosion, I believe he fitted the fryers (on the job card it also shows another test for leaks, this could only be done with the fryers in place) this was done after I piped it out, and in all probability he lowered the pipe at he same time and fitted the third hose which was sold well after I left…..now he faced a charge for this……but this charge disappeared, I have under an OIA request inquired why this charge disappeared, I look forward to your rep.

 

Darnley also signed off the pizza oven of cert 345138, which is mentioned in the Dept of Labour complaint…..now this is confusing because-

 

The Board claim to never to have received cert 345138
There is a copy of cert 345138 on the boards website
Mr Hammond claims to have seen cert 345138 months after the Board told the chipshop owners lawyer that it was never registered, please see attached an excerpt from his initial report.
 

Cert 345138 lacks the gas leak test results at the site of an explosion, but you have said that a cert lacking test results is still valid.

 

 

So Mr Pederson, I would like to formally accuse someone or quite a few people who work at or for the Board of being corrupt and are protecting Darnley at the expense of not protecting the New Zealand public.

 

 

Of note, I believe if the legionnaires job makes someone ill, or even kills anyone which is very possible…. then the Board have been prepared to risk life to protect Darnley, this is so wrong.

 

The last final charge that still blemishes my name has been proven not to be a risk, but the Board still cling to it.

 

To all you copied in….. has this Board any credibility or integrity, can you rely on these people to oversee our industry, to judge those put before it fairly and with best intentions. Can you trust these people to protect the people of New Zealand…..I and many others believe you can not, but we do not have the power to do what you people can….you are voted in to do right by the New Zealand public, please do the right thing.

 

 

Email below…….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Mike Maran [mailto:mikemaran10@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2015 3:02 p.m.
To: Paul Gee
Subject: Handwriting Analysis on scripts

 

Dear Paul

 

I have identified several similarities between the 2 scripts these included.

 

Lower zone 'g' length and width of loop similar.
Return stroke on Lower zone of 'g' crosses at the baseline.
Minute hooks on the terminal stroke of 'N' in Nelson and 'F' in ' Fryer'.
Occasional pen lifts and partial letter connections eg 'Blue' 'Nelson'.
Constructional features of No 6 similar.
Baseline alignment ascends, then descends, eg 'John'  Nelson'  'Blue'  'seal'.
Connecting strokes similar garland type. eg  l and u in 'blue'. and a and w in 'Atawhai'
Zero on '90' elongated similar to zero in '04'.
Middle zone  proportions and measurements in relativity to the Lower Zones.
Pen pressure variable. Could be due to the type of pen used. Difficult to confirm on photocopys.
Full stops heavy pressure ,both scripts showed a mix of dashed and curved.
Slant on first stroke of '4'  in 'GT45' and '26/4/04' similar at 70o reclined.
Opinion

 

It is highly probable that the 2 scripts were of common authorship.The author is a versatile writer who is capable of using or adjusting his script to suit his circumstances. Both scripts were written with a different writing instrument.The writing surface and the the authors emotional and personal or medical  circumstances could have also affected the slight variation on the pictorial style of the script.

 

The above analysis is based on 2 short scripts on electronically submitted photocopys. More exemplars would be required to form a more definitive opinion.

 

Interpretation.

 

The following terminology is based on the American Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examiners (www.swgdoc.org) for expressing conclusions for Document Examiners and describes the strength of the evidence and is standard terminology used worldwide.

 

Conclusive.
Highly Probable
Probable
Little Indication.
Inconclusive.
Paul. if you need more assistance or other another inquiry,please contact me anytime. Hoping this is of assistance.

 

Kind Regards

Mike Maran.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 21, 2015, 09:38:06 AM
The thing is this isn't a check on the population of NZ or even Nelson, not even upper Takaka....its a population of people who had access to that job card.....about three people......

Was it Darnley who fitted the fryers?
Was it Darnley who fitted the third hose?
Was it Darnley who lowered the pipe?
Was it Darnley who fitted the pizza oven on missing cert 345138?
Was it Darnley who faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared?


Dodgy dirty little people.....scum.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 21, 2015, 06:41:36 PM
So what happens if you tell fibs in an investigation? Apparently Darnley can't recognise his own hand writing.... ???

How do you make a charge for an explosion disappear with no hearing? He faced a charge for the exploding chip shop.... ???

What is the deal with the elusive certificate 345138....  ??? It comes and it goes.

I believe anyone who backs these actions are as corrupt as the people who carried them out.


No one has been held accountable for nearly killing someone, lots of evidence points to a certain person, but the Board do nothing, other than try to frame me and terrorise my family.....that's reasonable aye!


What is the reason for the Board again, what did it list for its charity status.....what a joke.


This all happened in Nick Smiths back yard......to the very people who voted him in......shouldn't this be addressed? By the minister responsible for this bunch of goons....I think that would be pretty reasonable....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 23, 2015, 09:37:47 PM
I have just read the news letter from the board, its all about trust and confidence and stopping cowboys......

Any one of you that's read this steam of evidence on this post.......well its confusing to say the least.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 01, 2015, 08:20:55 AM
So you have seen all this blatant evidence, even down to handwriting experts....all this points to Darnley or someone at Allgas, which Darnley was manager at the time.....

But the Board can't get past me and my case, its not about fixing things or justice its all about my case, its all about pointing the finger at me.....which as you have seen that I did no wrong whatsoever......100% innocent of anything.....

Now reread the Board's latest newsletter........it is like they are living in another parallel universe.


So I can prove that there was a third hose (the very same hose that caused the explosion) supplied to the chipshop well after I left, that there was a pizza oven installed half way along "not registered" by cert (which is embarrassingly bullshit, even the investigator claims to have seen the cert 345138), the whole of the gas bottle supply set up changed from the original at the site of an explosion....and even the only graphologist in NZ thinks that Darnley very probably filled out the job card, with Darnley on record "not recognising" his own handwriting........funny that.....


But the Board can't "revisit" my case.........here is an idea......open another one a proper impartial "case" and see justice served and do your job.


The other attachment is a copy for the cert where there is a huge legionnaires risk, with the same water in the c/h rads as the hot water supply.......but they do nothing......see the schematic attached......this is the time of year that we have the thermostatic rad valves opening (after one of the hottest summers on record) allowing the stagnant water to exit out of the hot water outlets.... including the shower, the spreading of legionnaires is enabled by atomising the water, or spraying....just like the shower. It effects the old and legionnaires bacteria grow best in temps between 25- 50 degrees.....this owner is elderly and the summer was a hot one, you'll notice that the cert was signed off in 2004......that's some mighty old stagnant water.....Been warning about this for over a decade......now go read the Boards latest newsletter......its nuts.


I told the owner, the Board, the TA has been notified..... even the coroner.......nothing.....it is wrong.


What happens if this guy sells this house and someone puts their kids in the shower?....the elderly and the young being at most risk from this bacteria........but the Board play on legal loop holes, not to look at this.......its bullshit.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2015, 07:05:59 AM
Sent this morning.........


Hi Nick,

 

Please see below a link to the Plumbers Forum, I believe that there is a risk of legionnaires in our area. I have been warning about this for quite some time, but the Board appear willing to go to any lengths to protect Darnley.

 

 

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg9430#msg9430

 

 

On this same forum stream there are also the replies received from the Board AFTER I had supplied a handwriting expert, saying they aren’t willing to appoint a handwriting expert….. which is confusing because they don’t need to…. they have (yet again) the evidence right in front of them, supplied by my self.

 

 

 

Some one nearly died in Nelson; with most if not all the evidence pointing to someone at Allgas, in all probability Darnley, he faced a charge, but it disappeared before his hearing……….how does that happen?

 

 

 

Also there is a very real risk from a life threatening bacteria. The schematic attached is how I am lead to believe the system was installed and how I saw it started to be installed.

 

When I confronted Darnley about the danger of this installation, requesting a “specification” from the manufactures, he replied that “you don’t need a specification, just use poker face”, I said “poker face?”…….he replied “yes….. just pretend you know what your doing!!!!!”.

 

On another occasion he told another contractor to install a prohibited heater in a bedroom, when the contractor complained he thought it was cleaver to cross out “bedroom” and write “study”.

 

As he was gifted his full certifying licence and accepted into the NZIGE after “just a chat” with Tony Hammond who also got gifted his full certifying licence, you can see why he has this attitude and why this has happened, but it doesn’t make it right. I think it is, or should be, criminal.

 

 

Please can you get this looked at before the thermostatic valves open this winter, this will potentially allow 11 year old water to join the hot water ring main and exit through the shower, atomising the stagnant water, which will allow the elderly couple to inhale the bacteria. I can not emphasise how wrong and life threatening this is. Ask any decent central heating installer. I have also attached a reply from the Board concerning this risk, the “with emails” attachment, I had expressed concern verbally before this over the phone to them.

 

Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2015, 07:23:44 AM
Sorry I should clarify that was sent to Nick Smith the MP for Nelson and the minister that appoints the Board.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on March 04, 2015, 10:05:25 AM
hi, guys/Badger, as always it will probably be filed in the waste bin,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2015, 05:06:34 PM
Probably mate, isn't that sad....what if someone dies from this c/h system.....can you imagine the "dive for cover"....a hearse at the bottom of a cliff.....


You got to ask what is so important about the people they are protecting....worth gambling life for.....it is crazy mate.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on March 04, 2015, 08:31:36 PM
hi guys/Badger, never give up:- two words, `Teina Pora`... and as Joe Cocker said: Noubliez Jamais, cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2015, 08:56:03 PM
Its not in my DNA to give up mate....


Here's the reply apparently I can expect an answer in 28 days.....



Thank you for emailing Nick Smith and his Nelson Electorate Office. This is an automated response to confirm it has been received.

 

Any emails related to Dr Smith's ministerial portfolios will be forwarded to his Wellington office. Any follow up on these should be directed to n.smith@ministers.govt.nz

 

Correspondence from Nelson constituents will generally be responded to within 28 days. Please appreciate that Dr Smith receives a huge number of emails daily and you may not receive a response beyond this if you are simply making a comment or copying him in on an issue.

 

Kind regards

Tracy Neal and Petrina Francis

Electorate Agents



Hope it is before those thermostatic valves open.....

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2015, 08:58:47 PM
Perhaps anyone who is aghast with the way the Board are willing to risk the health and safety of the NZ public should drop Nick an email.....his direct email is below, you can't blame him for not acting if no one tells him how messed up it all is......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 06:41:19 AM
Below is a letter one of six they sent to all the addresses that I faced charges, it mentions work in Northland, a place I have never been to.......even in the Boards own words it prejudiced all the sites where I faced charges.


Now look at the reason for this investigation, a person signed 570 certs and sold them, he claimed to have checked them (in the news).....the Boards own investigator said 16 were very dangerous and a huge % were non compliant......


Apparently this is still before the Board......it happened the same time as my investigation for an explosion in 2009........


Now that is unreasonable.........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 06:49:07 AM
You may wonder how you can get 44 charges out of seven sites......well they had charges to back charges, to back charges, of note these charges were even amended just weeks out from my kangaroo court......just in case I could answer any of them.

So Darnley faced a charge but it disappeared.....

And this case is still before the Board .......for well over 4 freaking years? really......


Now go re read their latest hypocrisy in the recent Board Newsletter........total bullshit.


I have "attempted" to do more to protect the NZ public......but I have been shut down ironically by the Board........funny that ???

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 07:05:43 AM
Perhaps someone could ask for a list of people who have been granted a full certifying licence on the same basis as Darnley and Hammond.....it would be quite enlightening I believe......


So guys..... how do you feel about a bunch of hypocritical bureaucrats under mining our trade..... calling us incompetent (unless we do CPD and listen to a salesman pushing their product)..... financing their system and supplying them funds to pay for a gaggle of lawyers to screw us over and then they pay no tax back into society.........for them to just go handing out full certifying licences to their mates. FFS.

Are you going to wait until they come knocking..... looking to screw you over, because if it suits them, they will......the Plumber's Federation is your best bet, we aren't always going to have stand up guys like Wal......when are you going to stand up and be counted.....all it would take would be substantial numbers to email Nick Smith......look at all the work the Feds have put in, just one email guys come on.....just ask for a inquiry if what I say is for real.

Think about it next time you have to take a day off work to do illegal CPD.......

News just in apparently they have just approved an "egg sucking" course for elderly mothers with grandchildren.... lol....tossers.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 07:32:56 AM
This is the case "still before the Board".......are you happy with that?







Police and safety authorities are investigating an alleged scam where illegal gas connections that could be lethal have been fitted in homes and businesses.

More than 570 blank safety certificates have been signed by a registered gasfitter over the past three years, then sold on to unqualified tradesmen who carried out work in Auckland and Northland.

The alleged scam was uncovered when a homeowner last year noticed her gas certificate looked bogus and laid a complaint with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, which then launched an inquiry and discovered the scale of the alleged offending.

The board audited more than 370 commercial premises and private homes and found more than 90% failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe.

Energy Safety, part of the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Department of Labour are also investigating the potentially explosive gas fittings. A complaint has also been laid with police.

Board spokesman John Debernardo says the work has the potential to create danger or pose a health and safety risk.

The internal investigation will be completed in a few weeks and a disciplinary hearing is likely for the gasfitter at the centre of the audit.

Criminal charges are also possible for the man signing the blank certificates and those who paid money for them.

The board is refusing to say who is at the centre of this, but ONE News understands it is a man by the name of Richard Oldfield.

When approached by ONE News, he at first denied signing all of the permits himself, claiming someone has been forging his signature.



Advertisement

 


 
Discussing the permits, Oldfield says they come in books of 10.

"I sign the books. That's it, finished, as far as I'm concerned," he says. "But I always inspect the jobs."
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 07:36:44 AM
Dealing with unreasonable people.....yes I have dealt with a lot of them......




The board audited more than 370 commercial premises and private homes and found more than 90% failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe.

"I sign the books. That's it, finished, as far as I'm concerned," he says. "But I always inspect the jobs."



So this is the case that led to the letters that ruined my business…….and it is still before the Board……..is this reasonable……is it f****……..
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 07:37:59 AM
Think of this next time your doing CPD about guttering just to get your licence......for a trade you actually sat an apprenticeship for.......like I said total tossers......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 05, 2015, 06:15:46 PM
How is this for reasonable, fair and protecting the NZ public.......remember the latest info brief........


Its amazing isn't it......one guy warns about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for six years before an explosion nearly kills someone......this guy looses everything.......

Another guy who was complained about by the guy above, faces a charge for the said explosion, but the charge disappears......as he was already retired, he paid $10 000 for nearly killing someone....retires to his beach house......

And another guy who according to the Board was audited for more than 370 commercial premises and private homes and found more than 90% failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe. And this case is still before the Board.......really?? So nothing happened to him??


Nick Smith most of this happened in your back yard......and your the minister for the Plumber's goon squad......please can we get some action?? Just look into it, call me on my accusations, put my reams of evidence and correspondence to the test......






Guys are you prepared to be governed by these people.....you are running a gambit by hoping that you don't become a target.......those of you that think I "deserve" this.....ask those who you know are in the know......now match their reasoning for terrorising my family and apply it to your potential future behaviour......what did I do to deserve this? Ask them.....listen to their lies, then ask me if what they say is true.....I bet what they tell you is bullshit......


I don't like to live on my knees, I will always stand up or die trying to stand up.......



I have done nothing wrong, but my persecutors have done a lot wrong, risking the public's health and safety in the process, allowing their mates to get away with it all, while calling us incompetent.......I ask you all......IS THIS REASONABLE??????????
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 06, 2015, 08:10:41 AM
So 90% of 370 is 333.....that's 333 commercial premises and private homes that failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe.

"I sign the books. That's it, finished, as far as I'm concerned," he says. "But I always inspect the jobs."


I have very good reason to believe that this guy's case is still before the Board.

Just another Darnley waiting to happen........So guys, how does the CPD taste now?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 06, 2015, 11:10:37 AM
Sent this morning I will let you know the reply, 20 working days from now apparently.....




Mr Pederson,

 

I am laying a formal complaint against Mr Darnley’s involvement re- the explosion at the Milton Street Chipshop. I believe he might be responsible for this explosion and I am complaining about this so you can appoint an investigator to find out; please appoint an investigator that Darnley isn’t friends with or is a member of any groups that Darnley was/is a member of.
 

I would complain that Darnley didn’t register the pink master copy of cert 345138, while handing out the carbon copies to the customer and gas supplier.
 

I would also complain that all available copies lack a recording of a gas leak test, at a site that later exploded…..because of a gas leak, a gas leak on a hose supplied by Darnley’s company Allgas, weeks after I left Allgas. Please see attached receipt for this hose. Please note I left the year before in 2003.
 

I have reason to believe that it was Darnley who installed the fryers; please see the handwriting samples supplied to you just recently also attached.
 

I would also complain that after altering my initial install and changing the gas cylinder supply set up and changing the hose ( the hose mentioned above, the one that caused the explosion) that a further certificate wasn’t issued.
 

I hope you do not take your previous stand that my having faced charges for this debacle protects Darnley in someway from my complaint, you have said that you can’t revisit my case; please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

I would also take this chance, to yet, again lay a complaint about the legionnaire’s risk, installed by Mr Darnley. Please see attachment, this dwelling has central heating with radiators, an impossibility with out contaminating the hot water supply when heated with the califont on the cert. You have this blatant evidence, please act on it. It is very dangerous plumbing and this is your jurisdiction, no one else’s. Please note it is that time of year where the thermostatic heads on the radiators are opening and the 11 year old water is being atomised by the elderly mans shower (any plumber worth his salt would know this to be a ticking time bomb, a matter of when not if there will be an issue, it has the potential to kill.)
 

And I would also complain about the manipulation of the gas certificates at Powick Street, by my reckoning it is missing at least 2 certificates for work carried out, and as far as I know it still has the lpg cylinders on the deck, this was of such concern that the Board laid charges against myself. As I have proved that it was impossible for me to have done this, I would complain about the person who did. According to your correspondence you have made no other contact to the owner of Powick Street, other than the letter that said I was capable of acting illegally in Northland which was sent out before my hearing, my hearing showed this manipulation and the Board have done nothing. Just for the record I have never been to Northland.
 

Again, I hope you do not take the stand that my having faced charges for this protects the person responsible in someway and you can’t revisit my case, I am not asking you to revisit my case, please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.
 

I am appalled that even though Darnley didn’t sit an apprenticeship the Board saw fit to gift him (and others) his/their full craftsman/certifying status, I would complain about this flippant issuing of a licence that resulted in empowering a person not fit to practice, that at least once has ended in an explosion.
 

Also Kern Uren stated at my hearing that Mr Darnley had an extensive file, please by way of an OIA request can I get a copy of this extensive file and the basis for gifting Darnley his licence, please blank out all names as I do not want to invade anyone’s privacy. I am willing to cover the photocopying cost.
 

And my last complaint is that the Board have covered up a badly administered gas safety certificate and licence system that resulted in a near fatal explosion, I complain about this dereliction of duty.
 

I believe all the above are reasonable grounds for laying these complaints.

 

 

 

Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 09:24:47 AM

So I found this on the net, it is dated Sept 2009, we had the Milton street chipshop explosion in April 2009........what do you think would have made sense, what do you think might have been the right direction to take when this came up......

You had an explosion that heavily involved a person (Darnley) granted his licence after a chat, granted by Hammond who was appointed the investigator in July 2009......just before this came out below....

Instead of thinking we might be getting things wrong and risking NZer's lives.......they framed me for it......please read this below.....because what they did AFTER this blew me away, I lost my business because of letters sent out about this dire situation mentioned below, they even tried to lump me in with this below.....see letter attached......





Hundreds of homes and businesses have been fitted with potentially illegal and dangerous gas connections which authorities say could put people at risk of fire or poisoning.

Police and Government authorities are investigating the alleged scam in which more than 570 blank safety certificates were signed by a registered gasfitter, then sold to up to eight unqualified tradesmen who carried out work in Auckland and Northland.

The alleged fraud went on for nearly three years until a homeowner noticed her gas certificate looked bogus and laid a complaint with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board in July.

The Government licensing body launched an inquiry and discovered the scale of the alleged offending.

An urgent audit of more than 370 commercial premises and private homes found more than 90 per cent failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe.

More than 200 certificates are still missing and the board has issued an alert to the public to help trace the unlicensed work.
Energy Safety, part of the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Department of Labour are also investigating the potentially explosive gas fittings. A complaint has also been laid with police.

John Debernardo, the gasfitter board spokesman, said the 570 certificates were a small fraction of the 100,000 issued during the three-year period.

While most were technical breaches and the number of potentially lethal gas leaks found were small, he urged anyone with information to come forward.

"Gas is a fuel that has the potential to create danger or pose a health and safety risk. This is a serious matter," said Mr Debernardo.

The internal investigation would be completed in a few weeks and a disciplinary hearing was likely for the gasfitter at the centre of the audit.

Criminal charges were also possible for the man signing the blank certificates and those who paid money for them.

"As a gas industry spokesman, I'm ashamed of what these guys have done," said Mr Debernardo.

To compound matters, gas connections done by an unlicensed worker are not covered by insurance.

Mr Debernardo said the audit had cost taxpayers $250,000 so far, a figure likely to rise to $500,000.

He would also report back to the board with a review of the gas-fitting certificate system to see if changes needed to be made.

Mark Wogan, of Energy Safety, said the audit found six homes and 10 businesses in Auckland were dangerous or unsafe. The immediate focus was on public safety.

* To report one of the missing gas certificates or for further information, call the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board 0800 743 262 0800 743 262.

LET US KNOW
Do you know who the rogue gasfitter is?
jared.savage@nzherald.co.nz

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10598315
nitpicker1:


Fitter claims smear campaign
20/09/2009 4:32:01


The Auckland gas fitter who is at the centre of an alleged safety certificate scam thinks the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.


Police and safety authorities are investigating after revelations nearly 600 blank safety certificates, signed by a registered gas fitter, were on-sold to unqualified tradesmen.


They went ahead with work in Auckland and Northland regions, using the certificates to legitimise what they had done.


The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board says an audit has found most jobs failed compliance tests, and some were unsafe because of leaks.


Richard Oldfield, who is accused of signing off the certificates, thinks it is a smear campaign to tarnish his image.


He is expecting to be hauled before the Board, and if they do not like what he has done, he says they can cancel his licence or whatever they like.


Mr Oldfield insists his actions have always been above board.


The Board audited more than 370 commercial premises and private homes, and found more than 90 percent failed compliance tests.


It is appealing to people who have had gas work done in the last 31 months to check their certificates against numbers listed on the Board's website.


One hundred and ninety-eight certificates are still unaccounted for.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Now remember this happened in Sept 2009........this would be approx. 6 months before relicensing....there was a lot of publicity and evidence available to the Board.......

So how did this guy get his full certifying licence in 2010........from the Boards own website.....

Oldfield, Richard Henry   02497      
 
Email: Contact the Board       Address: Contact the Board    Preferred Contact Number:
Contact the Board
   
 
Current Licence(s)
 

 
Licence Type   Licensing Period      
 
No current licences held         

 
Registration History
 

 
Registration Type   Status   Registration Date   

 
Certifying Drainlayer   Active   23 Mar 2010   

 
Certifying Plumber   Active   06 Apr 1990   

 
Certifying Gasfitter   Active   01 Jan 1978   

 
Licensed Drainlayer   Superseded   01 Jan 1978   

 
Licensed Plumber   Superseded   01 Jan 1978   

 
Licensed Gasfitter   Superseded   01 Jan 1978   

 
Licensing History
 

 
Licence Type   Status   History   

 
Certifying Drainlayer   Expired   2010   

 
Certifying Gasfitter   Expired   2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003   

 
Certifying Plumber   Expired   2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003   

 
Licensed Drainlayer   Expired   2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003   

   









Now read that again about how bad this was how much risk to others there were.......and he just gets given his licence the year after and someone who is involved with this is still before the Board, so he can get a fair trial.......

Where was my fair trial?  Where is the fairness for the people involved with this, the people who had their families put at risk?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 09:49:07 AM
You would think that that would be an end to it, that the Board may have learnt that flippant handing out of licences wasn't a good idea......


Well, please explain how this guy's son gets an upgrade from a "provisional" gasfitting licence, to his full "certifying" licence, the very next year.....




 
Email: brett.oldfield@combustioncontrol.co.nz       Address: PO Box 13454
Onehunga
Auckland, 1643    Preferred Contact Number:
   
 
Current Licence(s)
 

 
Licence Type   Licensing Period      
 
Certifying Gasfitter(^)   Licensed from 01 Apr 2014 to 31 Mar 2015      

 
Certifying Gasfitter(^)   Licensed from 01 Apr 2015 to 31 Mar 2016      

 
Registration History
 

 
Registration Type   Status   Registration Date   

 
Certifying Gasfitter   Active   06 Dec 2011   

 
Licensing History
 

 
Licence Type   Status   History   

 
Certifying Gasfitter   Active   2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011   

 
Provisional Gasfitter Licence   Expired   2011   

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 09:55:15 AM
John Debernardo, the gasfitter board spokesman, said the 570 certificates were a small fraction of the 100,000 issued during the three-year period.


Now..... over 3 years......$25 per cert paid to the Board X 100000 = 2,500,000........that 2.5 million Dollars......that's a large amount of money, that's a large amount of work......would need a large business to turn that over....it would need a continuation of licence cover to oversee that kind of amount of work.


I wonder what someone would pay for a licence like that, to be granted a licence like that?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 10:11:51 AM
Now reread Max Pederson's letter attached, this matter is still before the Board after putting so many people at risk, and THIS guy deserves a fair trial, really??

But I didn't deserve a fair trial?........because I tried to warn it was going to happen? That's reasonable aye!!!!!


You should resign Max......this is pitiful......the Board are failing the NZ public.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 02:40:08 PM
So here is the original request......this all came to light in Sept 2009.....but one guy is still before the Board in May 2014.....that's four and a half years......is this reasonable?

And definitely after Sept 2009 a licence was issued to this same guy for the 2010 year.....

Remember this.....

So 90% of 370 is 333.....that's 333 commercial premises and private homes that failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe.

"I sign the books. That's it, finished, as far as I'm concerned," he says. "But I always inspect the jobs."




And this guy gets his licence after admitting this and risking 333 sites and god knows how many people and their kids.........16, that's bloody 16, were found to be dangerous and unsafe.........but here you go Mr Oldfield.......you go fit some more appliances for 2010......




I wonder who is this guy is the one who is still before the Board?.........for 4 and a half years.......





The thing is guys when the powers that be aren't fair or reasonable and favour some people over others.......what confidence can you have in them?


If they hand out licences to people willy nilly......what does that do to the integrity of the trade? What about the confidence of the public in our skills?




What happens if you get on the wrong side of one of these bullies.......bullies who are prepared to risk our fellow kiwis health and safety.....remember I was an ex Nelson president of Master Plumbers, I was told at a leadership course that I was "in"......



They need to go and they need to go soon......I think we should start petitioning for resignations.....if the minister receives these petitions in numbers then he has to do something surely.........


Max Pederson you should resign, sooner rather than later.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 02:56:58 PM
So guys.....if this is the same person before the Board after all this time, after risking all these people at 333 site, with at least 16 dangerous, and I have reason to believe it is the same person......is this fair or reasonable or even legal......4 and a half years they must be building a massive case against him, must have cost us a lot of money (as we finance this charade)......but I suppose he did chip in $2.5 million in gas certificate revenue.


What a joke, how much evidence does the government want, I have copied in lots of ministers to all this......nothing so far and the Ombudsman isn't interested.......fairness for all, is their motto........really?


And the person who over saw a lot of this up until today......the Chief Exec.......is the signatory on the letters attached, they don't seem to care.


Please pop your resignation in the post Mr Pederson, and please can all the other people from the Board who have stood by and watched this carry on follow suit.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2015, 08:35:45 PM
I notice that the 100 000 certs is for the 3 years total for the industry, I bet the Board miss that cash cow......but it means that 90% of his work was substandard.....but he gets a licence, the following year....how does that work?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 08, 2015, 09:34:48 AM
So how would it look if there were five people highlighted by this appalling case and the Board prosecute the four people who bought the dodgy certs......but waited until nearly five years to go after the guy who was selling the dodgy......that sounds reasonable aye!


Darnley would sign off all and sundry too..... untrained, apprentices.....perhaps these guys had the same CPD courses.


Ironic that I lost my business by being thrown in with these people when the Board sent out letters to all the sites of "concern", before my hearing saying I was involved with this.......but potentially the guy responsible for it.....well he is still before the Board. What for 5 years.....what bullshit.




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 08, 2015, 11:37:42 AM
Sent this morning......doesn't it worry anyone that we have this blatant bullshit, with very real risk to the average kiwi.... and the minister has done nothing to date.....



Where's the media?









From: Paul & Emma [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 8 March 2015 11:26 a.m.
To: 'Paul & Emma'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'
Cc: wal.gordon@xtra.co.nz; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; campbelllive@tv3.co.nz; 'Andrew Little'; jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz; 'Jude Hutton'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Judith Burney'
Subject: Compensation

 

Hi Nick,

 

Please see attached correspondence between myself and the Board.

 

Attached are two letters from the Board that confirm that someone is still before the Board (nearly 5 years later) for being involved in putting at risk 370 commercial premises and private homes, 90 per cent failed to meet compliance tests, with 16 found to be dangerous or unsafe.

 

If this is the person responsible for selling these certs (and I have reason to believe it is, perhaps you can ask), then it is reprehensible. It would be reprehensible because they would have prosecuted the purchasers not the guy selling them.

 

Also attached is the licence history of this person, after this came about and as he is to reported to have said that…I sign the books. That's it, finished, as far as I'm concerned," he says. "But I always inspect the jobs.", then he should be held responsible for this.

I find this confusing because even though he did all this, he was given his full ticket some six months later. Then after this the Board upgraded his son’s provisional licence to a full certifying licence. All this was done in the knowledge of what happened in Milton Street and the Board’s resulting attempted cover-up for flippantly handing out licences. I believe this is so very wrong.

 

Also see attached one of the letters, one of six that was sent to ALL sites that the Board laid charges (except the explosion), done before my hearing. Also see attached an apology for these letters. This letter to the only High School in Motueka, the main centre of my business, is what I believe killed my livelihood, my financial records reflect this.

 

 

Apparently the person still before the Board deserves a fair trial, why didn’t I receive a fair trial?

 

 

Nick I was framed for something I didn’t do, please can you tell me the process I have to start to be compensated for this.

 

 

 

This Board have acted egregiously and denied me my basic human rights, taking from me my business, reputation and time away from my family…..all done with risk to the NZ public’s safety. Not to mention the legionnaire risk they have ignored for years and the fact no one was held responsible for the explosion……It needs a public inquiry.

 

 

 

 

Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 08, 2015, 11:41:01 AM
I told you all I had enough to go on for weeks and this is just the tip of what I have.....I am starting to loose my temper, big time.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 08, 2015, 08:03:09 PM
Still before the Board.......what utter bullshit..........brushed under the carpet more like.........hoping that we'd all forget........nearly five years, they insult our sense of reason and call US unreasonable..........



Thing is when you brush things under the carpet, it makes for lumpy carpets..........which might trip you up in the future.....


16 homes and business's DANGEROUS and UNSAFE.......that is peoples lives, where they work and their homes......but they granted him a licence 6 months later, that taught him aye ::).......it beggars belief.






Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 08, 2015, 08:16:27 PM
Anyone reading this if you want a comparison..... do me a favour.... print it all off, this stream of ample evidence, including all the attachments and just try to comprehend how much evidence there is, how much the public have been put at risk, how bent the system is.......

Then print off what anyone, including the minister, media and all the experts at the Board have done to rectify it........actually do this first......it will be a very small pile, if it is even a sheet of paper......


Now that $500 for licences seem a bargain aye.....

Or sat in a "classroom" being "taught" for your CPD for days, just so you can earn a crust.....





But what ever you do don't stand up for your self or be "unreasonable".........


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 09, 2015, 07:27:02 AM
I ask you to think on this, the Board have....

Ignored an elderly couple who complained about fumes entering their home, told them to shut the window when they use their califont.

Have ignored for years a legionnaires risk, where the hot water system shares its water with the c/h system

Spent over $200,000 in persecuting me, focusing so much on me that they can't and won't look at who all the evidence points to, and no one has been held responsible for an explosion that nearly killed someone

Have ignored the gas certificate system rules (in their own words they have done nothing to a person who didn't register a cert at an explosion) and have run the system so badly it had to carry a disclaimer, just before it was taken off them

Had a guy involved with putting a massive amount of people at risk, then gives him a licence the year after and probably not looked at it since some 5 years later

Lied to the point of having to write an apology (an apology that is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on)

Ignored massive conflicts of interest

Taken illegally two million dollars from the industry, taken illegally in my world means stolen

Imposed an illegal CPD system on it, ignoring conflicts of interest (one of the biggest training providers holds 50% of the trade representation on the Board, against the recommendations of the NZ law society)

Handed out certifying licences to total idiots while making good honest tradesman resit their qualifications and made certifying exams un-passable

Went on a all expenses paid trip to Aussie with partners, all done with us paying the tab.

I could go on and on......they got to go....it is a joke.



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 10, 2015, 07:50:23 PM
Just filled out my survey for.....


Good morning Paul

 

Thank you for your email on Friday 27 February 2015.

 

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is reviewing the operation of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act. 

 

As part of the review process, the Ministry is conducting a survey of plumbers, gasfitters drainlayers to find out whether the Act is supporting them in their day-to-day work and to find out how it could be improved. If you have not received a link to the survey , please complete this survey https://www.research.net/s/pgd-act-review-survey

Your comments and feedback are important to us and will be used to inform the government’s review of the operation of the Act.  If you have any questions regarding the survey please call 0800 242 243 or email info@dbh.govt.nz

The survey closes midnight Tuesday 31 March 2015.

 

I hope they think I am serious.....what a joke......get on there guys if we say nothing we can expect nothing
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 10, 2015, 07:51:44 PM
The link is below guys let them know what's going on....


Mine was a bit a read I can tell you, all true, and totally unbelievable
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 10, 2015, 10:21:04 PM
The Board have covered up the handing out of a gas fitting licence to an unqualified person who worked in Nelson for over a decade, this flippant issuing of a licence ended in Ron Clark of the Milton Street chipshop nearly dying in this explosion, all the evidence points to this person.


Please take the time to read through this evidence that is on this stream, to those that have....I am saying this because I just discovered Twitter, and am sharing this have a look under "paul gee 14" on twitter.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 10, 2015, 10:25:01 PM
Remember Allgas, run by the Darnley's.......well read the evidence below, there is heaps.....



The thing is Nelson, it can take a good while for all the ducks to line up for an incident, Ron's chipshop took nearly 7 years.....

If there is anyone in Nelson who has any genuine concerns with work done by Darnley, I will come and check it, get a group together and I will come over from Takaka and donate time to get this fixed. It seems the government and the Board aren't concerned, well I am.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 10, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
Sent to Nick Smith's PA today........

Please could you give me some indication of when I might receive a reply from Nick?

 

I am weighing up options about protesting and would like to give Nick the opportunity of reply before I go in that direction.

 

I hope you have taken my advice and checked if anyone you know in the Nelson area has had any work done by John Darnley, he was nothing short of a menace and had the worst attitude to safety I have ever met. His licence number is 16844, I believe all his certs should be checked.

 

I have attached the certificate for Nick, perhaps he could see if there is just one water heater heating the central heating and hot water, this is impossible without contamination.

 

 

I would be happy to accompany Nick to this address or met with him any time that is convenient to us both.

 

 

The people in Nelson voted this minister in......is it reasonable for him to look into it, in the constituency that he looks after, under the portfolio that he looks after......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 10, 2015, 10:31:30 PM
I sent this in reply to this email below.....look a the date.....

From: Kate Dixon [mailto:Kate.Dixon@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2015 11:46 a.m.
To: 'gasnsolarservices@gmail.com'
Subject: Response from the Office of the Minister for Building and Housing

 

Dear Mr Gee

 

On behalf of Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Building and Housing, thank you for your email of 3 February 2015 regarding your dispute with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. 

 

Your comments have been noted and you may expect a reply in due course.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Kate Dixon

Ministerial Secretary

Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith

Minister for the Environment |  Minister for Building and Housing 

Ph: 817-6805  |  Fax: 817-6505



Perhaps some of you others can write to him too.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: ford1 on March 13, 2015, 12:33:13 PM
sent this to nick smith this morning
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Watchdog on March 13, 2015, 01:38:40 PM
I wonder if the Minister {BLANK SPACE} knows the investigation (set up) of Paul Gee cost over $250,000. It is the industries right to know the truth and if there was wrong doing the individuals should be held accountable. If a minister of the crown doesn't seek the truth then what is their worth?

Ministers are accountable to the people in one way or another so how about we all take a Saturday trip to the Nelson Market and protest in the Ministers back yard.   
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 13, 2015, 05:18:13 PM
Thank you very very much Ford1, you don't know what it means to me and my missis, thank you.


Below is the response from the Minister, I don't see what would have taken over a month just to fob me off like this.


I am more than happy to protest outside his caravan in the Nelson Market, on his home patch in front of the people who he should be protecting form the shoddy work installed and certified by Darnley, empowered by a licence handed out like a membership to a club, DONE TO THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO VOTED HIM IN.......SHOCKING.


Please read a recent press release by the Board.....


An Auckland man has been convicted and fined $1050 after he falsely advertised himself as a trained plumber.
Jarron "Jazz" Lopez was convicted in the Auckland District Court on Tuesday for doing plumbing work without authorisation, misrepresenting himself as a plumber, and falsely advertising himself as a trained plumber on Builderscrack—a popular online forum for the public to seek the services of tradespeople.
Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board chief executive Max Pedersen said Lopez did not hold a plumbing licence when he completed sanitary plumbing work at a property in Remuera.
Lopez met the owners of the property at a local plumbing merchant store, told them he was a plumber, and provided them with advice on their current bathroom renovation project.
After this meeting, the homeowners hired Lopez to do plumbing work on bathroom renovations at the property.
Pedersen said plumbing, gasfitting and drainlaying were regulated industries and it was illegal to do this work unless authorised by the board.
"While New Zealand law allows anyone to purchase plumbing fittings, it is illegal to undertake any associated plumbing work without authorisation," he said.
"This type of dangerous work carried out by unauthorised people can cause injury and serious illness, as well as damage to property." 




We have had an explosion and the central heating system that is a huge legionnaires risk......Darnley didn't do an apprenticeship....but got his full ticket........WHATS THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS GUY ABOVE, EXCEPT THE BOARD GAVE HIM A LICENCE....FFS.

AND HERE IS MY POINT..... HOW COULD THE PEOPLE OF NELSON KNOW HOW INCOMPETANT DARNLEY WAS IF HE WAS A FULLY CERTIFIED GASFITTER AND A MEMBER OF THE NZ INSTITUTE OF GAS ENGINEERS


I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF BAD STUFF INSTALLED BY THIS IDIOT, I FIXED ALL I CAME ACROSS.......WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF STILL TICKING LIKE A BOMB.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 13, 2015, 05:23:20 PM
Lets organise a proper protest, mine is free as a base and I can pick people up from the airport, got a lot of room for tents. In box me some numbers and I am up for it.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 14, 2015, 09:20:59 AM
If we can muster a similar turn out as we did for the protest when we had visiting royalty, all done properly, set up next to Mr Smiths caravan and let the people of Nelson (this very ministers own voters) know what risks the Board, empowered by this minister, is prepared to take with the safety of their families in their homes......... surely there would be a backlash and he would have to do something.

I can hand out a quick synopsis to passers by and then let them know why we charge like we do, to cover the ridiculous cost to practice our craft, and all the other stuff the Feds have shown these goons for.

The thing is these people of Nelson think that they had a certifying craftsman gasfitter/engineer who knew what he was doing he was a salesman with contacts....I can show you he didn't know shit from clay, I can prove the Board have covered up at the expense of the safety of the public, they still ignore to this day, it is wrong and the people would be appalled if they only knew.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: wombles on March 16, 2015, 11:24:30 AM
Alot has been said about the FEW who have received their Certifying status unfairly. Has anyone else ever applied to have the need for an exam waived? If so, what is the procedure?, how did you get on and why don't we all try it?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 16, 2015, 05:28:03 PM
Wombles mate, been there.....even though I had done a full gas service engineer apprenticeship with British Gas, I had to re sit everything except my practical gas craftsman paper, but still had to do the "accounting"paper though, then I had a dispensation to fit gas hot water plumbing, with TPR's and open vents, etc, but wasn't allowed to fit a toilet or outside tap, so I had to take off two weeks(when my son was convalescing from a major op) to prove that I could plumb and then do all the exams and then wait until I could sit my craftsman plumbing paper......

John Darnley got given his full ticket and a membership in NZIGE , then installs lots of shit.....and by shit I mean bad work, i.e. shit, for e.g...a central heating system off a califont with the same common/contaminated water for hot water, has all the evidence mentioned here for his involvement in an explosion.....


Who do the Board go after? Me!

I wonder why?    How would Tony Hammond look if the pillock he empowered after a chat blew someone up......its a f****in joke.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 16, 2015, 05:35:42 PM
FYI, ME AND DARNLEY ARE BOTH FROM WALES......one of us had done an apprenticeship and the other has a "chat".......So what is the difference there then?


You all have to ask the question are you connected enough to "get away with it", I can assure you 99% of you will be steamrollered if it suits them.

I am ex president of Nelson Master Plumbers and was told I was "in"......I tried to do the right thing.....I got shafted....and people are still at risk, it is nothing else but bollocks, total and utter bollocks.
 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 16, 2015, 09:35:33 PM
In my book anyone who backs or covers up corruption is by definition corrupt, this is never going to be fixed by sweeping it under the carpet.

I think if this goes undressed then it will make the people responsible worse. Think about it, it is human nature.... when someone gets away with something it emboldens them to do it more.....so who's next to assume the position, who have you pissed off, who have you won a tender in front of, perhaps you spoke out of turn, had the wrong tie on, farted even........

Do any of you want to live like this? You've heard them about "fixing" or "railroading" people......they can only do this behind closed doors, out in the open they got nothing.

Will this attitude make things better for business? your average tradesman? or kiwi? Confidence and integrity in a system is its strength, peoples belief in it.... is why it works.

Is it my fault for showing the faults or is it their fault for abusing their positions of power, willing to risk the safety of the people of NZ....our families, neighbours and friends? I don't believe I am the problem here.


I don't believe it will help NZ to leave it,  but will it make things better for the few power trippers, with too much already......sure it will, and if it goes unfixed it will be like a green light for them to do it again and again, and amass more and more.....I think it is very sad.

It needs fixing for everyone's sake.

I can see the emperor, his clothes aren't there, not a stitch on....he has his arse on show......and I think he looks ridiculous.




Go get some pants mate, its embarrassing.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 16, 2015, 09:51:20 PM
Do me a favour...... just as your about to renew your licences at the end of the month, re-read this huge amount of evidence over, reflect on it then pay your money.....that couple of hundred bucks will seem a lot more.


Apparently Mr Pederson can shaft our industry like this......pontificate about untrained people risking the public......totally in the face of all this evidence.....then just walk away to count his money (over $200 000 per year, plus pension)......now that licence tastes like shite doesn't it? Paying for a piece of paper that allows you to crawl through shit and rubble to unblock pipes full of shit, while they hand them out to their mates......


They should be paying us to do this job, not leeching off it, it is parasitic. In the animal kingdom a creature that takes with out giving back, with no benefit to its host is a parasite....if it causes harm and pain.....well wikipedia says it best.....

Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other.......

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 19, 2015, 09:46:55 PM
Sent today to Nick Smiths PA...............







Hi Kate,

 

This reply, attached, from Nick Smith does not address the problems and concerns that I have raised.

 

Just how much integrity is lacking in this situation is shown by the fact that John Darnley was gifted a full certifying gas licence with no formal apprenticeship. Then when John Darnley was involved in an explosion, blowing someone up, I was framed for it…….And the Board have covered it up since, appointing the very same person to investigate the explosion, Tony Hammond…..who is the same person who gifted the licence to John Darnley in the first place.

 

I do not have the funds to take this to a judicial review and cannot afford legal advice. I am happy to attend any committee and I offer all my evidence to prove this cover up, but I cannot finance the policing of this dodgy set up, it has cost me in the 100’s of thousands already.

 

I would have thought that Nick Smith would want to protect the people who voted him in. The man responsible for all this dangerous work, worked for many years in the Nelson area, it is a real concern that this all goes un-investigated after an explosion nearly kills someone, but no one is held accountable after spending over $200,000.00.

 

A check of the amount of certificates issued by John Darnley would indicate the extent and potential volume of the dodgy installs; I believe the amount would shock you as he would sign anyone off.

 

There is blatant proof of this cover up widely available, which is being ignored. This is so wrong. It should be looked at before someone else gets hurt.

 

What happens if the radiators open this year at the site of the legionnaires risk (the central heating system that I have warned about for many years, please see attachments’), flooding the hot water outlets with stagnant water and the elderly occupier dies? What will a judicial review do to revive him?

 

Please send this schematic attached to a neutral expert and ask if this system has the potential to kill, also attached is the cert and address of this job, you’ll notice that this cert shows only one form of heating water with gas, it is impossible to do this with a califont, i.e. to heat the hot water AND heat radiators without contaminating the hot water. Potable and non potable water should never mix.

 

Perhaps Nick, or Campbell live, or anyone from the Labour party…. you could visit this house and check if he has just one califont heating the hot water and rads. The old guy doesn’t seem to care when I tried to warn him…..but what happens if the place is sold? Someone puts their kids in this shower? (Atomised/sprayed water containing legionnaires’ will affect the old and young much more than anyone else). It is to gamble with people’s lives to hope I am wrong and that this will go away.

 

 

Why does everyone protect Darnley? He made money out of putting people in danger, these jobs and sites aren’t going anywhere, they are getting worse with time as they deteriorate and breakdown with age. This is the tip of an iceberg I saw so many dodgy jobs.

 

I really don’t want anyone to be harmed; this is why I spoke up in the first place. I warned about dodgy certs covering dodgy work 6 years before dodgy work covered by a dodgy cert nearly killed some one in an explosion, this is a fact.

 

 

There are over 5000 reads for the evidence I have posted on the link below, or is it ok to have a corrupt Board framing innocent people who try to do the right thing? Please take the time to read this wealth of evidence laid out for all to see.

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/?topic=1810.new#new

 

 

Regards Paul Gee.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 20, 2015, 06:21:17 AM

So the Board has a vision???? Have a read of this stream of evidence and compare the delusional hypocrisy.....  


Perhaps they have double vision....lol. Jerks.


Vision and Values

a. Vision: The Plumbers, gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) exists so that, in respect of the provision of sanitary plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying services, the health and safety of members of the public is protected without undue cost.

b. Values:

i. Fairness

ii. Impartiality

iii. Transparency

iv. Trustworthyness
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: wombles on March 20, 2015, 10:25:53 AM
Badger, have you thought of taking this up with Winston Peters.  He seems quite against people who are wronged. At the recent meetings in Northland it would seem that he alone (of all MP's) has integrity. Worth a try.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 20, 2015, 05:19:33 PM
I have tried every single MP in Parliament, but I will try again.....and again and again...

The worst part is they seem to not want to open Pandora's box and are hoping this will go away.....but this guys work is still there ticking away, I have seen it.....all of the really bad ones I put right (approx five or six a year)....no one wants to know because they aren't dangerous any more!!


Sadly it will probably take another incident, then they will look for another scapegoat.......I just hope and pray I am wrong, but I have seen too much to doubt it.....I truly believe it is a matter of time, just like last time.....Remember I spent 6 years warning last time....BEFORE THE EXPLOSION......but then they framed me for it.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Enn on March 20, 2015, 09:13:15 PM
Politician's? Ha, As a rule they have no honesty, no integrity and certainly do not work in the interests of the majority of voters.

 As for Mr Peters I remember well a certain Wine box he sold out on,
 perhaps things might be a lot different now if he had not.

It is the Industry as a whole that has to stand up and have a voice collectively. That cannot be ignored, downplayed or passed off as a 'bunch of malcontents' & swept under the carpet.

The Socialist slogan  'United we stand, Divided we fall' is as relevant now as it was back in the day.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 21, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
I totally agree mate, any ideas what we can do?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on March 23, 2015, 05:14:13 PM
hi guys,
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 24, 2015, 07:59:41 PM



Judicial review over CTV engineer investigation
24

March

2015
 

By Hon Dr Nick Smith

Building and Housing
Share on
Facebook


Twitter

 


 





The Government has lodged an application before the High Court to seek a judicial review of the decision by the Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) to drop its investigation into Dr Alan Reay’s role in the design of the CTV building, with the documents served to Dr Reay this afternoon.

“The collapse of the CTV building during the 22 February 2011 earthquake resulted in the tragic death of 115 people and rates as one of New Zealand’s worst engineering failures. We owe it to the memory of those who lost their lives to hold those responsible to account for the building’s flawed design, and to ensure every possible lesson is learnt by the engineering profession to minimise the future risk,” Dr Smith says.

“We are taking this judicial review because we believe the decision to drop the investigation into Dr Alan Reay after he resigned from IPENZ was flawed. We want the decision overturned and IPENZ to complete the investigation into the professional conduct of Dr Reay’s role in the design of the CTV building.”

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Chief Engineer lodged a complaint with IPENZ in 2012, sparking the IPENZ investigation. Dr Reay resigned from IPENZ on 28 February 2014 and consequently IPENZ discontinued the disciplinary processes against him, as IPENZ considered it no longer had jurisdiction to deal with a former member. A subsequent decision by the High Court in September 2014 regarding Mr David Harding, the other engineer involved in the design of the CTV building, ruled that an investigation and disciplinary hearing could continue even when a member resigned.

The proceedings filed in the High Court seek to set aside the decision by IPENZ to dismiss the complaint so that the disciplinary investigation can proceed. This proceeding is separate to the complaint that is currently being heard by IPENZ that Dr Alan Reay failed to disclose his involvement in the CTV building when he sought renewal of his registration as a Chartered Professional Engineer in 2012.

“It is important that we clarify the law as to whether a professional can avoid disciplinary proceedings by simply resigning. Completing the IPENZ investigation will also be important in clarifying the professional standards expected of a senior engineer supervising the work of a more junior engineer,” Dr Smith says.

“The proceedings are complementary and not an alternative to reforms to improve the regulation of professional engineering. We released a discussion paper late last year on proposed changes and, after we have considered submissions, will be progressing with legislative change.”
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 28, 2015, 11:06:01 AM
So Dr Smith says that......


“It is important that we clarify the law as to whether a professional can avoid disciplinary proceedings by simply resigning. Completing the IPENZ investigation will also be important in clarifying the professional standards expected of a senior engineer supervising the work of a more junior engineer,” Dr Smith says.

I agree Mr Smith.....


Please can someone explain how can Darnley face a charge for an explosion but then it disappears?.....well he did resign from the gas arm of IPENZ see news letter from NZIGE the gas arm of IPENZ.......funny that......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 28, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
Also you have to ask how can someone who hasn't even sat an apprenticeship can not only get his full craftsman licence but he can also have the connections to become a member of an engineering organisation, which I am guessing you have to be an engineer to join?

Now if you were the person who gifted this muppet a full licence and was responsible for investigating an explosion....who would you rather do for the explosion, the person you gave a licence to after just a chat..... or frame some stoodge?

Not to mention that Mr Hammond was the very same person who lobbied for the self cert system, the same system that was run so badly that it had to carry a disclaimer.....FFS.

I complained to the Board about Mr Hammond's appointment to be the "impartial" investigator, Mr Hammond then went on to misrepresent evidence and hide photos that proved what I had said was true.


Have a read of the transcript of my attempt to stay proceedings and apply all the evidence that is listed on this stream.......have a rad of who presided over this hearing.....who knew most of this evidence.......




Now apply it to a job you may have made a mistake on, or someone has altered your work (as happened to me)....and it blows up or hurts someone.........ARE YOU PREPARED TO LOOSE EVERYHTING?

I tried for 6 years to fix this BFORE the explosion......that's fair aye!


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 28, 2015, 11:40:30 AM
So lets have a look at the presiding Board members....bare in mind I was an ex president of nelson Master Plumbers


Mr Mark Whitehead - Chair     Master Plumber

Mr Peter Jackson                   Master Plumber

Mr Stephen Parker                 GANZ and NZIGE later to be the chair of the hearing which he stopped just as I was nearly proven innocent

Mr William Irvine
                  ?
Mr Graham Hardie                  Master Plumber

Tony Hammond NZIGE GANZ Investigator supposedly "impartial" which is total bullshit.....he is one dirty little turd.





So your gamble is....... and remember you can't do anything about who visits your work after you have installed it......are you more connected than the other guy.......is this the type of disciplinary system you want to gamble your livelihood and reputation on, even your family.....I am blessed with an absolute angel of a wife and am very lucky she didn't think f**** this for a laugh and walked out, believe me she was put through enough to leave.....then these morons would have seen some carnage believe me.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 28, 2015, 11:53:02 AM
The thing is I don't even think they were protecting Darnley, although he was connected enough to get given a licence and be welcomed as a member of NZIGE, they were protecting themselves.....the ones who allowed the flippant issuing of a full certifying gas fitting licence and a cert system run so bad they were accepting certs with no test results or signatures, etc some certs being highlighted of this essential information with highlight pen....I kid you not I got the copies.

They threatened me with a handwriting expert, but ignores Darnley when he says he don't recognise his own handwriting......dodgy as...


Someone nearly dies and they covered it up while the poor sod was recovering in a burns unit......remember this......below



Vision and Values

a. Vision: The Plumbers, gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) exists so that, in respect of the provision of sanitary plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying services, the health and safety of members of the public is protected without undue cost. they had no problem with spending $250 000 to terrorise my family

b. Values:

i. Fairness ignoring evidence and photos

ii. Impartiality stacking the hearing with their cabal of dodgy mates, even having the chair and investigator who are thick as thieves

iii. Transparency not being fully up front with info, relationships and hiding evidence

iv. Trustworthyness See the above and apply it to this bullshit press release





It is the opposite of this that they publically pontificate about.....are you enjoying being treated like a bunch of fools?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 30, 2015, 08:50:11 PM
So all these Master Plumbers who not only stood by and watched me get screwed over and framed for something I did not do, while the real guilty walk away, with no one held responsible......and I was an ex Nelson President of Master Plumbers..........

Well I think they ignored their own rules....from the "rule" book attached below....


Members will not criticise another's workmanship or pricing policies

Now all these people stood by and not only criticised my work, but watched me get set up.....

Now I down loaded this copy of rules ... 29 10 12
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 30, 2015, 08:54:48 PM
Now compare the past rules with the new ones, attached, Master Plumber's Rules-passed-at-AGM-23 03 12.


Have a look for the rule about....Members will not criticise another's workmanship or pricing policies.....I am having trouble finding it, it seems more concerned with logo's and van stickers to me



So what would this tell you about the hierarchies' future intentions for their "fellow" members......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 30, 2015, 08:58:32 PM
Please can someone explain this change of direction to me.....

I brought these rules up at the "impartiality" hearing.....and they just ignored their own rules and screwed me over......so what is the point of rules if you don't abide by them?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 31, 2015, 10:14:01 PM
Perhaps a Master Plumber member could explain their take on this direction or perhaps ask those that signed off on these new rules?

I am pretty sure that someone from the MP hierarchy reads this forum, I mean they tried to take me to a Master Plumber disciplinary tribunal, AFTER, the kangaroo court hearing.... for comments made on this forum, this forcing me to hand in my resignation from MP.

You see I thought Master Plumbers was a fraternity with morals and standards that promoted safety and compliance, I suppose I got that wrong. 

Perhaps one of the people on the Master Plumber's discipline committee, from the threatened disciplinary mentioned above, could explain?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 03, 2015, 11:14:12 AM
So the Boards promised reply date is today, nothing received.....a broken promise by the Board.....whats new?

Sent this morning.



Mr Pederson,

 

I understand you are resigning; please can you let me know to whom I should complain to at the Board about my historical issues and this new issue of the lack of a promised response by the 3 of April 2015, as the date of this promise is today. With it being Easter I am guessing nothing will be done until the holiday period is over.

 

Ms Adair, I am complaining in this email to the Ombudsman about this ignoring of a promised response date mentioned in this letter, I feel it reflects the attitude and ability of these people. Perhaps there is something in Mr Darnley’s file that the Board would rather stay hidden. Perhaps those with more clout than me copied in could check?

 

Please can you also inform me of the progress of the other points in my complaints mention in this letter attached?

 

The health and safety of the NZ public has been put in jeopardy by those entrusted with its safe keeping, this is reprehensible. I have a wealth of evidence, I will share it with any one that is interested or cares.

 

Regards Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 07, 2015, 05:51:23 PM
So I get a reply today, there are two mistakes, minor and not really a big deal, but I ask you all this, what happens when we make minor mistakes, can we apologise and move on? Mistake one not allowing for Easter in the reply date and it was point 7 not 12 in my letter of complaint.

I did absolutely nothing wrong and got severely shafted and framed for something I did not do, while they spent well over $200,000.00 terrorising my family and telling lies.

They have asked for an extension of three weeks......anyone know what day is Max's last day at the Board?

No one held responsible for a near fatal explosion, exploded 9th April 2009......six years later and we got this reply....you seen the handwriting expert and all the evidence, the missing certs and out of date letters, lying letters that they had to apologise for......

6 years.....no one held responsible, the poor guy was in a burns unit when they were covering it up and framing me, how about the 580 signed certs sold, still before the Board 6 years later.......#Invalid YouTube Link#
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on April 07, 2015, 07:33:23 PM
hi guys/Badger. ( what day is Max's last day at the Board) it will make no difference he is still responsible and if he isn`t then it will be the minister as he O.K.'s all of the boards actions,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 07, 2015, 07:52:37 PM
So when some one leaves, do they have access to the Board's lawyers?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 13, 2015, 07:28:49 AM
The Board has all this evidence posted on here and then some more, the majority of what I have posted was provided by the Board, except the hand writing expert, but they did threaten me with a hand writing expert.....

Six years have passed after nearly killing someone.....and they do nothing ignoring blatant evidence, even allowing evidence to be suppressed......

Is this acceptable to you? Does this seem like the people who should pontificate about safety, CPD and untrained un-licenced people practicing?

Ask for the card? ........ How about a 6th Birthday Card for the inaction and cover up that the board has carried out, after someone nearly gets killed.....really?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 13, 2015, 07:32:19 AM
If any of this is untrue......where's my letters from their lawyers?


Surly if this is untrue it is liable or slanderous.....I have put this in the public forum for some years now and nothing from one of the most trigger happy of Boards, when it comes to setting the lawyers on to tradesman....what does this tell you?

It tells you that all I have said is irrefutable.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 18, 2015, 08:44:03 PM
Any one know who the new Registrar is? When is Max's last day? Be nice to have a fresh face to talk to.

So we have had a Board sacked, I have dealt with that many lawyers I can't remember all their names, Routhan went, kern got managed out, Bickers left, Stephen Parker went, all the others who have "not been reinstated after their term", we had a minister having to resign after backing a wife beater......and now Max is soon to be off, .....what a train wreck....and things are as crap as ever, if not worse.



So they come and they go, they cause mayhem and then toddle off......where's that dealing with unreasonable people policy?


And we are left to deal with the fallout.....that's pretty unreasonable aye!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on April 19, 2015, 10:16:29 AM
hi guys, yes Badge it's a train wreck all right. I can`t imagine that anyone will want to take up the position to be the main man in all the crap that has been going on and continuing on a daily basis until changes are made. He or she will get stressed out with all the bad press and complaints which will spill over into his or her family life to the point where another resignation will be made and no improvements to the very unstable P G D Board situation, cheers 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 19, 2015, 10:49:49 AM
I just hope it is someone who wants to fix things and not make it worse and I really hope everyone gives this person a chance to do just that.

Please god no one who just wants the money and will try to help cover up all the bullshit.

In my opinion, they have to acknowledge all the wrong doing and the cover ups and address them, before we can move on, otherwise they are complicit in that cover up and as corrupt as the rest of them.

All I hope is that they don't start with....."I am new, nothing to do with me".
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on April 19, 2015, 07:49:09 PM
hi guys, Badger sounds like the only man for the job is: WAL GORDON because you say, (In my opinion, they have to acknowledge all the wrong doing and the cover ups and address them, before we can move on, otherwise they are complicit in that cover up and as corrupt as the rest of them) cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 21, 2015, 07:09:07 AM
I can think of no one better for the job than Wal mate.

Wal is fair minded, unbiased and puts up with zero bullshit, which are the very qualifications that would exclude him from the Board ever giving him a go, sadly.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 24, 2015, 07:05:27 AM
So there is a public out cry for the PM pulling a young lady's pony tail......

Have a read of this wealth of evidence of a cover up, a framing of an innocent party and protecting someone who caused an explosion that nearly killed someone, dangerous work ignored.......

Lucky that poor waitress wasn't a plumber....


Sometimes I wonder WTF is going on.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 06:26:08 PM
So they can't locate Darnley's "extensive" file......


So Kern what "extensive file" were you on about at my hearing?? Perhaps you got it wrong like the letter you sent to all my customers telling them I was acting illegally in Northland, a place I have never been to.....but the guy who signed 540 certs blank and sold them, well he was from Northland.....

or

Perhaps it went to the same place (in all probability the shredder) as the cert for the explosion, which was never received by the Board but magically appeared on its electronic website.

Max's swan song.....he can't find a file.....see attached letter....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 06:27:20 PM
And my reply......






Mr Pederson,

 

Just a copy of his file will suffice, this smacks of a cover up. Why did you require an extension of time?

 

Perhaps his file went the same way of the missing certificates that cover dangerous work, one of these missing certs covered work that ended in an explosion.

 

This is so very wrong, this man worked in Nelson for many years empowered by a licence that was given to him after a chat.

 

Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 06:33:36 PM
It has taken since the 6th March to get to this, they must have looked high and low for the file, lol.

Still nothing about the complaints I made in my letter of the 6th March see below, I will keep you posted.....


Mr Pederson,

 

I am laying a formal complaint against Mr Darnley’s involvement re- the explosion at the Milton Street Chipshop. I believe he might be responsible for this explosion and I am complaining about this so you can appoint an investigator to find out; please appoint an investigator that Darnley isn’t friends with or is a member of any groups that Darnley was/is a member of.
 

I would complain that Darnley didn’t register the pink master copy of cert 345138, while handing out the carbon copies to the customer and gas supplier.
 

I would also complain that all available copies lack a recording of a gas leak test, at a site that later exploded…..because of a gas leak, a gas leak on a hose supplied by Darnley’s company Allgas, weeks after I left Allgas. Please see attached receipt for this hose. Please note I left the year before in 2003.
 

I have reason to believe that it was Darnley who installed the fryers; please see the handwriting samples supplied to you just recently also attached.
 

I would also complain that after altering my initial install and changing the gas cylinder supply set up and changing the hose ( the hose mentioned above, the one that caused the explosion) that a further certificate wasn’t issued.
 

I hope you do not take your previous stand that my having faced charges for this debacle protects Darnley in someway from my complaint, you have said that you can’t revisit my case; please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

I would also take this chance, to yet, again lay a complaint about the legionnaire’s risk, installed by Mr Darnley. Please see attachment, this dwelling has central heating with radiators, an impossibility with out contaminating the hot water supply when heated with the califont on the cert. You have this blatant evidence, please act on it. It is very dangerous plumbing and this is your jurisdiction, no one else’s. Please note it is that time of year where the thermostatic heads on the radiators are opening and the 11 year old water is being atomised by the elderly mans shower (any plumber worth his salt would know this to be a ticking time bomb, a matter of when not if there will be an issue, it has the potential to kill.)
 

And I would also complain about the manipulation of the gas certificates at Powick Street, by my reckoning it is missing at least 2 certificates for work carried out, and as far as I know it still has the lpg cylinders on the deck, this was of such concern that the Board laid charges against myself. As I have proved that it was impossible for me to have done this, I would complain about the person who did. According to your correspondence you have made no other contact to the owner of Powick Street, other than the letter that said I was capable of acting illegally in Northland which was sent out before my hearing, my hearing showed this manipulation and the Board have done nothing. Just for the record I have never been to Northland.
 

Again, I hope you do not take the stand that my having faced charges for this protects the person responsible in someway and you can’t revisit my case, I am not asking you to revisit my case, please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.
 

I am appalled that even though Darnley didn’t sit an apprenticeship the Board saw fit to gift him (and others) his/their full craftsman/certifying status, I would complain about this flippant issuing of a licence that resulted in empowering a person not fit to practice, that at least once has ended in an explosion.
 

Also Kern Uren stated at my hearing that Mr Darnley had an extensive file, please by way of an OIA request can I get a copy of this extensive file and the basis for gifting Darnley his licence, please blank out all names as I do not want to invade anyone’s privacy. I am willing to cover the photocopying cost.
 

And my last complaint is that the Board have covered up a badly administered gas safety certificate and licence system that resulted in a near fatal explosion, I complain about this dereliction of duty.
 

I believe all the above are reasonable grounds for laying these complaints.

 

 

 

Regards Paul Gee

 

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 06:36:03 PM
But it is my name that is sullied by all this..... really? That's reasonable.....


I just want to clear my name and have this guys potential dangerous worked looked at...........its that simple.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 08:52:14 PM
So the present registrar can't find the file that the registrar before him said was extensive, perhaps the registrar before both of these registrars took it with him when he took a massive amount of info with him when they sacked him..........you couldn't make this shit up.....

Remember this poor man mentioned below.........any one know Ron Clark , poor bugger spent 2 weeks in intensive care, let him know about this wealth of evidence.

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 7:32p.m.
By Emma Joliff

A fish and chip shop owner injured in a gas explosion last year blames shoddy workmanship for the explosion which cost him his health, his confidence and his livelihood.

Ron Clark had to flee his Nelson fish and chip shop and spent two weeks in intensive care.

"An enormous bang, the wall went, the roof went, I'm standing there and the skins coming off my legs," says Mr Clark.

It took six months to rebuild the shop but he says it was all too stressful and he could no longer work. Mr Clark estimates between making a loss in selling the shop and the shortfall in rebuilding, he's more than $120,000 out of pocket.

"Basically I couldn't keep business going, it was all too much. You end up having to sell it and get out. eight years of work down the toilet."

The issue of gas certification was highlighted recently by the sacking of chief executive Philip Routhan, who claimed there were potentially hundreds of faulty gas installations in New Zealand.

"These guys get away with bloody murder, doesn't do his job, gets fired, goes back and says I want my job back. Well I'd like my shop back, I'd like my life back, Id like my health back, you know there are a lot of things I'd like back," says Mr Clark.

Mr Routhan's attempt to get his job back was rejected.

"If the authorities don't check the certification of all of these things then we might as well be living in a third world country."

The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board after the blast," says Mr Clark.

The board says it's now completed its investigation and two men, aged 53 and 38, are due to appear at a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing in February.


Perhaps I can ask the next registrar....what a joke we have had for well over 10 years......

I am going to ask each and every new registrar to deal with it (same as with the other "public offices" that are trying to sweep this under the carpet)......I will reach a time where the new guy just wants to make a name for him/her self...a new broom sweeps cleanest.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 08:56:17 PM
This is the reality of the cover up........see below a link......



http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/shoddy-workmanship-blamed-for-gas-explosion--2011011218#comments


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 09:03:58 PM
The link below doesn't work but if you google it, it is on the TV 3 website......


Interesting what the news clip says about the 38 and 53 year old facing a tribunal......I was 38 and face a charge for the chipshop......no one else has faced a charge for the explosion at a hearing.....Darnley was facing a charge, but it disappeared....

Listen to what the news segment says about dodgy certs and dangerous work....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 29, 2015, 09:14:21 PM
The board says it's now completed its investigation and two men, aged 53 and 38, are due to appear at a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing in February.



So where did the charge go for Darnley? Remember this letter below........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 30, 2015, 07:01:39 AM
Just watching Paul Henery on TV 3......

Nick Smith just said that his main concern is to remove the bureaucratic red tape to allow the housing market to become affordable...........

How about removing ridiculous CPD, illegal taking of money from tradies ($2 000 000), cover ups, corruption and incompetence along with the red tape.

Most of all prevent the monopoly being set up in the Plumbing industry, where if your connected you can get away with all sorts of dangerous work and if you speak out about it you can be framed and set up. This is worse because as well as causing unnecessary cost it puts the public at risk at the same time.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 30, 2015, 07:13:12 AM



Thank you for contacting Paul Henry.

Copy of your email:
Lets see if we can get some public exposure.....



Name: Paul Gee

Email: gspservices@xtra.co.nz

Subject: corrupt plumbers board

Message: Hi Paul, Please see a story of a cover up that puts the NZ public at risk and adds undue cost to building a home in NZ. http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/?topic=1810.new#new This link list some of the blatant evidence my family have witnessed and been subjected to. I have a huge body of evidence. Best Regards Paul Gee, 0274 33 33 50





I will push this until it gets looked at, every time the guard changes I will try the new replacement, until it gets sorted.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 02, 2015, 08:26:54 AM
Just to keep all this together I have copied this comment to this thread, because I can send the link to as many people as I can, with over 7000 reads this seems to work, two things I can not abide are bullies and hypocrites I have encountered more than my fair share.....


How can we rely on an Ombudsman who appears to be so selective, he also wrote this below, but after receiving this email attached and all the evidence posted on here, he decided to use his discretion not to look at how I was investigated.....

 
 
First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.
 
And from another paper….
 
 
Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas?) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters?) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it!
 
* My additions in brackets.




It appears that the Ombudsman is there for damage control not fairness, fairness denied to the plumbers of this country....why not change the law to make it all legal.....oh wait there they did that to take 2 million dollars off us.......that's fair!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 02, 2015, 12:12:58 PM
Sent earlier today, I will let you know how I go.....




Dear Ombudsman,

 

I am appealing the use by Mr Patterson of using “discretion” in ignoring how I was, to use the term loosely, “investigated”, more a kin to being framed and set up as scape goat.

 

 

Please can you tell me why you think it is helpful to ignore such blatant evidence and please do this in light of your comments below,

 

 
First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.
 
And from another paper….
 
 
Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas?) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters?) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it!

* My additions in brackets.

 

And this comment not attributable to you

 

An abuse of discretion is a failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom."[8] On appeal of an exercise of judicial discretion, "abuse of discretion" is a standard of review requiring the appellate court to find that the lower court's decision would "shock the conscience" of a reasonable person in order to reverse the decision below.

 

 

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 02, 2015, 12:15:05 PM
If nothing is done I will wait until the new replacement is in office and ask the incumbent to look at it, and keep doing it until someone takes this up.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 04, 2015, 05:42:42 PM
So the Ombudsman appears not to think Plumbers need any fairness, I wonder if we have any human rights......see below






Hi Ataraiti,

 

Supplementary to my previous email sent tonight, to back my story there is a stream on a “Plumbers forum” where I have shown some of the ignored and suppressed evidence.

 

I believe I was entitled to a fair unbiased investigation and hearing, but I was set up and an attempt to frame me was carried out. The Board had a history of a 100% conviction rate previous to my case and I don’t believe they expected me to fight this as I have. I think this is shown by the fact that no one to this day has been held responsible for a near fatal explosion, but I have lost my business, reputation and time with my family when I was forced to work away to support them for two years.

 

I believe my wife had her human rights denied her when they sent to my home child sexual abuse cases notes to prove their point on probabilities, my wife opened and read them as they were not marked of their vile content, they sent three cases to prove a point all three were of a deviant sexual nature, this caused my wife a huge amount of stress and upset.

 

I believe a citizen of this country, any country, deserve a unbiased “trial” and not to have their families terrorised by a government backed industry board.

 

The link to the evidence posted on the “Plumber’s forum” is below,

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/?topic=1810.new#new

 

Thank you I look forward to your reply

 

Best Regards Paul Gee.

 


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

From: Paul & Emma [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 4 May 2015 4:46 p.m.
To: 'Ataraiti Whyte'
Subject: RE: Matter Ref: ST105561

 

Thank you Ataraiti,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Sadly the information I have provided is just a snap shot and there has been further evidence come to light since.

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 

 

 


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

From: Ataraiti Whyte [mailto:AtaraitiW@hrc.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 4 May 2015 1:34 p.m.
To: 'gspservices@xtra.co.nz'
Subject: Matter Ref: ST105561


 

4 May 2015

 

Dear Paul

 

Thank you for your email, which was received by the Human Rights Commission on 24 April 2015.

 

We apologise for the delay in response, are now considering your complaint and aim to contact you within 15 working days.

 

If you need to contact us, telephone 0800 496 877 or email infoline@hrc.co.nz . We are able to provide confidential services for interpreting in 42 languages, and NZ Relay Service for those with speech or hearing impairments.

 

Yours sincerely


Ataraiti Whyte
Infoline Operator / Reception
Enquiries and Complaints Team
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 04, 2015, 08:35:44 PM
To the 28 guests, please leave a comment I am trying to open a discussion in an open forum whether it is acceptable for an innocent man who warned about dodgy work covered by dodgy safety gas certificates, issued by a government industry board, that ended in an explosion.....the industry board who had to add a disclaimer to these certs because of their incompetence.....then appoints than investigator who gave a license to the man they are protecting...........

Confusing I know, please take the time to read this thread and look at the evidence.

These people nearly gave my wife and I a nervous breakdown while they pontificate about public safety, when it is them who placed the public in harms way, especially after handing out a gas fitting licence flippantly to an un scrupulous connected person.

Please make this go viral and share share share, thank you. 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 04, 2015, 08:39:42 PM
The Ombudsman who's mantra is " fairness for all "......has used discretion not to look at it, he took 2 years to tell me this....


Lets see what the human rights commission thinks of my human rights....

Are Plumbers inhuman??????????.....if you treat people as though they are inhuman, they tend to act like they are inhuman.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 04, 2015, 09:35:46 PM
From the attached government fact sheet.....


The Office of the Ombudsman can also look into complaints about corrupt behaviour.

So I wonder why he used his power of discretion not to look at my huge body of evidence...
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on May 05, 2015, 09:15:55 AM
hi guys/Badger, i think this says it all, cheers
...
 What is bribery and corruption?
Bribery and corruption can take various forms, including secret commissions, kickbacks and other forms of unlawful payments. Corruption also encompasses a number of offences such as fraud, abuse of one’s position of power and money laundering.
What are warnings signs of corruption?
Some of the warning signs that your business has been exposed to corrupt activity include:
abnormally high profit margins
business arrangements that serve no apparent commercial purpose
reimbursement requests for undefined costs relating to goods or services
unusually high and unjustified commission payments
apparent ‘special’ treatment.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 05, 2015, 09:56:44 AM
You'll notice the Robbo that the apparent apparent ‘special’ treatment that has been meted out to me (in a persecution-ary way) and to Darnley  (in a protection-ary) way is undeniable.

The thing is..... in a system like this not one of us can be sure of a fair go or justice, you can only live in the hope that the bullies don't come after you. This is unacceptable.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 04:51:58 PM
Check this out I thought the Board only had one file on each of us......


Apparently this ain't so.......see attached
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 04:53:12 PM
A cover up perhaps, trying to narrow the info.....whats in this file???
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 05:06:11 PM
How many bloody files do these dodgy buggers have on us?



Mr Pederson,

 

Your letter received today….the second letter attached, (I have renamed it “playing for time Darnley file”), gives the impression that the Board holds several files on each tradesman.

 

Please by way of OIA request can you clarify how many files you hold on each plumber, or Gasfitter or Drainlayer, if it is just the one file as I suspect…..please can you forwards me a copy of Darnley’s file or are you playing for time until you leave or trying to hide something by narrowing my search?

 

I want a copy of his full and comprehensive file.

 

Kind Regards Paul Gee.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 05:14:26 PM
I asked to see a copy of Darnley's "extensive" file.....Kern's words not mine.....

First they can't find an "extensive" file.....

Now they don't know which file.....


This is the same guy that faced a charge for an explosion......but it magically disappeared hmmmm funny that.....



The OIA was brought about to curb corruption.......what they don't say and what they refuse to show.......speaks volumes doesn't it!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 07:16:39 PM
So one Board Registrar (on record at my hearing) says Darnley's file is extensive and that he has seen it.....

Then the next registrar can't find this extensive file and then can't choose which file to pick from..... Seemingly out of the multitude of potential files that, apparently, the Board hold on all of US.......


Sounds like the Stazi or KGB....


Certs missing, charges disappear, hiding evidence and photos.....now the extremes of files that are missing or they can't choose which one to pick from the many......what a pack of clowns.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
I could "almost" handle these dodgy dealings (not really ) if they were any good at it, but this is laughable......


How do you feel about financing such a group of non tax paying charity cases(LOL), paying to practice a trade that you actually sat an apprenticeship for, when they hand out licences to their mates, then cover up for them while pontificating about safety.......


Where is that "dealing with unreasonable people" policy gone.......needs rolling up into a nice sphincter sized roll and applying it where it is needed most and could be most effective  ;)

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 15, 2015, 07:33:58 PM
Please to the 32 people reading this take the time to read the bulk of evidence at who the Board covered up an explosion that put a guy in intensive care for two weeks and ruined my life......share if you care, hell share if you don't care......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on May 15, 2015, 11:12:32 PM
Hi guys, Badger this coverup is incredible, you would think that they would want to sort it! Someone needs putting up against the wall, cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 16, 2015, 11:19:31 AM
But its OK if your a little bit corrupt........ you know you only do it sometimes for friends.....that's reasonable aye.


If anyone is being subjected to the persecution of a witch-hunt that these goons are very capable of (you've seen SOME of the evidence) please feel free to use my case as a means of not recognising their authority, integrity, competence and to have a reasonable grounds for a lack of confidence in their ability to apply the Act in a fair and just manner.

This stands until they address the complete bullshit that they inflicted on my family.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 25, 2015, 06:51:50 AM
How long does it take to look at plain blatant evidence?





Dear PGDB

 

Please can you pass this to the new registrar and let me know when I might see some action on these valid complaints; please see below with evidence attached. It has been some considerable time since I made these complaints.

 

So far re- point 12 in these complaints below, the Board “can’t find” Mr Darnley’s extensive file, then ridiculously they can’t choose which file out of many files held. This is ludicrous. Please see attached your replies; I have attached these for your convenience. I believe there is damning evidence in this file and the Board’s flannelling is an attempt to prevent its disclosure, which is very telling indeed.

 

Also supplementary to these other complaints, I would also complain that the Board issued 4 books of gas safety certs to Mr Darnley. These were issued in my name but ordered and paid for by Darnley, he did this AFTER I had told him I was leaving his employ and resulted in incorrect data entered in my name on the Board’s failed electronic cert system (fox-pro system).

 

Also supplementary to these other complaints, I am complaining about the Board allowing a gas safety cert to be altered in my name, this was requested AFTER I had left Allgas’ employ, the Board acted on a letter issued in my name, without my permission. I have attached the “period of my employment” and the request to alter the cert in my name, I DID NOT make this request.

 

This cover up, done at my expense, is reprehensible and I will not let this go until I clear my name.

 

Regards Paul Gee

 

 

 


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

From: Paul & Emma [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 6 March 2015 11:03 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'; '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'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'; 'campbelllive@tv3.co.nz'
Subject: Complaint

 

Mr Pederson,

 

I am laying a formal complaint against Mr Darnley’s involvement re- the explosion at the Milton Street Chipshop. I believe he might be responsible for this explosion and I am complaining about this so you can appoint an investigator to find out; please appoint an investigator that Darnley isn’t friends with or is a member of any groups that Darnley was/is a member of.
 

I would complain that Darnley didn’t register the pink master copy of cert 345138, while handing out the carbon copies to the customer and gas supplier.
 

I would also complain that all available copies lack a recording of a gas leak test, at a site that later exploded…..because of a gas leak, a gas leak on a hose supplied by Darnley’s company Allgas, weeks after I left Allgas. Please see attached receipt for this hose. Please note I left the year before in 2003.
 

I have reason to believe that it was Darnley who installed the fryers; please see the handwriting samples supplied to you just recently also attached.
 

I would also complain that after altering my initial install and changing the gas cylinder supply set up and changing the hose ( the hose mentioned above, the one that caused the explosion) that a further certificate wasn’t issued.
 

I hope you do not take your previous stand that my having faced charges for this debacle protects Darnley in someway from my complaint, you have said that you can’t revisit my case; please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

I would also take this chance, to yet, again lay a complaint about the legionnaire’s risk, installed by Mr Darnley. Please see attachment, this dwelling has central heating with radiators, an impossibility with out contaminating the hot water supply when heated with the califont on the cert. You have this blatant evidence, please act on it. It is very dangerous plumbing and this is your jurisdiction, no one else’s. Please note it is that time of year where the thermostatic heads on the radiators are opening and the 11 year old water is being atomised by the elderly mans shower (any plumber worth his salt would know this to be a ticking time bomb, a matter of when not if there will be an issue, it has the potential to kill.)
 

And I would also complain about the manipulation of the gas certificates at Powick Street, by my reckoning it is missing at least 2 certificates for work carried out, and as far as I know it still has the lpg cylinders on the deck, this was of such concern that the Board laid charges against myself. As I have proved that it was impossible for me to have done this, I would complain about the person who did. According to your correspondence you have made no other contact to the owner of Powick Street, other than the letter that said I was capable of acting illegally in Northland which was sent out before my hearing, my hearing showed this manipulation and the Board have done nothing. Just for the record I have never been to Northland.
 

Again, I hope you do not take the stand that my having faced charges for this protects the person responsible in someway and you can’t revisit my case, I am not asking you to revisit my case, please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.
 

I am appalled that even though Darnley didn’t sit an apprenticeship the Board saw fit to gift him (and others) his/their full craftsman/certifying status, I would complain about this flippant issuing of a licence that resulted in empowering a person not fit to practice, that at least once has ended in an explosion.
 

Also Kern Uren stated at my hearing that Mr Darnley had an extensive file, please by way of an OIA request can I get a copy of this extensive file and the basis for gifting Darnley his licence, please blank out all names as I do not want to invade anyone’s privacy. I am willing to cover the photocopying cost.
 

And my last complaint is that the Board have covered up a badly administered gas safety certificate and licence system that resulted in a near fatal explosion, I complain about this dereliction of duty.
 

I believe all the above are reasonable grounds for laying these complaints.

 

 

 

Regards Paul Gee

 

 

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 03, 2015, 06:33:42 AM
still waiting......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 11, 2015, 09:53:35 PM
Well you have seen the evidence on here and you have seen how the Board has not addressed any of this......


This delusional reply took three frickin months to write.....


I expected no less, and you can be sure you will be treated the same if it suits them......


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 11, 2015, 09:57:30 PM
You can see all who know, look at the email address's.....my reply to all this.


The Ombudsman's Office is here for FAIRNESS........really?





From: Paul & Emma [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 9:30 p.m.
To: 'Info'; 'Sam McLean'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'; 'Nicola White'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Jude Hutton'; 'Andrew Little'; 'Andrew.McCaw@ombudsmen.parliament.nz'; 'damien.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz'; 'john.key@national.org.nz'; 'Judith Burney'; 'Rt. Hon. Winston Peters'; Craig Hooper - Coolhead Productions Ltd; 'Office of Sarah Dowie MP'; 'phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; 'Registrar'; 'complaints@pgdb.co.nz'; 'paul@paulhenry.co.nz'; 'Kate Dixon'
Subject: FW: URGENT create matter/ack & apologise for the delay/import & flag red - E80343 Process for laying a complaint

 

Dear Ombudsman and Others,

 

Please see below an email stream of correspondence between myself and the Human Rights Commission, apparently the ball is back in the Ombudsman’s court. I am again formally requesting an appeal against the Ombudsman’s use of discretion to not investigate this travesty of justice and total abuse of power.

 

I am pleading to the Ombudsman, Ministers and Prime Minister to look into this massive cover up, all done at the risk to the NZ Public’s health and safety.

 

 

 

 

For an example of the type of “denial” I have dealt with, please see attached a recent reply from the Board’s Acting Registrar, made in reply to several very real complaints I made to the Board in early March, the very simple (and untrue) reply only just received yesterday, just over three months.

 

The other documents attached (for clarity) are those mentioned in these recent complaints of mine, for a full list of these complaints please see below in black.

 

 

 

This very uncomplicated letter of reply, which took 3 months to send, is confusing to say the least and is totally made up from blatant untruths. Not one of my complaints has ever been addressed…. but they have been ignored many times.

 

Any “investigation” relied on by the Board is totally dependant on the one very conflicted investigator Tony Hammond, who has been shown to have withheld evidence and photos and has huge conflicts of interest….. not only with John Darnley but also the chair of my so called hearing, Stephen Parker.

 

The Board’s ignoring of the legionnaires’ risk, mentioned in my complaints, is awful and borders on negligent.

 

The Board are claiming that these complaints were addressed during my investigation and the subsequent hearing, which is ludicrous and totally untrue because for most of these complaints, if not all of them, the Board were not made aware of these “issues” until after my hearing, when I pointed the issues out to them. It’s nothing short of delusional.

 

Mr Darnley and his involvement in this near fatal gas explosion has never been openly and transparently investigated, Darnley actually faced a charge for the explosion… but it disappeared before he went to his hearing. How does that happen?

 

The Board’s own involvement in the badly administered gas safety certificate system has never been investigated either. A system administered so badly that it later carried a disclaimer regarding its accuracy.

 

Certificates were also accepted by the Board incomplete, incomplete for testing for gas leaks. One of these (cert 345138) actually mentioned in my recent complaints….is for the site of an explosion, caused by a GAS LEAK. A gas leak caused by the leaking hose sold by Darnley’s company, sold after I left…..see receipt attached, even though there is a copy on the Board’s website….they deny having received a copy.

 

But it was I that was ruined and am struggling to make ends meet……The Ombudsman’s Office is here for Fairness……is this fair I ask you all??????

 

Are you happy for this type of unfair cover up? With no one held responsible for neither this mess of a certificate system nor the explosion. The facts are there for you to see, I can forward to anyone of you if you require copies of the considerable and undeniable evidence.

 

My recently dismissed complaints below……….there is a serious lack of integrity and credibility for anyone to ignore this.

 

 

 

I am laying a formal complaint against Mr Darnley’s involvement re- the explosion at the Milton Street Chipshop. I believe he might be responsible for this explosion and I am complaining about this so you can appoint an investigator to find out; please appoint an investigator that Darnley isn’t friends with or is a member of any groups that Darnley was/is a member of.
 

I would complain that Darnley didn’t register the pink master copy of cert 345138, while handing out the carbon copies to the customer and gas supplier.
 

I would also complain that all available copies lack a recording of a gas leak test, at a site that later exploded…..because of a gas leak, a gas leak on a hose supplied by Darnley’s company Allgas, weeks after I left Allgas. Please see attached receipt for this hose. Please note I left the year before in 2003.
 

I have reason to believe that it was Darnley who installed the fryers; please see the handwriting samples supplied to you just recently also attached.
 

I would also complain that after altering my initial install and changing the gas cylinder supply set up and changing the hose ( the hose mentioned above, the one that caused the explosion) that a further certificate wasn’t issued.
 

I hope you do not take your previous stand that my having faced charges for this debacle protects Darnley in someway from my complaint, you have said that you can’t revisit my case; please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

I would also take this chance, to yet, again lay a complaint about the legionnaire’s risk, installed by Mr Darnley. Please see attachment, this dwelling has central heating with radiators, an impossibility with out contaminating the hot water supply when heated with the califont on the cert. You have this blatant evidence, please act on it. It is very dangerous plumbing and this is your jurisdiction, no one else’s. Please note it is that time of year where the thermostatic heads on the radiators are opening and the 11 year old water is being atomised by the elderly mans shower (any plumber worth his salt would know this to be a ticking time bomb, a matter of when not if there will be an issue, it has the potential to kill.)
 

And I would also complain about the manipulation of the gas certificates at Powick Street, by my reckoning it is missing at least 2 certificates for work carried out, and as far as I know it still has the lpg cylinders on the deck, this was of such concern that the Board laid charges against myself. As I have proved that it was impossible for me to have done this, I would complain about the person who did. According to your correspondence you have made no other contact to the owner of Powick Street, other than the letter that said I was capable of acting illegally in Northland which was sent out before my hearing, my hearing showed this manipulation and the Board have done nothing. Just for the record I have never been to Northland.
 

Again, I hope you do not take the stand that my having faced charges for this protects the person responsible in someway and you can’t revisit my case, I am not asking you to revisit my case, please open a new case, one that is fair and transparent.
 

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.
 

I am appalled that even though Darnley didn’t sit an apprenticeship the Board saw fit to gift him (and others) his/their full craftsman/certifying status, I would complain about this flippant issuing of a licence that resulted in empowering a person not fit to practice, that at least once has ended in an explosion.
 

Also Kern Uren stated at my hearing that Mr Darnley had an extensive file, please by way of an OIA request can I get a copy of this extensive file and the basis for gifting Darnley his licence, please blank out all names as I do not want to invade anyone’s privacy. I am willing to cover the photocopying cost.
 

And my last complaint is that the Board have covered up a badly administered gas safety certificate and licence system that resulted in a near fatal explosion, I complain about this dereliction of duty.
 

I believe all the above are reasonable grounds for laying these complaints.

 

 

 

Regards Paul Gee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

From: Sam McLean [mailto:SamM@hrc.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2015 3:48 p.m.
To: Paul & Emma
Subject: RE: URGENT create matter/ack & apologise for the delay/import & flag red - E80343 Process for laying a complaint

 

Dear Paul

 

Thank you for your last email.

 

Having read through the information you provided, I then discussed your situation with one of our legal advisers.  He suggested that you could ask your MP to write to the Chief Ombudsman to address the review of the use of his discretion quickly, because of the length of time it has taken for you to get a response initially.  He also suggested that you could ask the Minister responsible for the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board ,  whom I believe is Dr Nick Smith, as the Minister for Building and Housing, to review the materials you have.  You may have already gone down this road as I am aware you have had Dr Smith involved in the past.

 

It is difficult to see any unlawful ground of discrimination being the reason that this has all happened.  Although you mention ethical belief and political opinion, there is nothing in  the material to indicate that  what happened was because of your ethical belief or political opinion as defined by the Human Rights Act 1993.  You then suggested it was because of your national origins.  However, the comment to you about whether you have ever thought of going back to the UK, although not an appropriate comment for  Board member to make, is not enough to indicate discrimination.  Besides, the Commission’s process of dispute resolution is mediation and that would not be suitable in these circumstances as these matters occurred many years ago. 

 

You have already been through the court system, there have been investigations and your major concerns seem to relate to the impartiality of investigators and decision makers involved in the issue  and it appears that you are claiming unfair processes and a lack of natural justice because of this.    The Ombudsmen’s Office is the appropriate agency to address issues of this nature.

 

I understand that this response and our inability to assist you will be very disappointing as you deal with these difficult issues.

 

Kind regards

 

Sam McLean

 

 

 

Sam McLean | Mediator | Kaihohourongo

Human Rights Commission | Te Kāhui Tika Tangata

DDI: +64 9 375 8634 | T: +64 9 309 0874 | F: +64 9 377 3593

PO Box 6751, Wellesley St | Level 3, Zurich House, 21 Queen St, Auckland 1141

New Zealand | www.hrc.co.nz

 

This email (including all attachments) may contain personal information and is intended solely for the named addressee.  It is confidential.  Confidentiality is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you in error.  If you have received it in error, please let us know by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies.

 

From: Paul & Emma [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 8 June 2015 7:04 a.m.
To: Sam McLean
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'
Subject: RE: URGENT create matter/ack & apologise for the delay/import & flag red - E80343 Process for laying a complaint

 

Hi Sam,

 

Please can you let me know when or if your office might help my family and I.

 

Frankly we are struggling financially and I need to clear my name, the stress of this is immense. Everyone in my area either thinks I am so incompetent that I blew up a chipshop or that I issue illegal certs or that I “dobbed in” the local gasfitters, they think this because the Board audited all the local gasfitters and told them it was because of me. They did this even though I had only ever complained about Darnley, and I only did this because I feared for the safety of the public, but they made it look like I had told on all the local gasfitters.

 

Even the kangaroo court that they put me through showed I had done no wrong, but they went in the local paper saying I was incompetent after I had blown 42 trumped up charges out of the water, and the last remaining charge out of 44 charges is wrongly based on one conflicted mans opinion, but it is my young family who are struggling, my wife has been terrorised by these bullies and she is beyond doubt totally innocent of any wrong doing. And for what?

 

My lawyer cost me well in excess of 10 grand and his final advice was to plead guilty to all this. I stopped using his services and fought this with the Plumbers Federation, my advocate Wal, copied in, proved I had done no wrong. But I lost everything and had my wife put through he mill, surely this effects my human rights?

 

I have tried every legal way to get this looked at.

 

I am at my wits end.

 

Please Sam.

 

Regards Paul Gee

 


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

From: Sam McLean [mailto:SamM@hrc.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 May 2015 12:35 p.m.
To: gspservices@xtra.co.nz
Subject: RE: URGENT create matter/ack & apologise for the delay/import & flag red - E80343 Process for laying a complaint

 

Hello Paul

It would be useful to have a conversation with you about the information you have provided to the Commission and what options are open to you for dealing with your situation.

I suggest you call me on 0800 496 877 and ask to speak to me or the other option is you email me a phone number and a suitable time that I can call you.  It would have to be between 8.30am and 5pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sam McLean

 


Sam McLean | Mediator | Kaihohourongo
Human Rights Commission | Te Kahui Tika Tangata

DDI: +64 9 375 8634 | T: +64 9 309 0874 | F: +64 9 377 3593

PO Box 6751, Wellesley St | Level 3, Zurich House, 21 Queen St, Auckland 1141

New Zealand | www.hrc.co.nz


This email (including all attachments) may contain personal information and is intended solely for the named addressee.  It is confidential.  Confidentiality is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you in error.  If you have received it in error, please let us know by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies.

 


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

From: Paul & Emma
Sent: Friday, 24 Apr 2015 07:22 a.m.
To: Infoline
Subject: URGENT create matter/ack & apologise for the delay/import & flag red - E80343 Process for laying a complaint

Hi,

 

Please can you tell me the proper process for laying a complaint with your commission? I have attached a submission that I made to a select committee for some back ground.

 

I have been victimised for trying to protect the NZ public from an unscrupulous unqualified tradesman, when my concerns came to pass they tried to make me the scapegoat.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 11, 2015, 09:58:23 PM
It is a joke........this is how fair the system is.....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 12, 2015, 06:38:09 AM
.....you will notice that one complaint that I made is missing from the delusional reply from Craig O'Connall, the acting Registrar....

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.


By "Acting" Registrar does he mean it in the same context as my medical qualification to be a GP when I was playing Doctors and Nurses when I was eight? Or perhaps the Knights of Nee in the Meaning of life?

I can just see him clip clopping around his office with two coconut halves pretending he is on a horse, followed by a scribe making up songs about him.

Must be nice to get paid so much to play act.....because he got to be pretending with such a bullshit letter as this it is total crap.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 12, 2015, 06:47:35 AM
Sent this morning......





Mr O’Connell,

 

You have left out several points of my complaints from your reply, why is that? If you use the numbers on my points, it may help, not replacing them with letters in your reply.

 

One of the missing points is point 10, for example….

 

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.
 

Please can you review this reply because not only is it incomplete, but mostly untrue.

 

Regards Paul Gee

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 16, 2015, 09:24:23 AM
......and a quick reply this time but still just as delusional......isn't any one embarrassed by this, a guy nearly got killed and no one was held responsible, it was covered up, the one that most if not all the evidence points at faced a charge but it "disappeared".....but because they couldn't get the guy they targeted......its been addressed?

So how does that cost of a licence and the CPD taste now?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 18, 2015, 06:00:41 PM
You have all seen the blatant irrefutable evidence how can they issue such untruths, officially and on a signed letter....it makes a mockery of our trade.


Where's OUR justice, where's OUR protection, where's OUR right to a fair go?    After all we finance this gravy train.....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 21, 2015, 08:57:23 AM

Lets see if they actually did address these complaints.....have a look who knows about this too




 
Sent: Friday, 19 June 2015 7:23 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'
Cc: 'Info'; 'Sam McLean'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'; 'Nicola White'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Jude Hutton'; 'Andrew Little'; 'Andrew.McCaw@ombudsmen.parliament.nz'; 'damien.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz'; 'john.key@national.org.nz'; 'Judith Burney'; 'Rt. Hon. Winston Peters'; Craig Hooper - Coolhead Productions Ltd; 'phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz'; 'Registrar'; 'paul@paulhenry.co.nz'; 'Office of Sarah Dowie MP'; 'wal.gordon@pgdf.co.nz'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'
Subject:

 

Mr O’Connell

 

Please by means of an OIA request please can you show me where and how my complaints were addressed? The complaints mentioned in the correspondence below, they are very real I have a lot of evidence if you require it and up until now the Board have attempted to cover this up, this is so very wrong and in the face of why you are there.

 

Or am I to be denied the right of complaint aswell as the right to a fair and unbiased hearing?

 

Thank you.

 

Regards Paul Gee.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 07:17:30 AM
So lets "address" each of my complaints.....perhaps the Board might have done something more than I know, but here is what I know.....we will see if this differs when the Board either tell me or fob me off, if they fob me off, ask yourself how can a Government endorsed Board tell such porky pies? If it is fibs then the people involved should stand down.......


I would complain that Darnley didn’t register the pink master copy of cert 345138, while handing out the carbon copies to the customer and gas supplier.

The Board knew of this "non-registering" just days after the explosion, think it was about 9 days. So while Ron Clark was recovering in an intensive care burns unit, they knew of this, all copies show a lack of gas leak test results.....at the site of an explosion (think about that)......this same cert number is mentioned in the Dept of Labour complaint, by number, ( just mull that over and think about that).......

The Board claim that they never received a copy of this cert......but the cert is there on line, on the "fox-pro" cert system (implemented at a cost of $600 000, paid for by us)....check it out check the cert number on line......the same address, the same details, the same appliances, the same missing gas leak test result ......... hmmm just mull that over.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 07:22:33 AM
If this is all that has been done to address this complaint......then do you consider that the Board have addressed my complaint?


It appears on the face of it that they have covered it up........if this is the case then why are these people still there?


Why Does Craig O'Connell think that it has been addressed?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 07:27:04 AM

I am laying a formal complaint against Mr Darnley’s involvement re- the explosion at the Milton Street Chipshop. I believe he might be responsible for this explosion and I am complaining about this so you can appoint an investigator to find out; please appoint an investigator that Darnley isn’t friends with or is a member of any groups that Darnley was/is a member of.

All I know that was done to address this is that Mr Darnley faced a charge but it disappeared before his hearing......how does that happen? Now have a look at the complaint below......hmmmm.... ironic eh?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 07:46:49 AM
I would also complain that all available copies lack a recording of a gas leak test, at a site that later exploded…..because of a gas leak, a gas leak on a hose supplied by Darnley’s company Allgas, weeks after I left Allgas. Please see attached receipt for this hose. Please note I left the year before in 2003.

Now the hose that caused the explosion was sold, by Darnley's company, many weeks after I left his employ.....now consider that only Darnley (other than me) who faced a charge (but this charge disappeared before his hearing, how?), this is the exact same hose that actually caused the explosion. It was used to replace the first hose, replaced just months after the initial install, definitely not by me. The original hose was in such a bad shape/position because someone, not me, lowered the pipe after the initial install......what sort of dickhead replaces a hose in the exact same way that caused its failure after such a short time in service? Photos that proved this lowering occurred were withheld by the Boards investigator (Tony Hammond).....the Tony Hammond who gave Darnley his licence after a chat......

But the Board think they have addressed this, it will be interesting if they have done anything other than trying to pin it on me......the cert for this work was not, as is attested to by the Board's own records, wasn't registered and was empty of any record of a gas leak test AND no cert for the replacing of the failed gas hose....the same hose that actually caused the explosion........think on that.....


BUT THERE IS A COPY ON THEIR WEBSITE OF THIS CERT.......it carries a disclaimer on accuracy ...... as does ALL the certs on the "fox-pro" system....



That CPD stuck in your throat yet?  We are the ones incompetent until we prove otherwise? Think on that......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 08:00:39 AM
I have reason to believe that it was Darnley who installed the fryers; please see the handwriting samples supplied to you just recently also attached.
 


I have provided hand-writing experts who believe that the words "fryer" as well as other words on the job card for the explosion....match the hand-writing on a signed sample of writing attributable to Mr Darnley, when the investigator "asked" Darnley about the handwriting on the job card Darnley didn't "recognise" his own handwriting......now the Board has considerably convincing  evidence that Darnley may have lied to the investigator about who added the fryers details to the job card....and in all probability fitted the fryers, lowered the pipe......the lowered pipe that caused the explosion by stressing the hose.....the hose that was sold weeks after I left Darnley's employ.......left because of concerns about dangerous work.


I complained to the Board for the next six years before the explosion about dodgy work covered by dodgy certs.....



If anyone can think of a dodgyier situation concerning dodgy certs and dodgy work please let me know......the cert wasn't registered(bullshit) and lacked test results and ended in an explosion.....that pretty dodgy?


But they think they have addressed it........replace addressed with "covered up" and I might buy it.......think about this state of affairs.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 08:08:12 AM

I would also complain that after altering my initial install and changing the gas cylinder supply set up and changing the hose ( the hose mentioned above, the one that caused the explosion) that a further certificate wasn’t issued.


Apparently, even though the investigator appeared in a Board newsletter "info brief" just the month before the explosion.....about how alterations to any install requires a cert.....AND he withheld  the photos proving what I had maintained about some one had altered my original work, something I had said right at the beginning.....before they had Darnley's charge disappear before his hearing........

As far as I know no cert was issued or registered for that matter re- any alterations....but the Board faced with this irrefutable evidence.....believe that they have addressed this complaint...........those male bovines have the runs apparently.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 08:43:51 AM
I would also take this chance, to yet, again lay a complaint about the legionnaire’s risk, installed by Mr Darnley. Please see attachment, this dwelling has central heating with radiators, an impossibility with out contaminating the hot water supply when heated with the califont on the cert. You have this blatant evidence, please act on it. It is very dangerous plumbing and this is your jurisdiction, no one else’s. Please note it is that time of year where the thermostatic heads on the radiators are opening and the 11 year old water is being atomised by the elderly mans shower (any plumber worth his salt would know this to be a ticking time bomb, a matter of when not if there will be an issue, it has the potential to kill.)

Now in this complaint.... the only "action" that the Board have taken that I know of, is they have twice told the local council.....the same people who have signed off a building compliance cert......

So.....
 For this complaint... the Board have a signed cert, a complaint from me, a diagram of how bad it is... it concerns some god awful plumbing.......but they act like it isn't their jurisdiction.....oh and its signed off in Darnley's name.......the guy who faced a charge but it disappeared for an explosion, remember the same guy who got gifted his licence by the investigator and didn't register a cert at the site of an explosion (even though there is a copy on the Board's electronic register), with all copies missing the GAS LEAK TEST RESULTS ......in an explosion caused by the altering of the pipework that supplied the hose that caused the explosion, with no further cert issued for this work.....even thought he investigator appeared in the "info brief" saying alterations should be certed......deep breath.......what is the meaning of corruption, how corrupt do you have to be, before it is called corrupt?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 08:45:01 AM
The amazing thing is if it is one of us......it must be dealt with....for the integrity of the trade.....


So what happens when one of them are found wanting??
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 08:52:21 AM
Now this complaint doesn't involve Darnley, it involves someone totally different, but it does go toward showing that the Board were targeting me, I am the only common thread between all this......take me out of it.....they don't give a winged feck about it, even though I believe it is a fraud.....they think they have addressed it. The only thing that I know of that they have done is send out a letter, before my hearing, that said I was capable of acting illegally in Northland, I have never even been to Northland. They didn't even find out about this until my hearing and have done nothing since to fix this dangerous work......


And I would also complain about the manipulation of the gas certificates at Powick Street, by my reckoning it is missing at least 2 certificates for work carried out, and as far as I know it still has the lpg cylinders on the deck, this was of such concern that the Board laid charges against myself. As I have proved that it was impossible for me to have done this, I would complain about the person who did. According to your correspondence you have made no other contact to the owner of Powick Street, other than the letter that said I was capable of acting illegally in Northland which was sent out before my hearing, my hearing showed this manipulation and the Board have done nothing. Just for the record I have never been to Northland.



this is copied an pasted from my other submission to MPs.......

1.   This is one of the charges that concern me the most, other than the site of the explosion, not because of the persecution of my self.....but the total inaction after the hearing. (and yet another set of charges amended to better fit just before hearing)

2.   I was charged with placing cylinders on a deck, as I was the last person there, which I was not.

3.   This charge is quite complex, but can be boiled down to just one set of facts and invoices. Ignoring the reasoning offered by the investigator as it is nonsensical because the unit wasn't even manufactured when he says it was installed (as evidenced by the serial number on the side of the unit) and the original cert, not issued by myself.

4.   The set of facts are born out by invoicing from the local Caltex who sold all the water heaters involved.(G1) 3 units, with only 2 being accounted for in the certs.

5.   This invoicing shows that, initially, a 24 ltr model was sold and fitted on the 26/7/2001 as collaborated by the cert 207367  issued at that time (not by me) and this Caltex invoicing (G1 & 2)

6.   But then 9/10/2001, some two months later, the 24ltr was returned and a 32 ltr sold, replacing the unit insitu, but with no other cert issued for this new 32 ltr unit.(G2)

7.   Then further 24ltr unit sold 14/1/05, 6 months after my visit mentioned below, which corresponds to the serial number on the unit on site, but makes the first original cert for a 24ltr unit redundant, I believe this was when the gas cylinders were placed on the deck. (G1)

8.   Now bear in mind that I was brought in only to relocate the 32ltr unit and not move any cylinders, on the 20/7/04 (6 months before the second unit was sold, mentioned in point 7 above), as is backed by my invoice, job sheet and cert 319000, marked as alteration only.(G3 & 4)

9.   My concern is that, as with the explosion at Milton Street and the adding of a cooker at Greenwood St, no one has thought to pursue this potential fraud and find anyone accountable for this substandard work and manipulation of certs.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 09:03:27 AM

Also I would complain that even though someone nearly died because of bad, very bad gasfitting and shoddy practices, that no one has been held responsible for nearly killing Ron Clark.


Now this one I find totally offensive and appalling......the Board seem to think that addressing this issue, is to try to frame me, and have Darnley's charge disappear before trial, ignoring evidence and photos and conflicts of interest.....with no one to this day held responsible for nearly killing a man, ruining his business in the process and having a huge detrimental effect of at least tow families, mine and Ron's.........


Fancy some CPD on ethics Craig O'Connell or perhaps some CPD on "getting results at work"......funny thing is... if I call him a corrupt, four eyed useless cunt then I am the one not acting professionally......so I won't do that then....

A guy laid in intensive care burns unit .......the Board covered it up at the same time and since.......


I don't believe these people have earned the right to pontificate to the tradesman of this country about safety, training, integrity and definitely not about competency, or even competency.....sorry did I say competency twice......CPD......Cunts Pretending Decency....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 09:09:56 AM
Here is how the charges that the Board trumped up against me, 44 charges changed at the last minute.....each address had several lesser and greater charges, so if one failed then they could use the next set.....



Paul Gee PGDB Disciplinary Hearing

Summary of Charges


They doubled up the charges at each address to make all up 44 charges, these were laid and I answered 42 charges. Being found 95% innocent of any wrong doing is a very good result, but if this other 5% of charges were “up-held” (and were aided to be up-held by the investigators mate chairing the hearing, who then stopped the hearing just as we were questioning the investigator specifically about this very 5% of the charges). And it was all done as a last grasp at keeping a 100% conviction rate (openly boasted about), and done to save face and justify a $220 000.00 price tag, with still no one held accountable for a near fatal explosion….. Well it is reprehensible and a true reflection of the arrogance and the lows these people will stoop to protect their ego's, positions, salaries and reputations.

Please before you read this summary of charges below, please read and bear in mind these points and then the 3 documents listed below and attached.

•   Nearly 50% of the charges were amended at the last minute, application for amendments made on 1/2/11, the hearing on the 3/5/11, after over 2 years of investigation.

•   Evidence, photos and notes were withheld and misrepresented.

•   Huge conflicts of interest ignored and witnesses added just days out from hearing.

•   Mr Bickers, the soon to be Board Chair (now left) was on the panel for my hearing and he witnessed what I am about to tell you about in these charges first hand. Of note Mr Bickers runs a course called the “Role of the Processional Witness”, specifically about a hearings procedure and its goal of achieving a proper and fair outcome.

Doc 1. Mr Bickers further sullying of my reputation in my local news paper, just days after the hearing. See attachment B1, (B1).

Doc 2. The so called “apology” from the Board, signed by Mr Bickers. This letter referred to in the apology, in my opinion, prejudiced all additional sites prior to my hearing, all sites other than the site of the explosion, with a very “un”- truth, implying that I was capable of acting in an unlawful manner. It was sent to areas spanning my whole business history, with the Mot high school, right in the middle, which I believe was no mistake.(B2).

Doc 3.  All or at the very least 3 years of my work was audited, this is evidenced by the time gap in the investigation and also a letter from a Board lawyer and a comment on an MPs letter, but the investigator states only 10 % was audited. (B3 & 4)

See below for the Charges and how they were dis-proven. I ask you will this “justice” help our country, industry or protect the public. I kept my licenses, but lost my reputation, home and business, and now nearly 50% of licences are being uplifted for this year, almost half tradesman not bothering.
 


Please note, it is not an exhaustive list of proof and concerns, and I have tried to be brief.........
Milton Street chipshop.

1.   This is the site of the explosion that started this whole affair. I proved that the initial install of pipe work had in all probability been altered along its entire length from how I had originally installed it. I installed a “pre-pipe” under instruction from my then boss John Darnley. All evidence for the person responsible for these alterations I believe pointing to Darnley or someone under his direction, but he was never asked about it.

2.   The bayonets were lowered, as evidenced by the withheld photos showing screw holes of previous position and the pipe falling from the corner of the room to the position of the Bayonets which is contrary to all the other “audit” photos of my work. These withheld photos were taken by the forensic expert, these photos only became apparent to me at the hearing, but were available to the investigator very early on and reaffirmed what I had maintained for two years. Over 120 photos were taken with only about 11 made available.

3.    I had completed my involvement with the installation on the 15th, as evidenced by the date of the leak test date (of note the 15 of this test date being in a different colour ink to the rest of the cert, and not in my hand), but the offending fryers were delivered on 24th . (B5 & 6)

4.   There was a pizza oven installed half way along, one year later. The cert for the pizza oven being the one that wasn't registered by Darnley, as per the Board. This “pizza” cert lacked any information entered into the gas leak test field on all available copies (all copies available are totally in Darnley’s name). The Board were aware of this “non” registration, just 9 days after the explosion. Of note there appears a copy of this cert on the PG&DB electronic register, a total impossibility if not registered. (B7 & 8)

5.   Three hoses were sold for two fryers, the offending hose had split so near to completion of the job that it was part of the original invoicing. But when the owner told the investigator, he told him it didn't interest him, Mr Clark told me this. (B9)

6.   The cylinder station/bottle bank had been altered to feed off both gas cylinders simultaneously, in all probability to accommodate the added extra load of the pizza oven. This is evidenced by the fittings sold and invoiced for in the initial billing and the different fittings present in the photo's taken just after the explosion.(B10 & 11)

7.   Not one part of my initial install went unaltered, from the start at the cylinder station, the middle where the pizza oven was installed, to the end where the bayonets were lowered (not by me) with the fryers added (not by me) after my initial “pre pipe” job.

8.   It appears to me that the bayonets were lowered to allow the fryers to sit further back to the wall, as the fryers have a cavity underneath, and this lowering and turning of the fitting was why the hoses failed after pinching against the floor. And probably would have been done when the fryers were installed, not by me. My involvement is also evidenced by the job card, showing no fryers, and with the words “install bayonets and test”, in my hand. (B12). The entry for the fryers on the front of this Job card, not in my hand, but same as the hand writing on the certificate . All this known to the investigator very early on when I told him in my voluntary interviews, in all probability when he had the withheld photos.

9.   The comment that the sheath had been cut away from the hoses, again not by me.(B13)

10.   Still to this day one has been held accountable for this explosion, with all, if not most, of this referenced evidence available to the investigator. (B14)

Main Rd, Havelock

1.   Even though the investigator had said to me at interview that the site had been unaltered since my initial install of a fryer in 15th Jul 03,(the appliance at the focus of the charge), there were a further two certs issued for this site. Both these certs 629404 and 623527 were for work in the kitchen, with one dated 4th Sept and 29th Jan both in 09.

2.    The audit being done on 3rd Sept 09 (C1). The cert date for 629404 was the day after the audit. The work signed off in this cert 629404 for 4th Sept is considerable and would not be done in a day and would involve moving all my work.

3.   Of note the hand writing of the word “fryer” on this Allgas job sheet is identical to the word “fryer” on the Milton Allgas Job sheet and the appliance is drawn in, which isn’t drawn in the Milton St job sheet. Of note this would probably have been written by an office worker who passed out the work, but no one from the office was interviewed. (C 2, 3 &4)

4.   The work in these certs, in all probability, would have involved moving my original install, but I was unable to check because all work had been removed when I had the gone there to check after I had the charges laid.

5.   All this information of certified work would have been available to the investigator if he had done a cert check on the address, which I think he should have before making any comments about it being unchanged or pressing any charges. In all probability the work was either still in progress or very recently completed.


Greenwood St Motueka

1.   I had installed the water heater and gas cylinder station, but the cooker was installed at a later date and added to the certificate, not by me. But in saying this, the kitchen wasn't there when the cooker was installed and the customer stated his friend had removed the restraining chain on the cooker (the basis for the original charges), when this was pointed out to the inspector he requested and was granted for the charges to be amended to focus on the pipe in the wall and not the clearances to the worktop and the absence of a restraining chain. (D1)

2.   Then at the hearing the owner said on testifying, he remembered someone else coming back to fit the cooker. (D2)

3.   The blue carbon copy shows a differing of pressure on the carbon sheet for the line written for the cooker and when taken into account the other certs with writing present on the pink master copy, but absent on the carbon copies and other alteration (all available to the Board prior and dismissed as vexatious by Kern Uren (D 3 & 4, also see H.B. 9), I believe the cooker was added after my initial install to both the site and the certificate.

4.   Someone else at Allgas had no problem acting in my name, as evidenced in the letter issued in my name to alter a cert, 3 months after I had left (H.B.5), ironically this letter has “never seen this or authorised it”, written across the top of it in my hand writing, done when I became aware of it.

5.   Basically if I was found not guilty of installing the cooker, who did? The Board did not pursue this either.

6.   I was told, by Darnley, from day one to fill out a job sheet, the office staff would then take the info from the job sheet to fill out the certs, for me to then sign.

7.   I was told by Darnley that they would file the copies and register with the Board. It was the biggest mistake of my career, if not my life. I trusted them to do what they had said. When I handed back the certs signed and with all 4 copies still together, the 3 carbon copies still attached to the master copy, with no handwriting of my own, only my signature, I had made the gravest judgment and regret it to this day. I believed the company would do as they said. From my time of leaving Darnley’s employment, I spent the next 6 years trying to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work, up until the explosion nearly killed someone.

8.   I know of another contractor who had a similar experience, when he notified the Board, HE was audited!!!,


8 Ball Unit Motueka High School

1.   Another set of charges amended just prior to the hearing. (D1) Amended to better fit after I had told the investigator that I did not know the cage was to be fitted, the cage that was fitted not allowing enough ventilation, which was the basis for these charges.

2.   When the charge was amended to “I should have known it was to be fitted” because of the exposure to cars, I showed an aerial photograph that proved the car park had been altered considerably since the original install, which led to the witness, brought in just days out from the hearing, to exclaim that had she seen this aerial photo she would never had signed the statement. (E1).

3.   This photo graph was obtained by me from the Tasman District Council and proved beyond doubt what I had told the investigator.

4.   Of note the witness statement was prepared by the investigators lawyer after he had in his own words, briefed the witness, also of note is some of the other witnesses refused to sign their “own” statements.


Dommett St Westport

1.   The letter from the owner reflects the attitude of the investigator, and is quite damning about the investigators behaviour. (F1)

2.   But regardless of the window being secured, I still believe it to have been safe even with the window being open; the charges were for the clearance to the opening window to the flue of the water heater. (F 2, 3 &4)



Powick St Westport

1.   This is one of the charges that concern me the most, other than the site of the explosion, not because of the persecution of my self.....but the total inaction after the hearing. (and yet another set of charges amended to better fit just before hearing)

2.   I was charged with placing cylinders on a deck, as I was the last person there, which I was not.

3.   This charge is quite complex, but can be boiled down to just one set of facts and invoices. Ignoring the reasoning offered by the investigator as it is nonsensical because the unit wasn't even manufactured when he says it was installed (as evidenced by the serial number on the side of the unit) and the original cert, not issued by myself.

4.   The set of facts are born out by invoicing from the local Caltex who sold all the water heaters involved.(G1) 3 units, with only 2 being accounted for in the certs.

5.   This invoicing shows that, initially, a 24 ltr model was sold and fitted on the 26/7/2001 as collaborated by the cert 207367  issued at that time (not by me) and this Caltex invoicing (G1 & 2)

6.   But then 9/10/2001, some two months later, the 24ltr was returned and a 32 ltr sold, replacing the unit insitu, but with no other cert issued for this new 32 ltr unit.(G2)

7.   Then further 24ltr unit sold 14/1/05, 6 months after my visit mentioned below, which corresponds to the serial number on the unit on site, but makes the first original cert for a 24ltr unit redundant, I believe this was when the gas cylinders were placed on the deck. (G1)

8.   Now bear in mind that I was brought in only to relocate the 32ltr unit and not move any cylinders, on the 20/7/04 (6 months before the second unit was sold, mentioned in point 7 above), as is backed by my invoice, job sheet and cert 319000, marked as alteration only.(G3 & 4)

9.   My concern is that, as with the explosion at Milton Street and the adding of a cooker at Greenwood St, no one has thought to pursue this potential fraud and find anyone accountable for this substandard work and manipulation of certs.


Malvern Ave, Nelson

1.   This is the one and only site where charges were found to be substantiated; of note it is also the only site to where I freely admitted to all work and certification. The charges were for clearance to an opening window from a power flued water heater.

2.   I believe this was the charge that they held on to just to keep their 100% conviction rate boasting rights and their attempt of justifying a $220 000.00 prosecution cost.

3.   I drew a diagram of how I knew the fumes to act, blown away from the building some 3 metres before rising (H 1)

4.   Please see also available at the hearing –

•   My 2 x diagrams from the Hearing (H 1).
•   Photo of the “offending” heater (H 2)
•   Rinnai Doc (H3)
•   Statement of owner, saying no fumes entering the building (H4)
•   Hammonds comment if the fumes were not entering it was safe(H5)
•   Contradictory nature of table 16, with amendments. (H6)
•   Numerous statements from NZ 5261, stating the use of overseas regs and the non mandatory and mandatory sections.(H7)

Of Note this is the charge that the Chair (Mr Hammond’s long time colleague) stepped in and called the hearing to a close, it is the one last remaining charge and the sole reason for further sullying my name and still to this day with the Board’s website inferring that it is me that is incompetent.


And since the hearing….. None of which was allowed to be adduced at high court (although the Investigator applied and was allowed to adduce a document giving weight to the Board’s “expertise”), I was restricted by Board policy, but this below further proves it was safe-

•   British Standard, known to me but not mentioned at my hearing (H8)
•   Hardy’s British history, being the only certifying gasfitter at my hearing and on the panel for the Board at my hearing (H9)
•   Email from co-author of NZ 5261 (H10)
•   Emails of explanation of other gasfitters. (H11)
•   Email from the owner, after my hearing. (H12)

1.   If it is safe, it is safe and I still, to this day, believe this job was safe, I offered far more proof of this safe operation at the hearing, the only evidence offered by the investigator was the amended table 16 from NZ5261, which is contradictory in application, re- spa blowers and amendments.

2.   NZ5261 was co-authored by the investigator, and he would in all probability, not want it to fail.

3.   If this charge had not been held to have substance then I would have been 100% innocent. I think it wrong that you are guilty until proven innocent.

As well as the 3 points I asked you to read above before reading the charges, points 3.1 to 3.3 under heading “Summary of Charges”, please also bear in mind-

•   I did an “assessment” and not the, proscribed by the Board, “course of instruction” as my punishment and I was found to be in the top 10% ever assessed by the Board appointed assessor. Out of principle I did this with no preparation, revision or study.
•   I had also for 6 years before the explosion warned about dodgy work being covered by dodgy certs.....warning against none other than Darnley, the man who was empowered by the “impartial” investigator, Tony Hammond, after just one oral exam.
•   It was Hammond who was appointed impartial investigator to attend a hearing overseen by his very well known colleague Stephen Parker Executive Director of GANZ, who he presented seminars with under the GANZ banner, as a technical adviser to GANZ and nominated by GANZ to co-author NZ5261 and organising the Kennedy Trust together with Parker.
•   Hammond AND Parker being appointed AFTER my protests to Hammond’s impartiality at a stay of proceedings hearing. The old excuse, that a small plumbing community is bound to have people who know each other…..which is an insult to capabilities of the other 4 million kiwis.
•   I have been told that Darnley was a member of numerous gas industry groups, as is Hammond and Parker. Darnley, Parker and Hammond are members of NZIGE, Darnley “resigning” just weeks after the explosion.
•   Hammond having a very long history in NZIGE, which is an arm of IPENZ, and he also previously served on the PG&D Board for 15 years.
•   Mr Bickers has a long history in IPENZ. These long histories of both men are similar in length of time and the standing/position achieved in their respective Institute in that time as members.
The worst part about this, apart from the very destructive and stressful effects on my family, it emboldens those with “contacts” to thumb their nose at the safety and responsibility entrusted them.              This will not help the industry or protect the public going forward.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 25, 2015, 09:15:03 AM
I will keep you posted about how the Board reply to my Official Information Act request on how they have addressed my complaints......remember you can't complain about the disciplinary process and you are guilty until you prove your innocence......I believe I did prove my innocence.....but that isn't enough either.....

Good luck guys trying to protect yourselves on an install you did years ago with no photo taken of how you left it......lots of luck with that one....

Like I said will let you know the reply to my OIA request......the OIA was brought in to prevent corruption......remember that too......bear that in mind if they fob me off........
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on July 02, 2015, 06:27:31 PM
I have had one reply..... Mr Key knows about this cover up.......mine are not views if I have irrefutable proof, it is fact......

Should get a reply to my OIA request to show me where my complaints were addressed, I am pretty sure they have definitely not been, by the 17th of July, but its a Friday so I will wait until the 20th before registering my complaint to the Ombudsman.



Dear Mr Gee

I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, Rt Hon John Key, to acknowledge your email of 11 June 2015 concerning the issues you are having to get the person responsible for the gas explosion at the Milton Street Chip shop held accountable.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Prime Minister and share your views.

Yours sincerely




You have to ask in these times of tradesman shortages and housing crisis how important this is to the government.....I would have thought it would be very important.....that all these houses that are being rushed through are being done properly and we aren't going to be suffering in the future?

But it seems like it doesn't matter because its "User Pays....and the tradie takes all the responsibility".....hands free governing, just taking the tax....sad....I just hope the user only pays with money and not health or any family....

I have seen the worst of it.....it needs fixing with those responsible held to account so that those that follow are aware and sure that if they doing anything dodgy then they will be taken to account.....other wise it is just bullshit....



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on July 02, 2015, 06:55:35 PM
And my reply.....





Thank you Ann,

 

Please can you pass on my thanks for taking the time to reply to me, I assure you if it was not a dire situation I would not bother the Prime Minister with anything trivial, I have literally tried every where else, I apologise for taking up any of his time, but I am trying to fix this not just for myself but for the NZ public.

 

 

Please can you let me know if anything is to be done? I have a wealth of evidence and can prove that the Board have -

 

·         Covered up a shocking administering of the gas certificate system that was entrusted to them.

 

·         Covered up an explosion where a man nearly died, charging who I think caused the explosion, but then having this charge disappear before his hearing. With no one to date held responsible, but they tried to frame me for this.

 

·         Covered up a manipulation of the cert system that I believe may be fraud, ignoring dangerous work.

 

·         Ignored other dangerous work, that could kill if left un changed, one of them a huge legionnaires’ disease risk

 

·         The explosion they framed me for, was a situation that I had tried for 6 years to avoid before the explosion.

 

There is much much more to this, this list is far from exhaustive.

 

I have to point out, with all due respect, that these are not views if they are backed by irrefutable proof. I have copied in my fellow members of the Plumbers Federation. I am pleading for someone to please look at this.

 

I ask you what would happen if someone gets hurt or killed?

 

I am happy to discuss this and provide the proof I speak of. I have posted a lot, not all, of the evidence on line on this forum, link below-

 

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/?topic=1810.new#new

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on July 15, 2015, 07:11:02 AM
I just watched John Banks the MP on the Paul Henry breakfast show.....

.....he's livid because he was persecuted with evidence hidden in order to convict him.....he has the money to fight it.......he gets it over turned and can claim for expenses to keep his reputation intact......this was over whether or not he knew he was given a large sum of money to fund his political aspirations......(lots of money floating around here).....

.....I tried to warn about a public safety situation for 6 years, then when it happened and someone nearly died in an explosion, I too was persecuted with evidence withheld.......

Spot the difference.......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Still feel you live in a fair and just system.....One guy can argue about whether he was given tens of thousands of dollars knowingly.......another tries to warn about a dire safety system entrusted with keeping the NZ public safe... then I get framed for it........


Which one will get justice?


Oh wait there I am just a mere plumber who crawls though shit......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on July 16, 2015, 06:36:25 AM
The thing is...... you've seen how much evidence I have posted, I know the Board have seen it and MPs and lots of others.....


Here is the stinger...... all these people have such little regard for us that they aren't even bothered that you have seen this blatant evidence....

You got to ask......

Wouldn't an organisation be beside itself, trying every way to answer the very uncomfortable questions this blatant evidence raises, to explain it and/or deny it.....

ESPECIALLY....if this irrefutable evidence came out and was widely read by the very industry it represents.....I think it would and should if......IF   they had any regard or respect for us or the industry.....


But I don't believe they have a scrap of any for us, you'll do as your told and be happy with it......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on July 18, 2015, 11:31:52 AM
Just a thought the Board totally based their whole case for my last charge out of 44…..on Hammond’s “opinion”…..a chemical engineer with no gas fitting experience, who was gifted his ticket and had massive conflicts of interest……we seen the photos of how the fumes actually behave and the part he “enforced” was non mandatory!

 

Where’s that dealing with unreasonable people policy again…..

 
Not forgetting they have ignored a huge legionnaires risk and covered up for a badly run certificate system that resulted in an explosion....

Not to mention ignoring a fraud and manipulation of the same badly run cert system......


I can't believe I can publically make such a comment and not receive a letter from the most trigger happy of industry boards.....think on that...
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on August 01, 2015, 07:02:08 PM
I found this on a Dept of justice web site.....you seen the evidence below.....


What are warnings signs of corruption?

Some of the warning signs that your business has been exposed to corrupt activity include:

 abnormally high profit margins
 business arrangements that serve no apparent commercial purpose
 reimbursement requests for undefined costs relating to goods or services
 unusually high and unjustified commission payments
 apparent ‘special’ treatment.



Talk about 100% on the score card......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 22, 2015, 06:25:42 PM

Minister booted out of parliament


Building and Housing minister Nick Smith has been ordered out of parliament after a spat with Assistant Speaker Trevor Mallard.



Dr Smith was taking a bill through its committee stage on Tuesday when he made a remark which wasn't picked up by the microphones.



But Mr Mallard, who was sitting next to him, heard it and ordered Dr Smith to apologise.



The minister apologised, but despite that was ordered to leave.



On his way out he said something else that upset Mr Mallard, who sent National's whips out to find him and bring him back.



When he returned, Mr Mallard ordered him to apologise for a comment he had made "indicating bias on behalf of the chair" as he left the debating chamber.



Dr Smith apologised - and was again ordered out.




So have a read of my posts and compare, Nick Smith has a problem with a "biased chair" apparently.......here some bias for you Nick.....my chair was good friends with the investigator.....who stopped my hearing just as I was to go 100% innocent....

Same investigator who spent 7 times as much money over 200 k chasing me than my old boss....about 30k.......but then the investigator did award my old boss his full certifying license after a chat and the cert system that the investigator lobbied for was found wanting and inaccurate...


All this resulting in an explosion......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 22, 2015, 07:19:48 PM
.......perhaps someone could show Mr Mallard this thread and ask Mr Mallard if the chair that Mr Smith has complained about is as conflicted and biased as the chair that stole my life off me.....and has since been ignored by Nick Smith.......apparently we have different levels of "bias"......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: bugman on September 23, 2015, 04:57:15 PM
I'm new to this topic, but have your thought about going to the media. Its a shame that Campbell live has finished, but what about TV3 STORY 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 23, 2015, 05:31:32 PM
I have tried lots of places, media and papers and everything I can think of....pretty sure I tried all of them.....what would work is if the programme was contacted by lots of us, perhaps they might listen then?

Its got it all, an explosion, a cover up, conflicts of interest and all done at a risk to the NZ public.......it needs publicity, I am more than happy to front up to anything to push this into the light. Nearly 11 and a half thousand views....

Thanks Bugman for the feed back and ideas.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 23, 2015, 05:33:31 PM
Just copy the link to this stream and send it into the TV 3 , the more the merrier.....perhaps if I do something crazy then they might be interested?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 23, 2015, 05:36:59 PM
http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg9912#msg9912


There's the link send it in guys, it would be great if they received a heap of emails asking how the Board could do this to someone, steal their life and let someone guilty go free.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 23, 2015, 05:46:43 PM

 
 
 

Today at 5:45 PM 




 Thank you for contacting Story. We will be in touch shortly. 



See what happens
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 23, 2015, 10:16:29 PM
Please take the time to read this whole thread, it is story about how I tried to warn about dodgy gasfitting work covered by a dodgy certs and a dodgy cert system, I tried to warn for 6 years.....then an explosion nearly killed someone.....the Board framed me and hid evidence and changed 50% of the charges to better fit....I still blew 42 charges out of the water, the last charge is bullshit.....


I later found out that the man I was warning about (my old boss) was gifted his full certifying gas license it was gifted to him by the same person who was later appointed to investigate my old boss....all members of the same gas industry groups.....

I also found out that the gas safety system was so floored it had to carry a disclaimer.....

My old boss faced a charge for the explosion.....but it disappeared......


The Board spent well over 200K going after me......but only spent about 30k going after my old boss......


Guess who got paid handsomely out of this......the investigator and his chums.....


The chair of my hearing, was good mates with the investigator......along with several Board members, the investigator was ex Board too.....just as I was going to go 100% innocent the biased chair shut down the hearing......

THE BOARD SENT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASE NOTES TO MY HOME, READ BY MY WIFE BEFORE I CAME HOME, JUST BEFORE WE WERE FORCED TO SELL OUR HOME, I WORKED AWAY FOR 2 YEARS TO GET BY.


NO ONE TODAY HAS BEEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR NEARLY KILLING SOMEONE.....EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A WEALTH OF IRRIFUTABLE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND KNOWN......BY THE BOARD AND THE MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE


I LOST EVERYTHING ......



The new registrar reckons it is all water under the bridge......well the Board just celebrated 100 years of being, not its 100th incarnation or its 100th new member, it is a continuous membership.....

IF YOU COVER IT UP, YOU'RE AS BAD AS THE ONES THAT CARRIED OUT THE CORRUPTION.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 23, 2015, 10:17:27 PM
SHARE IT AROUND THE NZ PUBLIC ARE PUT AT RISK BY THE PEOPLE CHARGED WITH THEIR SAFETY.....IT IS WRONG
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 24, 2015, 06:19:34 PM
Sent to the registrar today   






Here is a copy of what is posted publically on a forum, the thread shows a lot , not all of the evidence of the corrupt behaviour of the board, it is wrong and I am not going to stand for it and I do not think the NZ public should either.




I will do everything I can to flush this out in to the open.




It is the Board's responsibility it is a continuous member Board and has recently celebrated its 100 year anniversary....as no one there is over 100 years old, so I am guessing that the excuse of all this being water under the bridge is just a cover up.   




What I have said has been said in public, if it is untrue I expect to shown where it is untrue.




The Board did this to me and any new members have a duty to address any past corruption or you are part of that corruption.     
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on September 24, 2015, 09:06:46 PM
hi guys, Paul (Badger) the new registrar has stated In the `Plumbers Journal` that he is approachable and if you have a problem just give me a call,... so do you think that you should give him a ring,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 06:13:50 AM
I told him face to face with two others there Craig O'Connell and Richard Meriwether......at the "feed back session" in Nelson, I told them everything....then I sent them stuff too. There was only two of us there and we were both not happy, believe me he knew my story.


They all told me that I should get over it and they were the new guys so it didn't apply to them..... but I told them it is a consecutive membership Board who has just celebrated 100 years of BEING......not its 100th new member.


As far as I am concerned if any new guys cover up any corruption then they might as well have done it themselves and are just as bad.


One thing the new registrar did say which I found quite enlightening was that he couldn't apologise because it would leave the Board exposed to legal action!   

So take note he didn't  say what I was saying was untrue, or that I was wrong or had misunderstood anything.....he said this after he told me I was just after money and I replied no I just want my life back and an apology to my wife for the child sexual abuse case notes sent to my home.

I would be happy if the Board left me were I was just before they framed me. Both financially and in my reputation.....are they going to put my kids through collage.....because before they corruptly set me up as a scape goat....I could have done that my self. Now I can barely feed them.

Believe me they are aware.....it is my experience that what is said publically....they do the opposite behind closed doors and while they stab you in the back.





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 06:47:36 AM
A guy nearly died in an explosion, all the evidence points to one person, not me (the desired scapegoat) but my ex boss.

My ex boss faced a charge, but it disappeared before he went to his hearing.

They spent 220 k on chasing me and 30k chasing my ex boss.

As far as I know my ex boss was gifted his full certifying gas license after one oral exam, before this he was a gas salesman with an exception. The Board later appointed the same guy who gifted my old boss his license as the investigator, at a hearing chaired by the investigators mate. This very biased chair closed the hearing just as I was going to clear my name 100%.....

The Board knew my old boss didn't register a certificate for a pizza oven fitted a year after the fryers(a year after I left his employ), this pizza oven installed at the site of the explosion, they knew this 9 days after the explosion. Even though the Board claim to have never received this certificate (which all available carbon copies show the test for leaks section empty)....it appears on their electronic web site, how on earth can you say it wasn't registered if it appears on the website, same number, same appliance same everything, it is a lie.....Question   how would the Board look if it accepted a cert missing a test for leaks that then exploded? Installed by a guy who hadn't done an apprenticeship, but given full qualification by the Board to sign off work?

In the photos supplied by the Board they included a picture of a hose being stressed....its was for the pizza oven mentioned above......but they withheld over 100 photos.....some of which proved I was innocent.


The charge that started all this I was cleared of, but the still went after me in the papers for one bullshit charge (out of 44) so I was found 95% innocent of my charges...my old boss 100% guilty of his charges (except the exploding chipshop, because that disappeared)


Of the charges he did face and was found guilty of all his other charges, all of them....... 75% of these involved gas supplies to commercial cooking equipment and the incorrect/dangerous installation of the hose and a lack of restraint.......exactly what caused the explosion at the chipshop, that nearly killed a guy, while he was in intensive care, they were framing me.....


All the new guys at the Board think this is water under the bridge, I strongly disagree.......what do you think?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 06:54:08 AM
......of the quarter of a million dollars spent on these two cases.....remember if it cost this amount, then people were paid this money.....a good chunk of it was paid to the investigator, the guy who framed me.....nice work if you can get it.....



Water under the bridge????? its a f****ing tsunami of bullshit....


If these new board members brush this under the carpet, then they are as good as condoning it......

The thing with brushing things under the carpet it creates a trip hazard for the future.



I also told these new Board members about the legionnaires risk at a site where the water comes out of the shower after living in the radiators all summer, and I do mean living....I even offered to walk them to it and show them......they do nothing.....



Just bear all this in mind the next time you hear them pontificating about safe work and going after cowboys.....its all smoke and mirrors....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 07:22:51 AM
The same investigator, the one who gifted the full certifying license to my old boss......well he lobbied for deregulation and was instrumental in bringing in the self cert system....the same cert system shown to be wanting, by my old boss....he also was a co author on the NZ 5261.....

The table he used to screw me over on, the non mandatory flue clearance table......


Have a look at it, you can put a spa blower(which actually sucks from outside in to usually one of the smallest rooms, i.e. a bathroom) closer to a flue than a passive open window.....these spa blowers move a lot of air, then put it into a steam filled bathroom......where you sit in the air sucked in and expelled by the sap blower, right under you nose.......it is contradictory.


You seen the photos on here of how a powered flue actually behaves.....



The biased Board put their full faith in the biased investigator, for my final charge, if that disappeared then the one for signing it off disappeared too.....100% innocent, even though they spent 220k going after me with a very biased investigator and a stacked panel at the hearing.....



I did nothing wrong and lost everything.......The registrar thinks I am just after money..........





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: bugman on September 25, 2015, 07:28:11 AM
Have just PM the" Story" facebook page and gave them the link{cause they wont be members will they be able to se the link}
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 05:09:11 PM
Should be able to, publicity is the only thing that will fix this.....


Thank you so much mate

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 05:33:05 PM
Just came home to a letter from the new registrar informing me that the poor elderly couple's complaint about fumes entering their home through a window from a califont.....well they aren't going to act on it, this is the complaint where the poor old couple had resorted to taking anti stress medication....it is closer than the one in my final charge.....

Exactly the same situation as the califont concerned with my final charge (except my one is further away) oh and the owner never complained and he thought it was in the best place it could be, and that no fumes was entering his home in the 6 years that he had lived there.......this cost me my business and they went after me for it........

The one of the elderly couple is much more enclosed and a lack of cross ventilation.......the califont in my situation couldn't be more open and the fumes are shot right across the back garden.......if you look back on this thread you'll se what I mean with the photos and smoke bomb.....

So what do you think about the new regime now?

I went quite for a bit because I wanted to give the new guys a chance to act and make a difference......not so it seems.....


Right ideas for a crazy headline grabbing stunt......answers on a post card....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 05:37:29 PM
That is the only charge they had on me after all that persecution....and the last charge was for signing this califont off......I would have been 100 % innocent....


But they kept hold of this last charge when it was allowing them to stich me up....... stich me up for something that they aren't going to pursue when an elderly couple actually complains about it.......and they are totally stressed by it.......


CUNTS.....THERE IS NO OTHER WORD FOR THEM, TOTAL AND UTTER CUNTS
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2015, 07:25:54 PM
I answered 42 out of 44 trumped up charges and the one thing they found me "guilty" of........they have decided to ignore in another much worse situation......


Can anyone explain this to me....

I have done nothing wrong, at all, no matter which way you look at it.....I was found "guilty based on the opinion of a very conflicted person who had everything to cover up.....

According to Nick Smith our minister, the same guy trying to inflict the same type of self cert system on the building trade......he told me I had gone too far!!!


Really Mr Smith?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 26, 2015, 04:47:27 PM
If you inherited a position running an industry Board and you found out that same organisation had acted corruptly, risking the public's health and safety, in the past would you.....

A..... cover it up further and try to ignore any past indiscretions and hope the people who are still working along side you, got up one morning and had a complete change of heart and decided to turn over a new leaf....

B..... ignore it because hell, this was why they got you in, because your one of them and anyone crossing "us" better watch out.....

C..... fix things and gain a huge amount of respect, credibility and integrity by admitting this behaviour is unacceptable and you won't stand for it, making an example of the dodgy dirty little shits who have brought this trade to a new low....

D..... your too gutless and too much of a self server to do the right thing, hopefully it'll all blow over and the bad people will move on....





I'm a C man myself......





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 09:00:16 AM
I was told that they refuse to apologise because it opens them to legal action....

Not...your wrong Paul, or your making this up go away.....



So they KNOW what happened.......they KNOW about unsafe work and they KNOW it was a cover up to protect those involved, including the Board's own involvement in totally mismanaging the gas "so-called" safety system......

For them not to address this....is for them to condone it.....


These are the people who annually call you incompetent and force CPD down your throat, chase you to see your card and charge you 100's of dollars to practice your craft....that you actually did an apprenticeship for....while they had out licenses to their mates....



I don't like hypocrites nor bullies, and I certainly don't like liars and corrupts.....how do you feel about it?



 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on September 27, 2015, 10:21:03 AM
hi guys, totally agree Paul, if only we could collectively haul em in front of a judge, the privy council in London would sort it,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 10:31:01 AM
A Board has to be fair transparent and honest, it HAS to be (ethically and legally).....if they can do this to one of us, then they can do this to every single one of you.....

We HAVE a defunct body of faulty gas certs.......do any one of you think that if it came down to the Board being given the choice (and believe me it is totally in their power to choose)  of facing any repercussions for their actions and total mismanagement of that defunct system.....or....hanging anyone of you out to dry......which way do you think they will go.....

I KNOW which way.....

I have blatant evidence, I have run their corrupt gauntlet, I WON hands down I have proven I am 100% innocent, publically at that too boot....but they still manipulated it so that I lost everything...

How will you fair in a system like that?

Remember all that work you did and didn't photograph it?

Are you sure the work hasn't been changed?

Are Board going to claim never to have received your cert, or even say they did when you haven't done the work?

Is your boss f****ing you over and more connected than you are?


You will never have a better chance than this to get fair play and SHOW these goons they can't do this to anyone of us, none of US.


Or you can roll the dice and take your chances, that if it ever happens to you, that they will play fair and not f**** you over and they will fall on their sword and take one for you......this WILL NOT HAPPEN, believe!










Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 10:38:44 AM
Robbo, my old mate....publicity.....it is that simple....


My analogy of them is the vampire......

Allowed to lurk in the dark shadows, with everyone fearful that they will come for you in the dark of night, slipping in through your window while you sleep......they will always win, behind closed doors where they single you out like any predator would....YOU ARE AND WILL BE TOTALLY f****ED.....

But in a public forum, with the public watching, out in the sunlight with us all awake and not fearful of them.....poof up in a cloud of corrupt smoke and dust.....


The reason they tried to do me was that the cert system was run so much blasé flare and they handed license's out so flippantly that it nearly killed someone.....but they didn't learn by this....they kept doing it.....


If any of this is untrue I expect a letter from one of their legal team, which I will use as toilet paper and see them in court......


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 10:45:32 AM
I can't afford to take them to court and I can not find a lawyer to work pro bono....

So the way our system works murderers, rapists and child molesters have more access to legal aid and a defence than I do.....(Wal and the Feds are awesome might I add and if I didn't have them as a support then I would have gone down the river like all those before me).

But unless you can employ a lawyer, you can't take them to court, never mind the way the system is levelled in their favour and the political clout they have.....

YOU ARE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD...GUILTY UNTIL YOU PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT.....there is not plain right and wrong, they treat everything you say as a lie, I had evidence withheld and misrepresented, they spent SEVEN time more chasing me than my old boss......I was a ex president for Nelson Mater Plumbers.....So the mater plumbers who screwed me over went against their own rules and ethics........

BUT NUMBERS IN PUBLIC, now that's a different matter......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 10:51:09 AM
I know they read this forum.....but they don't take me to court for slander nor defamation.....because telling the truth isn't defamation and its slanderous to tell people when you have been screwed over by a bunch of corrupts, its just telling the truth......


Last time I checked we lived in a so called democracy......

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 11:40:52 AM
I have concerns over the High Court appeal process and how it carried out too....

The investigators lawyer tried to prevent my right of appeal, the appeal which cost me $5000.00 just to lodge......where I was only allowed to talk about the window measurement and wasn't allowed to adduce any new evidence......evidence like one of the other authors of the NZ regs saying I could use another countries regs and the actual British Regs that proved what I had done would have been ok in the UK, with OVER 60 MILLION PEOPLE FITTING THEIR WATER HEATERS 40MM CLOSER THAN THE ONE THAT LOST ME MY BUSINESS....

Even though I went 95% innocent the Board went in my local paper and said they hade concerns over my work and responsibilities in signing work off.....the same Board who totally cocked up the cert system to the extent that it had to carry a disclaimer!!!


When we said the letter that told total untruths about my issuing illegal certs in Northland (a place I have never been to, but it is where a guy signed 560 blank certs, and a case involved in it is STILL before the Board, with his son gifted a certifying license just like my old boss was)....well when we said this letter sent to all the sites of my additional charges was fabricated .... WE  got told off......


You think you'll get fairness, think again......they will learn from this and they will polish their game.....


Think on it......they have a lawyer as a Registrar now, like they didn't have enough lawyers already....

Martin Sawyers, the new CO said in the NZ Plumbers mag....

"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"


So is it fair to have appointed as the investigator (even after I complained), the same Tony Hammond who gifted my boss his full certifying license with no apprenticeship served?

Was it fair to spend seven times as much chasing me than my old boss?

Was it fair to ignore the cert for the pizza oven, even when it is mentioned in the DOL complaint by number, saying it was never registered by my old boss with the Board.....with all available copies missing the leak test results....and a copy on the Boards electronic register?

Was it fair to withhold over 100 photos when they proved what I had said for two years?

Was it fair to change half of the charges just weeks out from he hearing?

Was it fair to have the investigators mate chair the hearing, then shut it down just as I was going to go 100% innocent?

Ignoring a legionnaires risk, is this risk based management?

Is it proportionate for my to loose everything for something I had tried to warn about for 6 years before it exploded?

Is it proportionate for Martin Sawyers opening comment to me when he first met me in person to say "you're only after money"?


Sorry martin, your public statement carries no water with me mate!!!


Do you trust this guy?....he knows full well what happened to me......and he goes and says that to your face.........

I think it is insulting to you all......















Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 11:51:06 AM
The Plumber's Board is an entity all of its own, and while I understand that the new people could do nothing to prevent the corruption, they have every power to address it.....

It celebrated 100 years of being in existence, not its 100th new member.....it is a continuous membership Board....

I believe if you sign on you sign on for past behaviour.....if the history of the Board is corrupt then the Board need to fix it....whether it be yesterday today or tomorrow......


I can't not express this enough, I will plug away at this for ever, until someone with integrity and honesty takes the reins, I don't care whether that is today or in 10 or 20 years....it will be my life's work....I assure you of that.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 11:51:40 AM
I DON'T FIT UNDER CARPETS ;)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 11:57:56 AM
DOSEN'T IT WORRY YOU THAT THEY ARE HAPPY FOR ME TO SAY ALL THIS???



BECAUSE IF SOMEONE SAID THIS ABOUT ME AND IT WASN'T TRUE ......I WOULD DEFEND MY SELF FROM THE ROOFTOPS......



GOOD LUCK GUYS, RUNNING THEIR GAUNTLET....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 12:19:28 PM
Sent just now, as I do not believe in sniping at someone from the shadows....and I am not a hypocrite.....


 

Today at 12:17 PM 







 Mr Sawyers,




Please can you explain, in light of my persecution and being set up as a scapegoat and the subsequent kangaroo court and also the Board ignoring a legionnaires risk.... your intention of the statment below, attributable to you in the NZ Plumber's mag. It is from my experience an untruth.




Please do not, as you have to my face, use the excuse that your the new guy and it had nothing to do with you....you are the CO of a continuous membership Board and to not address past corruption is to condone it.





"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"




My premeditated corrupt treatment, with over 7 times as much spent persecuting me than on my old boss shows that this statement is empty if you do not act on my accusations of corruption.




As I believe in transparency and facing up to my accusations and not hiding in the shadows I have attached this link, and I will post this email in the same forum.







While I have your ear and you being a lawyer, please can you explain the relevance of child sexual abuse case notes being used in my case, sent under a blank wrapper with no warning of their vile content and read by my wife while she was alone in he home and about to loose that home. In what context or relevance is this acceptable?




http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg9945#msg9945










Yours so very sincerely Paul Gee.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 12:29:40 PM
I will let you all know his reply....

But before they try the "we're the new guys" routine.....


They are not a flock of geese that get to change the ones at the front so they can keep going in the same direction, they MUST be accountable for ALL the Board's actions, because when you join the Board, you are the Board.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 12:54:04 PM
Corruption needs to be stamped out, pulled out into the open and shown for what it is.....


I believe to not address past corruption and try to cover it up or try to pretend it didn't happen, just prolongs the corruption and tells those that follow it is acceptable.....


There isn't a law in the land that says "corruption, well its ok if you now people!".....if there is then I would love a look at it.


The thing is in an open forum, they can't bully and they can't set you up.....safety for us is in the open and with everyone watching,

 
RIGHT IS MIGHT....


or we have nothing, nothing but empty promises and bullshit.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 01:03:18 PM
The Board is an entity, a being..... a person if you will, that is why it is paramount to represent it to your best endeavour and up hold it, if it acts corruptly it needs to be stamped out and addressed, not just a "well it wasn't me" with a finger pointing to your predecessors, that is a cop out attitude....to ignore corruption means the Board looses all its credibility and integrity and in doing so its validity.

If your a member of the Board you should be outraged at corruption, because as well as you representing the Board....the Board represents who you are......hell it represents who we all are, the Government, everyone.

So that is why the "we're the new guys" is bullshit and an excuse and a cover up.....

Man up and address your mistakes.....you force us to do just that...every single day.....to not to yourself while you pontificate about fair play and safety, well it is nothing but hypocritical and an insult to every tradesman and person you represent.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 10:08:03 PM
So Mr sawyers thinks I am just after money.....well this is not true......

(Martin, I know you'll be reading this, this says more about you and your attitude and goals than mine)....So your a boxer aren't you?....me too.....fancy raising some money for the Ronald McDonald House for children? You've met me and I have met you, fancy some charity work?, you work for a charity already....more for tax purpose's though I know, but you got the training in, next fight for life mate?

I would accept vouchers to a decent collage for my sons, if Martin wants to he can set up a viable business then hand it to my sons, he can if he likes pay for counselling for my traumatised wife and then invent and finance a time machine so I can relive two years of my sons lives that I had to work away for, after I had my life robbed from me....any parents will understand how precious the 4 and 6 years are....oh and the years 5 and 7 years.... I HAD to work away for most of those years, these are priceless.

All of this was mine and was mine to give to my family.....just before the Board set me up and tried to use me to cover up their own short comings....

All I want is to be where I was before the Board corruptly screwed me over.....not ahead....but where I was....I'll do the rest.



I am serious about the charity work mate, love to....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 27, 2015, 10:18:31 PM
So how about some real charity work then? Not just tax evasion but real cash in the coffers for the Ronald McDonald house in Christchurch....where my eldest son had to have a fontanel cut into his skull, (as he was born with no soft spot), when he was just a year old......just three years before the scum in the Board framed me.

My wife, my rock, the lovely woman that the absolute scum of a lawyer sent child sexual abuse case notes to, tell that poor excuse of a man I'll box him with both hands tied behind my back, literally....the punters would love it.

I'll ring Dean Lonigan as soon as you give me the nod Mr Sawyers. Lets raise some money for a good cause.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 29, 2015, 07:21:28 AM
Here's another statement from Mr Sawyers....

"It is simply not appropriate for me to revisit decisions made in the past which have been the subject of proper and lawful findings by the Board and/or any other agency or body"

My emphasis in bold...

I completely agree with this statement.....if, giant IF I had been subject to "proper and lawful" process...I don't believe the persecution is proper and lawful.....well in a civilised society it shouldn't be proper and lawful.....

You see I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to with hold evidence....

I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to with hold evidence....

I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to have a stacked hearing where the investigator, the panel and the chair are biased...

I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to have the real culprit face a charge then have it "disappear" before trial...

I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to ignore missing leak test results at the site of an explosion....

I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to spend seven times more perusing the person who tried to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work.....than the other person who ALL the evidence points to.....

There is lots and lots more, you have heard some of it before....

 I do not believe it is "proper and lawful" to cover this up either......



So how much weight can you put in the statements released by this guy?

He publically states.....


"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"




I don't believe you mate.....








Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on September 29, 2015, 07:29:52 AM
You are a lawyer Mr Sawyers....

Point me in the direction of the law statue that lists the corrupt behaviour below as proper and lawful...

Then you can explain to me how the corrupt behaviour listed below is fair and proportionate.....


"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"


You see if you can't do that, then I find it hard to give you any credibility or integrity....


A fair minded lay person could be forgiven for thinking you were just say things to carry out a cover up......do your self a favour Martin.....go look at the state of the fox-pro system, how badly run it was, then look at my warnings for 6 years, then go look at the cert for the pizza oven, then the DOL complaint that mentions that cert by number......then look at my kangaroo court.....


Tell me Martin which part is proper and lawful......it ain't mate.....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 01, 2015, 06:28:33 AM
So the new CEO for the Plumbers Board made this statement.....


"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"



It is by a crazy co-incidence that I too believe.....not like believing in the tooth fairy nor father Christmas, which is what some appear to mean but....

"I also believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate"........

When I see a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate and have my life restored back to where I was just before I was framed as a scapegoat for an explosion, that resulted from a situation that I had tried to warn about for 6 years before it nearly killed someone.....done to protect the Board's sloppy administration of the gas "safety" cert system and the flippant handing out of full certifying status to the "connected" people (same guy who is being protected, face a charge for the explosion... that then disappeared).....all done at a huge risk to the health and safety of NZers......and still covered up until this very day.


How on earth can I make such statements when the Board will set their lawyers on anyone and everyone......


Because it is true that's why.....and I would love to go to court.....where's my invite?











Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 05, 2015, 10:22:30 AM
"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate".......This is what Mr Sawyers claims to uphold.....


But this is what I experienced below......





This is a select committee submission I made below in blue, I have since found out that they spent under 30k going after my old boss (when they spent over 220k persecuting me).....also I paid for the only qualified handwriting expert in NZ, that points to my old boss denying his own handwriting when questioned by the investigator about the handwriting on a job card for the exploding gas fryers.....you know the same investigator who gave my old boss his full certifying license, with no apprenticeship served.

My old boss faced a charge for the exploding chipshop.....but this charge never made his hearing.....how can a charge disappear with no trial?


Attached is the DOL  complaint that started this all off.....you'll notice there is a cert number 345138 mentioned on it....this is the "pizza oven" cert.....the one missing the gas leak tests info and the one that is claimed by the Board " that is was never received by the Board".....even though there is a copy on the Board's website (check it out if you like).......FFS really?

Oh and I had complained about my old boss for 6 years before the explosion....regarding dodgy work covered by dodgy certs....exactly like the one mentioned by number above....cert 345138, if you could sum up my fears.....then cert 345138 has it all......

But the Board ignored this and went after me......I lost everything....and the Board terrorised my family.....

There is another job where the water for the central heating comes out of the owner's shower.....all done and signed off by my old boss.

"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate".......I do not think you can make this statement and not address my case Mr Sawyers......



Dear Select Committee,
 
1.   Introduction

2.   My name is Paul Gee, a certifying gasfitter and plumber from the Tasman/Nelson area. I am in full agreement with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Federation’s submission, and only offer this personal submission under my own steam and banner to go toward showing how the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) have spent the illegally gained funds,  needlessly savaging my life and terrorising my wife in doing so.

3.   I have lost my business and reputation, my home and time with my young family, all for a situation that I had tried to warn about for 6 years previously, before an explosion nearly killed someone, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy work. With no one held accountable for this. As this situation spans almost 10 years of my life and is hugely personal to me I am truly thankful for all understanding and consideration shown for this lengthy submission and I thank you in advance for this.

4.   I believe the Board have made a scapegoat of me to hide their own short comings and in-action.

5.   Concerns

6.   My concerns are centred on the illegally funded past and current prosecution and discipline systems of the PGDB within the gasfitting industry and the apparent covering up by the PGDB of either a badly designed gas safety certification system and/or incompetence/malpractice administering this system. 

7.   I believe that the Board ignored conflicts of interest and acted in bad faith, with out duty of care and against natural justice; leading to an unfair and needless investigation and the resulting decision by the Board in respect to me. Please note that I strongly believe in industry regulation and the holding of “cowboys” to account within the industry, which was why I had tried to warn about all of this from the outset.

8.   I believe they undertook a needless disciplinary action against me, utilising these illegally gained funds spending over $200,000.00 on my case. What has occurred to me has since been made available to the Building and Housing Minister.

9.   In particular, my concerns are not just about the afore mentioned conflicts of interests that were ignored, but also the misrepresentation and withholding of evidence and the resulting decision of the Board, and in particular the way the investigation was carried out.




10.   Background

11.   I am a qualified gas service engineer in the United Kingdom, trained by British Gas in 1989. I was registered by the PGDB as a craftsman gasfitter on 15 February 1999.

12.   I began working for a gas company in late February 2003 in Nelson. At the beginning of this employment, I was instructed by the manager to fill out the work sheets only and the office staff would fill out the gas certification certificate and I only had to sign them, then the office staff would file them. Note: The manger and office staff was a family and related, i.e. a husband (manager), wife (office manager), daughter (office girl) and son in law (limited licence gasfitter, who worked unsupervised most of the time).

13.   After approximately five months of employment with this gas company, I became very concerned about how gasfitting work was being carried out and the possible safety implications of this apparent malpractice. I attempted to raise this concern verbally with the manager; however it was dismissed by him. Toward the end of the period of this employment I handed back certificates to the manager, refusing to sign them as they were unfinished or unsafe.

14.   On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with the Manager. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board and appears in my Hearing’s Bundle (HB).

15.   On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law, (HB). In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable.

16.   On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge, (HB).

17.   On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company, (HB).

18.   I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on, (HB).

19.   I then began work as a subcontractor for a different gas company in December 2003 where I immediately became aware of improper use of gas certificates that were in my name, actually one of the certificates I had refused to sign because the job was unsafe/unfinished, (HB).

20.   In response, I contacted the PGDB by telephone, which was when I became aware of the 4 books ordered in my name, and again in writing on 6 January 2004. In response, the PGDB replied to me, dismissing my complaint and providing what I believe are inconsistencies and incorrect facts. (HB)

21.   A year later I came across yet another irregular certificate in my name, covering unsafe work. I contacted a lawyer, as the Board refused to talk to me without one, on 13 January 2005. (HB)

22.   I also contacted my former employer, the gas company mentioned above, which had a new manager, on the 24 January 2005.

23.   The outcome of my lawyer’s inquiry to the PGDB was there were over a 1000 certificates in my name and it would cost $25 per certificate to check. I could not afford this potential sum of $25,000 and told them so by phone. The letter from the Board’s lawyer had inconsistencies and incorrect facts. I had only worked at this gas company for some 10 months.

24.   I approached a Member of Parliament on 24 May 2006 after hearing no further from the PGDB. A letter was written to the PGDB on 6 June 2006. No response was made to me. I followed up this letter by sending a fax to a member of the PGDB on 21 August 2006. Again, I had no response. I later contacted another Member of Parliament by email, outlining my concerns for health and safety. This was passed on to the Minister for Safety and Health at the time. This Minister replied indicating he would look into the matter; however I received no further contact. Most, if not all, of the proof of this correspondence is in the possession of the PGDB, (HB).

25.   On 8 July 2009, the Board received a complaint from the Department of Labour, regarding a gas explosion at 136 Milton Street, Nelson. An “impartial” investigator was appointed according to section 40 of the Act.

26.   I requested an impartiality hearing with PGDB, it was held on 22 February 2011 where I raised concerns about conflicts of interest. They were dismissed.

27.   Disciplinary action was taken against me under section 42 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976 (“the Act”) as a result of the investigation. The matter was heard between 3 and 5 May 2011 by the Board. The decision was given in July 2011 where I was found guilty under section 42(1)(c) of the Act in relation to only one of the seven properties that were investigated by the “impartial” investigator.

28.   Out of 44 charges laid by the Board, I was found guilty of only two, neither of which was at the site of the explosion that initiated the complaint by the Department of Labour. No one else as far as I am aware was questioned about the site of the explosion, whether as part of the initial investigation or since.

29.   The Board required I undertake a course of instruction as an extra condition of re-licensing as a certified gasfitter for the 2013/2014 licensing year.

30.   This “course of instruction” had to be custom made for me at my expense. I have recently carried out an “assessment”, rather than course of instruction. I passed with a 90% mark and was told by the assessor that I would be in the top 10% of the people he had ever assessed.

31.   Of the “impartial” investigators initial audits of my work, none of his initial concerns made it to charges that later surfaced in a second audit. This second audit was ordered by him on the basis of these initial audits and “concerns”. A letter from the Board’s lawyer states that three years worth of my work was audited, but the “impartial” investigator only claims to have audited 10% of my work for that period.

32.   On 2 October 2009, the then Acting Registrar of The Board sent letters to the owners of six properties where the PGDB alleged I had carried out gasfitting work and that were identified by the “impartial” investigator’s investigation as having compliance issues.

33.   These letters, which covered each and every area that I had ever worked in for my own business, from the West Coast to Havelock of the top of the south island, with Nelson and Motueka in between, one or two letters per area. By far the most damaging was the one to Motueka High school, the only high school in what WAS my main centre of business, and my business disappeared not long after these letters. I wasn’t made aware of these letters until the Motueka High school contacted me.

34.    These letters noted there was an issue with a number of gas certificates illegally sold affecting a number of homes from Northland to Waikato and the Bay of Plenty, and that the certificate pertaining to their address was one of these. I have never carried out work in these North Island areas and these letters caused me the loss of my business, distress and loss of reputation.

35.   By far the worst event on a personal level was during the build up and preparation for my Hearing, the “impartial” investigator’s lawyer sent to my home, unmarked child sexual abuse case notes to prove his point on probabilities. As they were unmarked of their vile content, my long suffering wife read them and I came home to find her hysterical. At this time she was facing living in a caravan for the winter with her husband working away, minding our two young sons, as we were financially forced to sell our home. This situation that my wife faced later happened and I have had to work away for nearly two years since. I have told the present CEO of the Board about this, he has no problem with it and another PGDB member’s solution that he offered to me was “…had I thought of returning to the UK or going to Aussie”.

36.   I filed a notice of appeal to the decision of the Board on 16 November 2011. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 5 March 2012 and the decision given on 14 March 2012. The focus of this appeal was on the finding I was guilty of an act or omission contrary to the integrity of the gasfitting trade. The appeal was dismissed.

37.   On 22 June 2012, the Boards external assessor and QC released an opinion on eight complaints I raised. She concluded that under the Board’s Historical Complaints Resolution Policy, only one of my complaints fell within the scope of the Policy: that the letters sent by the Board’s Acting Registrar on 2 October 2009 did cause me a disadvantage. I have heard nothing since.


38.   Impartiality

39.   My claim is that the “impartial” investigator was not an impartial investigator as is required for natural justice. He is a member and fellow of the NZIGE and a member of IPENZ, GANZ and the Kennedy Trust and at the time my old boss was also a member of NZIGE and other gas groups.

40.   In addition, I believe that the “impartial” investigator was the person who granted my old boss his full craftsman status, after just one oral exam and with no apprenticeship served.

41.    The “impartial” investigator also was nominated by GANZ to co-author the NZ 5261, the standard that I had offered an alternative to in defending against my two founded charges. This is a conflict of interest that should not have been ignored. I tried to raise the issue at the impartiality hearing in February 2011, where my concerns were dismissed.   

42.   I believe that the table 16 of NZ 5261, which he refers to within this Standard and is particular to my charges, is contradictory and confusing. Table 16 had also been amended which gives the tradesman the impression that the table is not strict in its application, not to mention it is in the non-mandatory part two of the standard.

43.   The present Chairman of the PGDB and a panel member of my hearing is also a member of IPENZ, of which NZIGE is an arm of that according to a press release from IPENZ – “NZIGE collaborates closely with IPENZ”. This same person released a press release just after my Hearing stating I lacked fundamental knowledge of my trade, this appeared in my local newspaper.

44.   I also believe there was a conflict of interest between the “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member at the disciplinary hearing. The “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member have served together in numerous organisations, NZIGE, GANZ, and the Kennedy Trust, and have made numerous presentations together as a duo to the gas industry.

45.    The Presiding Board Member was on the executive of GANZ, the nominating organisation for the “impartial” investigator to co-author the referenced standard NZ 5261.



46.   The “impartial” investigator was the technical adviser to the Presiding Board Member at GANZ. I believe this would lead to the Presiding Board Member to put more weight in the “impartial” investigator’s opinion because of their personal relationship and their work on NZ 5261. They would both, in all probability, want the integrity of NZ 5261 to remain intact because of their involvement in developing it.

47.   The “impartial” investigator was also heavily involved with the deregulation of the gas industry and a driving force behind self certification for gasfitting. In light of this I believe he would also have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of this certification system he had helped create, which has some apparent serious flaws in its application and the PGDB’s administration of it, most if not all of this was raised at the impartiality hearing I had requested, but was dismissed.

48.   Further, at the site of this explosion no one has been held accountable, although all copies of the last certificate issued for work carried out at this site of an explosion; lack any gas leak test entry which is a compulsory field on the now electronic website. This certificate is totally in my old manager’s name and was signed for a year after the initial installation and at least a year after my leaving the employment of the gas company mentioned above. The PGDB claim never to have received or registered this certificate, but an electronic version appears on the electronic register on their website. This electronic register also carries a disclaimer stating the inaccuracy of the register.

49.   Unfair Investigation

50.   I believe I was unfairly investigated, as were the charges brought against me regarding seven properties. Only two, out of 44 charges, regarding one property were upheld, which would be dismissed by a well used British Standard, if it was allowed.

51.   As a result my business and reputation was damaged and my ability to earn an income suffered. I believe that the PGDB appointed investigator was not an impartial investigator and that serious evidence was misrepresented or ignored at the Hearing. I was presumed guilty, having to prove innocence and disadvantaged by not allowing me to submit further evidence, which would clear me of all wrong doing, for a situation I had tried to warn about for 6 years.

52.   My appeal was dismissed because I could not, due to limiting PGDB policy, give any further evidence. The evidence I tried to adduce was a British Standard that would show what I had done was safe and a relevant alternative to the non-mandatory part two of the NZ 5261 standard that I was found guilty of contravening. Of note, the only other certifying gasfitter in the room at the hearing was on the panel for the PGDB, and he was British.

53.   I also tried to adduce an email from another, co-author of NZ5261. This email said I could use a British Standard if it was relevant, and I believe it is. This would have left me completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

54.   At the actual hearing I had offered other information and illustrated how I knew the fumes would behave on the appliance I had been later found guilty for installing and certifying. The owner of the same dwelling said he had no problems with it in the previous six years since installation, and it was the only obvious place to put the appliance in question. Even the “impartial” investigator also commented that if the fumes were not entering the building then I would have complied with Part one of NZ5261 which is mandatory, and so I would have done nothing wrong. All of this evidence was apparently ignored, with no further evidence put forward by the PGDB, other than the above mentioned “Table 16”, to go to show what I had done was dangerous, which I still believe it was not.

55.   In light of this treatment, and it is very brief and incomplete and a pick of the worst, I would like to ask a question and make a suggestion to the Select Committee

56.   My question is-

•   Is the Committee comfortable for the PGDB to enforce over a 1000% increase in discipline levies in under a decade and then claim it illegally from tradesman, BUT THEN (and this is my main point and reason for my submission) to use this ill gotten money as a fund to persecute and disadvantage innocent, well meaning, registered trades-people, using this illegal discipline levy as a war chest to bring down any opponents within the industry, or anyone they have a grudge with? As is evidenced by my treatment. They openly boast of a 100% conviction rate.

57.   My suggestion is-

•   While you are being asked to amend this Act, please consider changing the Act so that the Board is a liable entity or at least open to more than just recommendations, which they routinely ignore. As it is now the Board is non-liable under the Act, and accordingly the PGDB apparently acts with scant regard and impunity The PGDB have done this even while hiding behind, and trying to maintain, the façade of a registered charity, spending as far as I am aware over $46,000.00 in appealing their de-registration as a charity, apparently using the same clause** that is limited to $500.00 when used in making a compensation payment to me because of the letters sent to my customers.
**The Part 148 of the 2006 Act enables the Board in any financial year, to expend for purposes not authorised by any act, a sum not amounting to more than $500.



58.   I thank the Committee for your time. And ask with all due respect and humility are these the actions and the behaviour of an organisation that are moral or ethical? Are they the people best suited to lead our industry? Can you trust these people to have a blank cheque as it were, which is what will happen if this is bill is validated and acting with impunity as they are non liable for their actions.

59.   There is a huge decline in the industry and training sector, of which I fear we are just seeing the tip of this huge iceberg, the future is bleak. The PGDB is still apparently acting in a corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent manner, continually acting against the best recommendations of the damming OAG report and in the face of the best practice recommendations of the NZ Law Commission, acting apparently in bad faith.


60.   If you were in a position to, and are able to appoint a public enquiry, I will provide proof and substance to back my claims.
 
 
 
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 05, 2015, 10:56:27 AM
Does corruption have a sell by date?, if you ignore it long enough will it disappear?

Apparently Mr Sawyers the new CO for the Plumber's Board thinks I am just after money and that because he's new he doesn't need to address any of this corruption.....well I am after justice really and to be compensated for the corruption levelled on me, by the Plumbers Board, just to take me back to where I was before they fitted me up as a scapegoat, oh that and a public inquiry.


The Board covered this up while the owner of the chipshop was laying in intensive care burns unit, the Board became aware of the "non registration" of the cert 345138 just days after the explosion.....this is frankly total bullshit....look up cert number 345138 on their website.......now explain to me how if you didn't receive the cert.....how can ALL the details make it on to the system, even by the number of the cert...... Perhaps the same method was used in making the charge for the exploding chipshop that my old boss faced disappear....with no trial.....



Do you still feel that Mr Sawyers believes in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate.......



I go my doubts to be honest.....





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 14, 2015, 05:35:19 PM



"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Santanaya


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: bugman on October 20, 2015, 12:30:43 PM
'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: ford1 on October 21, 2015, 03:00:50 AM
come on pgdb , time to be humble , put ya hand up because you f****ed up . paul rightfully is not just going to go away! get your cap in hand & say sorry .we are watching all of you , until you put this right we can only dismiss you & as a industry this only prevents us moving forward .
to say this man & his family are : after the money : is just stupid , of course he should be compensated , he lost everything . $500 come on $500,000 wouldn't come close. I have been part of this industry since 1987 & I have never seen our license money used properly , so that's it , so simple . one hand up & one hand in your pocket , while on knees ,asking for forgiveness & hope he sees it to do so because you all deserve a lot more . do it , do it now !!!!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 06:52:16 AM
Thank you for your support mate means a lot to us, a hell of a lot.

But a "f**** up" implies perhaps it was a mistake, this was no mistake it was directed and premeditated.....just look at the funds put in to chase me and the amount to chase Darnley, 220K for me under 30K for Darnley....and still they won't check his work or look at the evidence that he denied his own handwriting on the job card for the exploding fryers.
 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 06:56:01 AM
I sent this yesterday to the Ombudsman.....who is using his powers of discretion not to look at this......

You think you live in a free and fair democracy.....think again......"Fairness for All".....


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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 5:42 p.m.
To: 'Info'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Jude Hutton'; 'Andrew.McCaw@ombudsmen.parliament.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; 'paul@paulhenry.co.nz'; 'john.key@national.org.nz'; 'Andrew Little'
Subject: COVER UP

 

20/10/2015 sent to the Ombudsman’s Office

 

Dear Mr Patterson,

 

 

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by your four replies, see attached.
 

I am also confused because you have publically talked of fairness and accountability and the protection of whistle blowers; you have even produced papers on such matters, but now it seems after all this time since my original complaint instead of looking at my situation you appear to want to make it all about OIA requests. Which even these you have “provisionally” ignored?
 

My original complaint is still to be answered and these OIA requests are but side issues that actually add to my claims of a cover up and directed persecution of myself and my family by the PGDB.
 

My original complaint was a cry for fairness and accountability. It seems that the very people I am complaining about are given your full belief and you then use your powers of discretion to ignore me and refuse to look at my case.
 

I will address each reply from the perspective of a fair minded lay person; I am a practical man and can only deal and comment in what I can observe with my senses and that which seems right and fair to my conscience.
 

In light of my recent experience, it appears to me that the “law” is a rule book, only available to a select few, to be manipulated by lawyers for a substantial fee in order to control the situations and the lives of others, while ignoring truth, blatant evidence, common sense and ethics.
 

I have no legal training, and from what I have seen and experienced, this is of great relief to my conscience and my sense of ethics.
 

Remember the holocaust, slave trade and apartheid were “legal” to the institutions that it best suited and was convenient for, but it totally ignored common sense, ethics and was most definitely morally repugnant.
 

For me, someone who once held the law in high esteem, with deep regard. I now see the law as selective and flawed and I do not use the term “legal” as a metric for ethics, nor for common good. It is sold to the highest bidder or to those with most influence; I hope you prove me wrong in this, you have not to date.
 

Of other things deemed “legal” by the “law”….was my lawyer who (after charging me many thousands of dollars), told me to plead guilty to 44 trumped up charges, of which I blew 42 out of the water at slanted and corrupt hearing.
 

The one last “relevant” remaining charge out of the 44, was for the very same situation that the Board has recently ignored, and apparently now even the Ombudsman is happy to ignore. I am referring to the installation of a califont, installed contrary to the non mandatory NZ 5261 regs.   
 

This ignoring of the complaint made by the “ Highgate’s ”. An elderly couple who I have been told have resorted to taking anti stress medication because of their situation.
 

In another “legal” move by the Board-appointed, “impartial” investigator’s lawyer, it was deemed legal to send several sexually deviant past case notes to my home, under a blank package, to prove a point on probabilities. Done to prove a point in a plumbing context. It was read by my wife, whilst home on her own, which she found deeply, deeply disturbing. Do you think this is “Fairness for All”?
 

Attached is the very worst of these past precedents under “sick twisted past precedent”. Please don’t open this attachment if child sexual abuse offends you, as it does both my wife and I.
 

All of this is above is “legal”, but totally lacking in common sense and decency.
 

 

The Ombudsman’s Reply  1  Cert 345138 see attached 

 

 

This is the cert actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint for the explosion at the chipshop; please see attachment titled “DOL Complaint pg 1 &2 ”.
 

The Ombudsman shouldn’t be so much concerned with the fact the Board can’t provide an original copy of cert 345138 but why they can’t provide a copy, it is a nonsense to do so. I totally believe the original copy is beyond being produced by the Board, as are most shredded documents.
 

It is plainly obvious that if someone at the Board “lost” the cert or even put the original copy of cert 345138 through a shredder (perhaps after being asked for a copy of cert 345138 by the lawyer acting for the chipshop owner, a request made after the explosion at the said chipshop)….then it wouldn’t be available.
 

Of note, all the available carbon copies for cert 345138 show a complete lack of gas test results….that’s for leaks, yes gas leaks, the same type of gas leak that caused the explosion.
 

But the Ombudsman doesn’t feel the need to look at this?….. because it was “properly investigated by the Board”….is this the same investigation that ignored/withheld damning evidence and ignored huge conflicts of interest…….For example ignoring the sale of a third gas hose, the very hose that actually caused the explosion, sold long after I left the employ of Darnley….or was there another investigation that you are aware of  ?
 

This original copy of cert 345138, is for the very last work at the site of a near fatal explosion, and it goes missing?..... And is then denied as having been ever received by the Board, by one of the Boards lawyers.
 

The Board made this statement when an electrical copy appears on the fox pro system….this is where your concern should lay. I ask you in all fairness what would be the legal ramification s for the Board if they accepted an incomplete legal document, a “gas safety cert” that lacked a record for a test for leaks….but it then exploded?
 

I know of many more of these certs missing important information, the Board claimed that these too were missing, but then miraculously found them when I went to the gas suppliers and obtained photos of the carbon copies of these “missing” certs. How can you put your name to cock up of a situation of this magnitude, using your power of discretion to ignore it is beyond me?
 

It is a cover up….what more evidence other than the cert appearing on the FoxPro system do you need? For anyone to say it is the “only” evidence is….. (and I apologise for my use of a crude layman’s term, but I can think of no other phrase that grasps this situation with enough emphasis) …..Well it is nothing more than utter and total bollox. You need no other evidence, it was definitely received and it was conveniently “lost”.
 

What I am saying is, yes it is a good enough excuse not to produce the cert, but why is it missing, how did it go missing?…. after it appears on the fox pro system? Same number, address, appliances, everything the same…what would the odds be of this happening?....this isn’t the Bible Code.
 

Your office is charged with “Fairness for All”….Am I part of that “All”.
 

Was it fair for the Board to persecute me…after the Board (by their own written admission) receive a request for a dodgy, incomplete, unregistered cert 345138, which is missing the legal recording of a test for leaks, i.e. cert 345138 which was accepted by the Board…..this cert issued for the site of an explosion…… but then the Board reply to the blast victims lawyer that it was never registered 8 days after the explosion.
 

This denial was made when the owner was recovering in an intensive burns unit in Wellington, half way through his intensive care visit of two whole weeks.
 

 But then the Board ignore Darnley’s involvement in the build up to the explosion at his hearing, this is the very guy who filled out cert 345138, even the carbon copies show his signature on cert 345138. Is this fair?
 

Tell me Mr Patterson….I was told before the hearing/investigation that John Darnley faced a charge for the explosion, but this charge didn’t make his hearing….your a legal expert…..how on earth does that happen?
 

Perhaps it was useful to the Board because this “duel suspect” charge FOR THE EXPLOSION was their reasoning on splitting our cases into two different hearings/investigations. So they could investigate us separately….think on that.
 

Of note I have good evidence, in letters from the Board….that they spent in excess of 220k chasing after me and less than 30k chasing Darnley, is that fair? Especially in light of the cert 345138 being signed by Darnley? Not to mention all the other ignored evidence.
 

All of cert 345138 is filled out in the name of John Darnley, who I had complained about for the 6 years previous to the explosion. I had complained about dodgy certs coving dodgy work. Was it fair to go after me in light of this cert 345138, mentioned in the very DOL complaint that sparked this mess off ?
 

If you could totally sum up my fears and reasons for my previous complaints, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy/dangerous work, this situation is it in a nut shell, but it was I that was pursued by a conflicted and biased Board appointed investigator….I ask you is this fair?
 

It appears the Ombudsman Office wants to make my issue concerning cert 345138, all about the Board’s inability to be able to produce an unobtainable cert, this is a given and not my complaint. I actually believe them in this.
 

My original complaint is for fairness, in that the Board persecuted me in the face of this admitted to evidence, admitted to in writing by the Board.
 

Is it fair that the NZ Public are put at risk in the knowledge of this badly administered FoxPro system? 
 

I bring your attention to a press release by Phil Routhan, the ex Board member and CEO of the Board. See attached titled “A former chief exec”.
 

I admit it does appear that Mr Routhan’s comments made on the state and mismanagement of the PGDB’s FoxPro cert system is a manipulation of a situation for his own ends, in trying to keep/reclaim his job. But please remember he was very, very informed and had a huge amount of access to the FoxPro system and had a lot of experience in the trades. It is reprehensible that it happened under his watch and even worse that he held on to it for his own ends, but that does not make it untrue, I believe he would not have made these claims if they were unsubstantiated.
 

I agree with Mr Routhan’s comments about the danger, and have been trying air these concerns for well over a decade, BEFORE the explosion.
 

I think the Ombudsman and copied in ministers owe it to the NZ public to push to have this looked in to, this would be fair.
 

 

 

Ombudsman Reply 2  Highgate complaint see attached

 

These people actually complained about fumes entering their home, but the Board has, to the best of my knowledge, refused to act.
 

The Highgate’s complaint was made after a califont was fitted closer than advised by the measurements in the non mandatory table in NZ 5261, table 16. Their califont is much closer than the califont which is the sole basis for my last but one charge, with the last and final charge disappearing for signing this job off, is this fair? It is inconsistent.
 

Of note, I do not believe this is the reason for the fumes entering the Highgate’s home. I believe it is because the flue issues into a more enclosed area, with a lack of cross ventilation.
 

But this very situation with the Highgate’s is the very reasoning the Board went in my local paper and slated me after my hearing and made the comments in the attachment above “califont shortcomings”. Which point of view is relevant; both views can not be applicable.
 

This one and only charge that the Board found me “guilty” of, stating in that press release I didn’t have a comprehension of fumes entering the building….but after making this press release they ignore another much closer install of a similar califont, that the owners actually complained about. Is this fair?
 

Of Note,  the owner of the califont in my situation never in six years had a problem, never complained nor smelt fumes, but when someone does complain, i.e. the Highgate’s, the Board ignore it. Does this seem fair to you?
 

This “califont” charge is the ONLY charge left out of the 44 charges, which lost me my business and reputation and was the only charge that “stuck” as a result of terrorising me and my wife….is this fair?
 

Again it appears that the Ombudsman’s office is ignoring my real complaints and trying to “edit” it down to a point in law for an OIA request. I came to your office for fairness.
 

 

 

Ombudsman Reply 3 legionnaires’ risk see attached

 

This is probably the reply that disturbs me the most.
 

The Board do have powers to enter a property if it is deemed unsafe, this statement by the Board simply isn’t true, it may be difficult but not impossible. It is in the Act for those who would want to look for it, I have seen it.
 

I saw this system started in this dangerous manner (which is first hand), and I have a collaborating witness that this is how this lethal system was finished, so the way I see it is you have a first hand witness (me) backed up with an independent secondary witness (my old apprentice), this should be enough to at least go look at it. You have a schematic, the cert and one of my other correspondence see attached. I have even told the coroner and now the Ombudsman, and the Prime Minister and other Ministers.
 

To check if this C/H system is life threatening, is as easy as going to the address, looking at how many water heaters are on site, then turning off the water supply to each of the appliances, one at a time. If, when the central heating unit is isolated….the hot water goes off…..then you have cross contamination, this is a huge legionnaires’ risk, and potentially deadly. I am happy to do this check and go with a Board member, we can take water samples too if needed. I want to be wrong, but I have seen nothing to show me I am wrong.
 

To ignore this on a point of law is ludicrous and shameful. If anyone is hurt by this dangerous system my conscience is clear and anyone I warned will have blood on their hands. I have attached a lot of info for your office on this, you are informed.
 

Is it fair for the next occupiers to shower their kids or elderly in this stagnant shower? These new people would think it is signed off by a certifying gasfitter endorsed by the PGDB…how could they know how dangerous it is?
 

 

Ombudsman Reply 4  570 blank certs see attached

 

Again it appears that the Ombudsman is missing the direction of my real complaint and trying to make it a loosely involved point of law on an OIA request.
 

According to Mr Pedersen “This matter is still before the Board”…. doesn’t that sound odd to you. Some 4 years later, it’s still before the Board?
 

This signing of these 570 blank certs is the situation that led to all the sites of all my charges, excluding the exploding chipshop, being sent letters that gave people the impression that I was issuing illegal certs in Northland. A place I have never even visited.
 

These letters were so badly conceived that they were apologised for by the Board, see attached “Apology for Kern’s letters”, and “Mot High PGDB letter”, for an example of just one of the letters, sent to the local high school….this is the letter that finally killed my business….. is this fair?
 

These insipid, untrue and inaccurate letters gave all the sites of my “extra” charges, the impression that I was capable of issuing illegal documents, prejudicing all these sites. Is this fair? 
 

Is this the level of investigation to which you refer to as “proper” in using your discretion in ignoring my complaints? Because if it is… I would question your take on “fairness” and “proper”. Please provide me with any other investigations which you use to base this use of “discretion” on.
 

Is it fair that I had this happen to me, but the person who is in all probability is responsible for this OTHER dangerous situation, potentially has his case still before the Board?
 

This signing of 570 blank certs was a very dangerous and irresponsible way to act, but the Board are so “not” concerned that it takes them over 4 years to tackle this (if they have acted at all), un-yet the Board, when it comes to me, were so concerned and so quick to act that they “added” it to my situation…with an untrue inaccurate letter…..straight away….. is this fair?
 

Your motto is “Fairness for All”…..I am just not seeing any fairness and believe I have not received any.
 

In three of these instances mentioned above in your replies,  I have been the person singled out for a witch-hunt mentality while the guilty go free, the other one of the four …. I can’t even get someone to go check at the legionaries risk dwelling.
 

I feel that each of these instances above actually go toward proving I was persecuted unfairly and targeted, while the dangerous, uncaring incompetents’ go unhindered and un-investigated. This is forgetting all the evidence of the persecution that was unearthed at my hearing and ignoring the fraud that was also unearthed with yet another manipulation of certs.
 

The people who you are relying on at the Board, telling you it would “not be useful” to get to the bottom of this, have everything to hide, and to not look into this is to be party to them and their cover up.
 

 

I ask you in all fairness…

 

 

 

Who was ultimately responsible for the person who entered and accepted the incomplete cert 345138 into the fox pro system? Using this part of the same Board system, utilising the FoxPro and data management systems, this would show if someone went looking for this cert 345138, perhaps when the lawyer for the exploding chipshop requested all copies of certs for the exploding chipshop….who pulled the original copy of 345138 from the records? Who might have put it through the shredder? It is a misnomer to make this all about whether the Board can produce a potentially destroyed legal document. I actually believe them when they say they can’t produce it. Is it fair or even legal to shred a legal document?
 

Why is it that the califont involved in my situation deserves a public press release/warning, made after my persecution (not a typo), where the occupier had never complained? All done while ignoring the blatant evidence and the reality of how the fumes actually act….but then a califont installed nearer, with an actual compliant made by the occupiers of fumes entering….how can the “Highgate’s ” califont be ignored while “mine” was acted upon? Is this fair?
 

Why not go look at the potentially lethal central heating system legionnaire risk? Actually in reality make sure it’s safe? Why not check and double check that the system is safe? It is a roll of the dice not to, gambling with the lives of anyone who uses the shower at that address. All you have to loose is having to live with saving someone’s life or proving me wrong. Is it because Darnley installed and certified this system?
 

How can someone who issued 570 certs, which were signed and blank with no idea what was to be installed…..which were (according to the Board’s own press release) 90% non compliant with 16 very dangerous sites….this same person also apparently said he checked them all too to boot…..but someone involved in this case….still have his case before the Board? How does that happen?
 

To make this a legal point of law on OIA releases is to miss the whole point of my complaints and my request for fairness.
 

The Board have ignored blatant evidence and ruined my business and reputation, done at a risk to the public. The situations mentioned in your four letters of reply actually add to backing this claim and do not detract anything from this claim.
 

At no point has anyone proved my claims incorrect or to be untrue, but have only clouded the issue with the “law”, while ignoring the real facts.
 

You may want to look at the handwriting samples that I have had checked over. Please see “Handwriting expert opinion” and “In my unprofessional opinion” in attachments. These samples are taken from the actual job card for the fryers that caused the explosion and a signed sample of Darnley’s hand from a gas cert, made available to the Board but not acted on. How fair is that?
 

Darnley appears on the face of it to have denied his own handwriting to the so called “impartial” investigator….is this the same “proper” investigation that you rely on in your use of discretion in not addressing my case? The only investigation I am aware of was biased, flawed and slanted. The investigator granted Darnley his full certifying license with no apprenticeship served….is this the “proper” investigation to which you refer?
 

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 07:08:01 AM
As chief executive and registrar, it was Mr Routhan's responsibility to monitor the process for checking gas certificates and after he left, the board had reviewed all gas certificates.
Ad Feedback
 
 
"We reiterate that Mr Routhan's allegations relating to unsafe gas installations have been fully investigated and discredited and we have confidence in our gas certification processes."
- The Dominion Post

I found many,many dodgy certs since this statement was made...in the relatively small amount I asked to get copies of....loads were missing very important info.....

What do you think these people will do to you to protect them selves? remember customers will have carbon copies of all this and the Board have sold 1000's and 1000's of them......are you ready to bend over and assume the position for their mismanagement?


It wasn't long after this statement that the Board had to add a disclaimer that it wasn't an accurate copy.....

If I told such an inaccurate statement I would be branded a liar.....think on that
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 07:20:46 AM
Think about it, most of us took no photos when this very badly run cert system was set up....and then driven like a drunken monkey in a circus.

So some guy decides to move the free standing fire from one side of his living room to the other....does all the gas work with the tools lent from some supplier, because he bought all the fittings there.....

Blows his own house up, or gases his family......how do you prove that he moved the fire....please don't say the change in pipe...the Board dismissed a whole different colour pipe in my case!

What if your old boss was doctoring your certs, like mine....and it kills someone? I could very easily be facing a manslaughter charge....think on it. Who is going to come to your aid.....if you don't get behind Wal and the Feds NOW, then you will have lost the best chance we have ever had.

And now they are going to do this to builders.......FFS really?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 07:24:06 AM
And look at the gas cert system now.....it is a joke you can print off and put in your house, no carbon copies, just a printer and a laptop....


So is a gasfitter now a bloke with a phone, ute, a dog and a laptop/printer.....they have made our once proud trade a joke
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on October 21, 2015, 10:48:11 AM
hi guys, totally agree Badger and where can any tom,dick or harry a get cert form from then fill it in and maybe find a licenced guys name?  from the boards own web site how stupid is that to let anyone download cert forms?  beats me, cheers 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 05:26:23 PM
Exactly Robbo.....I was threatened with a handwriting expert when it suited their agenda...and I had even after tried to complain about dodgy certs for years before it came out in the explosion....I got heaps of evidence on this too...THEY STILL WENT AFTER ME!

But I had to get my own handwriting experts in to check the guy they are still to this day protecting....but they won't look at it, even the new guys at the Board, who say publically they are here to do the right thing.....

Oh was that like other public statements like the one below for example...about checking the cert system and being happy with it.....THEN putting an accuracy disclaimer on it and THEN  getting it taken off you??


How about all those electronically entered certs done with just your pass word, no personal handwriting, brought in because of the cock up of the paper cert system (how many of you have totally kept that password to yourself, or used an easy to remember, easy to guess password?)....or let the office girl do the cert entry.....so that system got canned, because they f****ed that up too......don't forget we funded this malarkey....

And now coming to a life near you.....

...... WE HAVE THE "OPTIONAL" SYSTEM WITH WEIRD AND WONDERFUL WAYS JOBS ARE JUDGED FOR ACTUALLY EVEN BOTHERING TO REGISTER OFFICIALLY, OR YOU CAN JUST DO NEW INSTALLS AND KEEP THEM UNDER YOUR BED...WITH A CERT NUMBER WHICH CAN BE MADE UP, WITH NO SEQUENCE TO THE "OTHER CERTS IN THE BOOK" AVAILABLE TO ANYONE ......WITH A LICENSE NUMBER WHICH CAN BE ACCESSED BY ANYONE, WRITTEN NOT IN A STOCK STANDARD WAY EITHER, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN FORMAT UP IF YOU LIKE, LAST TIME I CHECKED.....


You have seen how I was shafted, set up as a scape goat and put into a position of guilty until proven innocent (while they slander and lie about me before my trial)......the present Board know ALL about all this....AND DO NOTHING....SO I TAKE IT THEY ARE HAPPY WITH IT....AND SO WILL BE HAPPY FOR IT TO HAPPEN TO ANYONE IN THE FUTURE?

So next f**** up they have, and judging by the new system, they will have one, PROBABLY LOTS... (more than likely you will suffer the consequences)....they just change the goose at the front of the formation and continue in the desired direction....

They have had a massive impact on me and my family.....

Who do you think they will protect....their predecessors and their own system...are little old you out on your own....I was a president of Nelson Master Plumbers....so it comes down to who your are more connected than....after my hearing the Master Plumbers went after me again....(but that's another story)

How do you think you will do?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
You'll see attached the letter that told all the sites of my additional charges I was issuing illegal certs in Northland....

this is the letter that finally killed my business....

this site was proven at the hearing that what I was saying for two years was true....their "star" witness from the school said if she had seen the photo that I provided "she would never had signed the statement" which was written for her...like all the other witness's....

oh and they changed the charges just weeks out so they could better fit me up.....




Now never mind that it wasn't enough to send this letter....but they were trying to get me to pay for the "defects" to be repaired.....never mind it was probably my old boss was the one who was responsible for it.....as it was his firm who installed the cyl cage after I did the initial install

But I show you this, because...under the customer guarantee's act we are liable to fix any defects....according to the Board....

Now who pays for the defective cert system? and the defective investigation and witch-hunt I endured?




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 21, 2015, 05:55:18 PM
Oh yes I have never been to Northland....but someone who was responsible for this....well his case is still before the Board.....hmmm funny that!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 22, 2015, 09:03:15 PM
In their own words its normal practice to send child sexual abuse case note in a plumbing context....so as a heads up guys...if or when this dirt comes after you tell your wife or office staff not to open the mail from the Board....see attached


I think it reflects more there mettle to sink to any low to win an "argument".....I believe it was done to intimidate me.....


People wonder why I am spewing and will NEVER let this go.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 22, 2015, 09:43:09 PM
Here's a good one and a recent one.....

I asked for some info by means of an OIA request....I was quoted an obscene amount of money, so I asked for a break down of costs......

Apparently the first quote was wrong!

Some documents were apparently "duplicated"......and so the new price was less..... with some of the originally quoted "documents" not included.....

They have sent duplicate documents before.....hmmm I wonder?




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on October 22, 2015, 10:14:16 PM
Hi Paul I hope you are sending them a bill for all the work that you have done to clear your name. They have got a dam cheek to ask for payment they should just hand the papers over, good luck mate
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 22, 2015, 10:27:20 PM
Cheers Robbo......another night missed while the wife watches a film and I am tippy tapping on the lappy....


Sent tonight.....

Mr Sawyers,

 

By way of an OIA request please can I get a full copy of Darnley’s file that I requested some time ago, the one that is referred to as “extensive” by Mr Uren at my hearing, not the part file that has been recently supplied nor the very limited file sent by Mr O’Connell, which has some info that is missing from the one you sent, see attached.
 

Please see attached my original OIA request mentioned in a Board reply. You will notice this was back in April and the time limit of 20 working days expired some time ago. Please don’t send any duplicate info that was recently already sent.
 

Also by way of another OIA request, please can you tell me which documents were duplicated in the recent file release that you supplied, I can not make the pages add up to 41, please can you clarify by means of showing me which ones were duplicated.
 

Also in this correspondence my complaints have still yet to be answered and I am still to be told how Darnley managed to get his full certifying/craftsman license.
 

Please can you also explain why 220k was spent on my case and less than 30k on investigating Darnley, and also how could the charge Darnley faced for the Milton Street explosion not make his hearing? As mentioned in attachments Doc 7 Disappearing charge.
 

Thank you.

 

Paul Gee.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 22, 2015, 10:33:26 PM
The shear arrogance of this letter is astounding......please explain PGDB
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 23, 2015, 06:21:07 AM
What changed Mr Smith, see attached in a letter to Patsy Wong and another sent just before my hearing.....Patsy had to resign because of......

Pansy Wong has announced her resignation from Parliament saying the row over her use of her travel perk has been an unfair distraction to the Government and she wants to concentrate on her family.


God we have had a run of "right honourable" people.....


These letters were written before my kangaroo court, the Board had a 100% success record in getting a conviction, which they openly gloated over....so Mr Smith has never been in a more influential position to sort this mess....what changed?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 23, 2015, 06:28:44 AM
In Nick Smiths own words......the explosion could have been averted if they had listened to my warnings!!!!


But it was me who had my wife terrorised, lost my business and reputation and time with my two young awesome sons.....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 23, 2015, 06:43:08 AM
I'll let you know what Nick says.....

Hi Nick,

 

I have proven that the PGDB did set me up as a scape goat, the Board to this very day are still protecting Darnley, I have further proof that it was in all probability Darnley who fitted the fryers and denied his own handwriting to the non impartial investigator, not to mention the sale of the very hose that caused the explosion….after I left his employ.

 

My so called hearing was a sham, biased and conflicted. Please can you explain what has changed in your opinion to my situation since your writing of these letters?

 

If anything your opinions in these letters have actually been proven, beyond doubt in my mind.

 

I look forward to your reply, I would be happy to visit your caravan if you would like to discuss these letters further.

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 24, 2015, 08:29:49 AM
The replies to this email sent this morning will give you an indication of how much things have changed and what you can expect if they go after you.....


From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2015 8:05 a.m.
To: 'john.key@national.org.nz'; 'Info'; 'Registrar'; 'complaints@pgdb.co.nz'; 'communications@pgdb.co.nz'; 'Janis Adair'; 'Andrew.McCaw@ombudsmen.parliament.nz'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; 'john.key@national.org.nz'; 'Andrew Little'; 'Ann Hunn'; 'Nick 4 Nelson'; 'paul@paulhenry.co.nz'; 'phil.twyford@parliament.govt.nz'; Craig Hooper - Coolhead Productions Ltd; 'Office of Sarah Dowie MP'; 'probono@equaljusticeproject.co.nz'; 'Paul Luxton'; 'PGDB Competency Based Licensing'; 'bryngee@hotmail.com'; 'Brendan Horan'; 'b.english@ministers.govt.nz'; 'Barry Forman'; 'clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz'; 'jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz'; 'johnscarry@xtra.co.nz'; 'Neal and Joan Gauntlett'; 'news@tvnz.co.nz'
Subject:

 

Dear Prime Minister,

 

……and others copied in.

 

Please take the time to read this email it involves corruption that risks the NZ public’s health and safety. This is but the tip of a very large grimy ice burg. To not act on this, is to roll the dice with the people of this country’s safety, I ask you to call me on this. I believe the PGDB have and are trying to cover up a very badly administered gas certificate and licensing system.
 

Some one nearly died in an explosion and even though I had tried to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years before, I was singled out….I believe singled out BECAUSE I had tried to warn about this.
 

My wife and I were subjected to a premeditated witch-hunt and have lost our business and our reputation and we were financially forced to sell our “only just” renovated, mortgage free very modest home in a very modest area, we owned all our vehicles and had no debt what so ever other than our monthly account at the plumbing suppliers. Our goal was to enjoy our young family.
 

I had spent many years and a huge amount of money re-qualifying my trade, re-sitting exams and practical assessments, because even though NZ had a shortage of gasfitters and plumbers advertised on the immigration lists, very little of my fully trained apprenticeship was recognised by the Board.
 

Our business finally died when the Board sent out a letter to all the additional sites of charges to an explosion, one of these letters had most impact, it was to the local high school in the then main centre of business. This letter said I was issuing illegal gas certs in Northland; I have never been to Northland.
 

The Board have since apologised for this letter but the damage has been done, the Board also offered us $500.00 for this too, but I told them to donate this money to Ronald McDonald house in CHCH, I don’t believe they did this.
 

After the Board’s biased and slanted hearing I was forced to work away, my wife and young sons spent the first 16 weeks of my absence living in a caravan with no running drinking water, nor a flushing toilet, my wife emptied the caravan toilet cassette at the local i-site and refilled water bottles for them to have drinking water. She never moaned once to me about this. My kids were toddlers.
 

In fact she went pretty quiet for the months leading up to the hearing and just after the hearing, she went quiet just after receiving child sexual abuse case notes to prove a point in a plumbing context, after all we had been through she found it very threatening and I found her hysterical. She opened the unmarked package at home with no indication of the filth inside on its outside wrapper and very little clear explanation of why it was sent on the inside….After all we had been through she thought, in her hysteria, that it was some sort of threat. I found her this way when I came home. We had had the Board hanging over our head for over 2 years.
 

After this kangaroo court, I worked away for two years, and lost two years out of our young son’s lives. I spent this two years going from job to job, living for months at a time in a caravan on an industrial site, bed and breakfasts and spent months living in a workshop, depending on where I could find work.
 

My trade was stolen from me, even though I am a fully qualified certifying/craftsman plumber and gasfitter with a limited trade electrical license I struggle to find a decent employer within my trade and have worked for two years as a trainee in a totally different industry, where I am reminded daily that I am new and know little about this new industry. 
 

My “punishment” is far longer and deeper than the Board’s official one dealt out after the hearing, the hearing where the hearing chair shut it down just as I was going to go 100% innocent, shut down by the friend and confidant of the so called impartial investigator, the same impartial investigator who gifted my ex boss, John Darnley his full certifying/craftsman licence with no formal apprenticeship served. Of Note this last charge out of 44 charges laid has recently been ignored in another case, so even by the Board’s own reckoning I did nothing wrong what so ever.
 

This is the same boss I had complained about for the six years before the explosion, complaining about dodgy certs covering dangerous work, complained for 6 years before the explosion.
 

This explosion was caused by a third hose sold to supply two fryers, this third hose was sold because the initial one had split before, it was sold after I worked there. Please see “3rd hose receipt” and “letter of period of employment”…..please compare the dates.
 

John Darnley denied his own handwriting on the job card for these fryers, please see attachments. I say this because two people have checked one sample of the hand writing on this job card for the fryers that caused the explosion and a signed sample of Darnley’s handwriting. One of these people is a very experienced investigator and the other the only hand writing expert in NZ, if media releases are to be believed. Please see in attachments.
 

All this evidence is available to the Board, but they appear not to want to go after the person that all the evidence point to.
 

This apparent approach has been from the get go, the Dept of Labour actually complained about a certain certificate 345138 in their complaint made after the explosion, see attached.
 

Now the Board claim that this cert 345138 was never received by them, see attached.
 

But the so called impartial investigator says he saw the original, see attached….which is true?
 

There is also a copy of cert 345138 on the Boards Fox Pro system. Of Note ALL copies available show a lack of a record of a test for gas leaks….at the site of an explosion, caused by a gas leak.
 

I tried to prevent a situation for 6 years before an explosion nearly killed someone, a situation that I now am still paying for daily, I am 100% innocent.
 

I have gone to the Ombudsman and waited over two years for him to use his discretion and not investigate it, I do not believe this is fair and feel that the word “An Illusion of” should be added to their motto of Fairness for “All”.
 

No body will look at the legionnaire’s case I have also tried for years to get addressed, please see attached. This address is in the Minister responsible for this Nick Smith, this all happened in his constituency, the people who voted him in, were and I believe still are at risk from this mans work.
 

Well now you all know just some of the cover up and corruption that has and I believe is still done at a risk to the NZ public. And the huge cost it has had on an innocent family that came to NZ for a better life for our kids.
 

I bring your attention to a press release by Phil Routhan, the ex Board member and CEO of the Board. See attached titled “A former chief exec”.
 

I admit it does appear that Mr Routhan’s comments made on the state and mismanagement of the PGDB’s FoxPro cert system is a manipulation of a situation for his own ends, in trying to keep/reclaim his job. But please remember he was very, very informed and had a huge amount of access to the FoxPro system and had a lot of experience in the trades. It is reprehensible that it happened under his watch and even worse that he held on to it for his own ends, but that does not make it untrue, I believe he would not have made these claims if they were unsubstantiated.
 

I agree with Mr Routhan’s comments about the danger, and have been trying air these concerns for well over a decade, BEFORE the explosion.
 

I think the Ombudsman and copied in ministers owe it to the NZ public to push to have this looked in to, this would be fair.
 

An open transparent independent inquiry is well over due, please before anyone gets hurt.
 

If you request, and provide me an email that will accept, and I am not exaggerating here, a massive amount of evidence I will provide to back these claims. Because of the corrupt actions inflicted on my family by these people I am not in a financial position to take this to court, but I still have my voice. Please listen.
 

I ask you Dr Smith, with all due respect, what has changed in your opinion expressed in these letters attached, if anything your fears have been substantiated and proven beyond doubt, I am still the hard working, honest responsible man whom you met, what has changed for you? If anything now that you are the very minister responsible for this portfolio and its is in your constituency…. there is no-one better placed to deal with this corruption.
 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

 

 

 

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 24, 2015, 08:35:16 AM
....this is the receipt for the hose that actually caused the explosion, compare the dates to the period of my employment....


I got this from the Board's own evidence for my hearing......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 24, 2015, 08:58:19 AM




And to the Board and Mr Sawyers....I will happily get on with my life when I get it back and you put the NZ health and safety first and foremost with integrity and credability....but until then I ain't going anywhere.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 24, 2015, 09:52:40 AM
You would think that any of the people copied in or the Board would be horrified at the very risk or hint of corruption......


But the Board's new registrar is of the opinion that it didn't happen when he was there so it doesn't count.....but it is a continuous membership Industry Board.....which has celebrated it 100th year of being.....not its 100th new member nor 100th incarnation.....

To ignore it is to cover it up....and be party to that cover up and corruption....I believe anyone who ignores corruption is corrupt.....Have a look at the people who definitely know about it.....you judge.

And you can be assured if they ignore this then there is a good chance of it happening to you in the future.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 24, 2015, 09:58:06 AM
Now don't forget someone nearly died and spent two weeks in a burns unit, while they covered it up....

I know of at least one other potentially life threatening home, interfered with by this dodgy bastard....he was very busy in my area for a long time too....

I have seen loads of dodgy certs and the Boards own fox pro system carries a accuracy disclaimer.....

Now the gas cert system is a shambles......


What's the odds on you running this gauntlet next? Pretty feckin high I would say....


But the Registrar thinks your all happy with it because you didn't turn up at his little tour....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 09:23:22 AM

From the Board's news letter issued in March 2009, the chipshop exploded in April 2009(within the weeks after making this statement)

....the so called "non registration" by Darnley of cert 345138 was also discovered in April 2009(this is for the pizza oven, the last work done at the site of the explosion)....

this same Tony Hammond, mentioned below, is the investigator appointed by the Board, he is the same guy who gifted Darnley his full license.....and is the same guy who only showed the 11 or so photos, out of over 100 forensic photos taken....the ones not used showed the pipe had been moved (as evidenced by the f****ing holes in the wall from the clips).....

Of note out of the 11 photos used by Hammond was for the hose for pizza oven of cert 345138.


Replacement for
Gas Appliances –
Tony Hammond
The Gas Regulations (REG 24) define, amongst others, that the
following require certification:
Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations
Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the
operation of the installation
It is worth noting that an installation is defined in the Gas Act as
“including a gas appliance”.
Therefore, replacement of one appliance by another, even if very
similar, requires certification.
Further weight is added to the argument when one considers that
even a “like for like” replacement needs to be adjusted to ensure
gas pressure and aeration are set appropriately, the connections are
gastightness and the safety devices operate at the right levels; that
is, the appliance needs to be commissioned in accordance with clause
1.6.7 of NZS 5261.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 09:52:39 AM
the connections are
gastightness and the safety devices operate at the right levels; that
is, the appliance needs to be commissioned in accordance with clause
1.6.7 of NZS 5261.

So Hammond says this in the PGDB newsletter.....BUT.....


....is ok with Darnley selling a third hose after the initial installation (sold after I left), replacing the first hose because it split because someone (definitely not me and in all probability Darnley) lowered the pipe work AND added a pizza oven AND changed all the gas cylinder installation (as evidenced by the receipts and photos).....AND THEN not registering it with the Board....BUT issuing all the carbon copies out to the gas supplier (who was also Darnley) and the customer....


Now the original of cert 345138 was seen by the investigator (according to his own report, see attached)..... and it appears on the Board's website (see attached)....but when the poor blast victims lawyer goes to the Board with the carbon copy in his hand and askes for the original....its gone!  claimed by the Board within days of the blast to have never been received.... who's not telling the truth.....either way I was dealing with and being shafted by a person or people who dealing untruths or are so incompetent/hopeless that they see things that are not there....


IT APPEARS THAT THE LAST PERSON TO SEE CERT 345138 WAS TONY HAMMOND...is he the shredder dun dun derrrrr!....the same guy who lobbied for the self cert system and gifted Darnley his license......Darnley is the guy who showed the flaws in the system that Hammond lobbied for.....empowered by the Board's flippant issuing of a license, endorsed by Hammond's oral exam...gifted to Darnley....is this impartial, is it f****.....please explain to me how this guy, Hammond, can (and he never did) act with impartiality..... without implicating himself......All done against my complaints about this...

BUT MARTIN SAWYERS THINKS I SHOULD MOVE ON, GET ON WITH MY LIFE.....give it back mate and I will....I want nothing more....


Of Note.... here is the "check" that we have lost....the carbon copy, 4 independently issued, but identical hard paper copies.....with handwriting to check its authenticity.....now we have passwords and printers....


If they are willing to ignore and cover this up.....what will you get in the future?


It is a f****ing shambles......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 10:10:41 AM
Look at the dates on this, the chippy exploded on the 9th April 2009......So the non registration of the cert 345138 was known days after the explosion......cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the Dept of Labour complaint, see attached.....

I asked for a copy of the original of cert345138 in the days after my hearing (3rd 4th and 5th of May 2011)......the thing is you don't see a half of the tirade levelled against you until your in the dock.....then after the kangaroo court adjourns......you can't adduce any new evidence.....where's that "dealing with unreasonable people" policy gone....



 ........AND DARNLEY FACES A CHARGE......FOR THE EXPLOSION......BUT THE CHARGE (PERHAPS IT IS LIVING WITH THE ORIGINAL OF CERT 345138)....... IT ALL DISSAPEARS.......POOF.....ALL UP IN A CLOUD OF PICTSHEE DUST.....

I lost everything.....but as Martin Sawyers said (new registrar, same attitude) .......I am just after money......






From: Melanie Phillips [mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 4:13 p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Cc: Wal Gordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee 
Hi Paul
Please see attached Belinda’s file note of her request to John Darnley for a copy of certificate 345138.  This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street.   
Also attached is a copy of the certificate received which, as you will see, is of quite poor quality.
Please let me know if you need any more information. 
Regards
Mel
 
From: Melanie Phillips[mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 3:22p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee; WalGordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee
Hi Paul
I have just gone back through the file and can confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138.  The only copy the Board has is a photocopy of the certifier’s copy, which you produced as exhibit PG007 together with a copy of the gas suppliers copy.
I see notes from Belinda Greer on the file that the Board copy of certificate 345138 was received after the explosion in 2009, I think from the Department of Labour.
I’m sorry I can’t help you further.
Regards
Mel



So how did Hammond check the original copy of cert 345138, is he lying, senile, incompetent, delusional?


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 10:58:09 AM
.....here's the final kick in the guts from the Board, I was living in a maintenance workshop, working in "NZ housing" projects in the North Island (horrendous).... and my wife was living in a caravan with no flushing toilet nor running drinking water, with my two lads who were toddlers.....

My girl went from a recently renovated mortgage free home....to a caravan.....

I was unblocking toilets and fixing taps for people who didn't work, while my wife was taking a bucket of shite to be emptied and collect drinking water at the local I-site...in front of the whole community....while the public read this pontificating bullshit in the local rag......




PRESS RELEASE | 7 November 2011

Nelson plumber and gasfitter ordered to undergo training

A Nelson plumber and gasfitter found guilty of professional shortcomings and unacceptable conduct has been ordered to undergo a course of training in a penalty decision issued by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) today.

The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board found that Paul Gee breached the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act (1976) when he carried out gasfitting work on a house in Malvern Avenue, Nelson.

Due to Mr Gee’s personal and financial circumstances, the Board decided not to ask Mr Gee to pay a fine or contribute to the costs of the hearing.

Alan Bickers, chair of the PGDB, said:

“The Board takes its responsibilities in this area very seriously and the primary purpose of discipline is rehabilitative, not punitive.
“Discipline is an opportunity to identify and, where possible, promote the competence of registered tradesmen by identifying conduct which falls below the standard expected of a registered person.

“The Board was concerned by Mr Gee’s apparent lack of knowledge and appreciation of the applicable regulatory provisions for gasfitting, which exist to ensure the health and safety of the New Zealand public.

“While the Board understands that the disciplinary process can be stressful for parties, Mr Gee’s evidence at the hearing raised serious concerns about his understanding of some fundamental aspects of the gasfitting trade.”

In July, the PGDB decided the case against Mr Gee in relation to work carried out on six other properties in the Tasman Bay and Westport areas was not established.

The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the PGDB about the matter and the PGDB undertook its own investigation. As a consequence, a further six properties were also identified as potentially posing a risk to the health and safety of the public.









Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 11:04:32 AM


So Mr Sawyers......CEO/Registrar of a CONTINUOUS membership industry Board.....


Do you still stand by the statement.......( and more to the point....do you guys believe him......)

"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate".......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:04:17 PM
Have a look at a paper written by the "impartial" investigator.....the same guy who gifted Darnley his license...which officially empowered Darnley to install gas all over THE PLACE.....Darnley was also a member of NZIGE......


So people in the area not only thought Darnley was fully qualified, but event that he might be an engineer......funny because Darnley resigned from NZIGE the following month after the explosion.....


So how impartial is the interrogator? sorry investigator......the same guy who wrote this paper attached....the same guy who told me "to make sure my own house was in order before you dob people in" and the cert system is to big to fail"


For Hammond to investigate properly he would have to ignore the fact that because of him, Darnley was gifted his full certifying license.....and the cert system (that he lobbied for) was shown wanting by the very same person who he had gifted a license to.....resulting in an explosion.....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:08:23 PM
Here he is....Darnley resigning from NZIGE.........the explosion was 9th April 2009.........



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:10:07 PM
I wonder why Darnley resigned?

If he was innocent of any wrong doing?


Bit co-incidental don't ya think?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:11:47 PM
......perhaps he thinks he is innocent because he didn't recognise his own handwriting on a job card....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:31:55 PM
Please remember that the Board still to this day has no one held responsible for a near fatal explosion........that laid a poor bugger in a burns unit for two weeks and ruined his business.......


So if the first person you target in an investigation proves his innocence....do you just stop there...ignoring blatant evidence?


Here's the handwriting for you to look at......you might as well have a look because the Board don't care.....


So the guy who didn't register the original copy for the cert 345138, the cert for the last work done at the site of an explosion....owned the company who sold the hose that caused the explosion(and probably fitted it), told the investigator he didn't recognise his own handwriting on the job card for the explosion, was untrained and had pervious incidents to his name...... with complaints received by me for six years before the explosion.....isn't of interest to the Board....not even today? Why is that?

Same guy who faced a charge for the explosion but it disappeared with no trial......


So they pinned it on me and now I can prove all this....I am to get on with my life (a life which I don't have and is still denied me).....




Mr Sawyers thinks I am just after money, perhaps that's why I "planned" all this is it Martin? FFS......

Do you know what really makes me laugh apparently I'm the problem........What, for showing this for what it is?


IT IS CORRUPTION AND A COVER UP.....AND SO IS ANYONE WHO ALLOWS IT TO CONTINUE.......

Come on....a quarter of a million dollars spent and no one held responsible, of OUR  money.......220k on me and less than 30k of Darnley.......



I have done all the work for you, for free......now go and get the real culprit.......




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
Next is the four books of certs bought in my name with out my permission.....

On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with Darnley. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board.

On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law. In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable, I told him to shove his job up his f****ing arse.

On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge.

On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company.

I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on.


I complained about this at the time.....as soon as I found out.......well before the explosion.......






Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 12:51:19 PM
If you look at the GST numbers and the cert numbers and take it for granted that the numbers run sequentially......... 


The first ordered is the single book.....then the three other extra books are ordered.......with the application altered and faxed 14th November.....how does that happen.......


How does the two sets of receipts reflect the alteration to the initial application, that was faxed????

All known to the Board.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 01:20:18 PM
When I was in interview, I told Hammond about the books of certs.....he smugly looked at me and said.....


"but you paid for these with YOUR credit card"......

I replied "I have never owned a credit card".....he went pale, not in fear but in anger....I distinctly remember this......this is the reply he sent after this see attached....

And his take on it from his report attached.......


I knew nothing of this and took it that as it was his firm he was supplying the certs.....but then when I told Darnley in no uncertain terms to shove his job up his f****ing arse.....someone at Allgas goes and orders 4 books in my name, not all at once either but in haphazard way....

All known to the Board.....


These books of certs are what resulted in the accuracy disclaimer on their website....you will notice that cert 299748 is from the batch of of certs ordered in my name....all known to the Board.......










Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 01:22:51 PM
So how can they get my name from a paper copy which doesn't mention my name?


......because it was bought in my name....that's why......but no one has a problem with this.....



How are you all feeling now about the cert system that will be used to f**** you over?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 01:26:40 PM
The reason I couldn't resign straight away, straight after telling Darnley to shove his job.....was because my wife and I had just bought our first home and had just signed up for a mortgage.


I told Hammond all this, but it didn't make his report......funny that.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 01:30:50 PM
So Mr Sawyers, do you still believe......I lost everything......


"I believe in a disciplinary system that is fair, risk based and proportionate".......


My kids tell that they believe in the tooth fairy too.....so they can pocket the money under their pillow.....sound familiar......lol....what a f****ing joke....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 02:00:30 PM
I think the Ron Patterson from the Ombudsman says it best.....in a key note speakers paper, attached......

First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning obvious to the eye or mind –from videre, to see.

This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.

Try swapping "licensed doctor " with "gifted gas certifying licence gasfitter".....have a read of a paper issued by the Ombudsman who is to use his powers discretion in not looking at this wealth of evidence....where some one nearly died.....that's fair aye!


So what is it in terms of plumbing? Because Mr Patterson has been given a lot of evidence and has used his powers of discretion not to investigate......which to me an untrained in law layman seems a bit hypocritical...


"Fairness for Everyone".......perhaps an addition of "An Illusion of" could be added to this motto......



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 02:32:41 PM
Any way..... back to the books of certs ordered in my name with out my permission....

I complained firstly, as soon as I left Allgas....see attachment letter to Singleton......then a year later when I employed a lawyer.....


look at the dates.....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 02:39:15 PM
But apparently I have over 1000 certs in my name....I could have had a look at $25 per certs.....


I didn't have 25 thousand dollars handy, so I never......

Belinda Greer if you remember was mentioned in the email from the Board lawyer saying that the pizza oven cert was never received.....perhaps some could ask her?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 02:51:26 PM
So according to the letter below, at the time of them writing this letter.... there are OVER a 1000 certs in my name......but if you add up the number of books ordered in my name it is about 60, even if you include the books ordered without my permission.


So guys you have legally binding certs in your name held by the Board, which they will most definitely use should you find yourself in strife with the Board, or if they decide to have strife with you, how many of you know for sure what's held in your name by the Board??, who's acted in your name (which the Board has no problem with).....how does that sit with you?

Perhaps the office manager or office receptionist, or anyone else who has access to your password or cert ordering system.....( or more recently access to your  license number and a printer, which is the whole of NZ).......fancies a new gas fire and the muppet installing it kills people....do you think the Board or anyone else for that matter will bail you out for the manslaughter.....good luck with that.....just do your time with a smile on your face....


Remember it seems to come down to how well your connected...... not truth, evidence nor ethics, I was a past president of Master Plumbers.....but it appears I was trumped by Darnley....



The question is how connected are you.....who will trump you?


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 03:02:59 PM

Dear Mr Gee

I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, Rt Hon John Key, to acknowledge your email of 2 July 2015 concerning your issues with your complaint E80343.  The Prime Minister will not be getting involved as he relies on his Ministers and or other experts to resolve such issues

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Prime Minister and share your views.

Yours sincerely




What do you do when the minister responsible Nick Smith, does nothing? The Ombudsman uses his powers of discretion not to investigate.........where do you go?


I have not seen one ounce of fair play.......




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 26, 2015, 03:06:56 PM
Remember Mr Smiths letters......

Well the last meeting I had with him.....he told me I had gone too far........


Gone too far......What in clearing my name......there is no limit on how far I will go to do that....

To me my name and reputation is worth more than power, money, position and influence.......what do you think these people who did this to me think of these things.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 27, 2015, 06:49:12 AM
I had tried to get this looked at for 6 years before someone nearly got killed in an explosion, I approached MP's, told my Master Plumber Assoc, told members at the two AGM'S I attended.

The explosion happened, the Board ignored blatant evidence, withheld photos that proved what I was saying (i.e. the pipe was lowered AFTER I installed it, the photos showed the bloody holes where the pipe WAS).....they still won't go after Darnley....spent 220k persecuting my wife and I, but spent less than 30k going after Darnley.

Right up until the hearing Nick Smith was backing me.....but when the hearing proved what I was saying....he totally backed off. I have waited over two years for the Ombudsman to "use his powers of discretion"...

I was lied about and publically humiliated.

Then the members of the of Master Plumbers who were part of this persecution,  but lost their place on the Board, went after me for my outbursts about this corruption........so I left Master Plumbers. The could only "discipline" me if I was a member.....they had ignored the master plumber ethics and rules in going after me and being part of the Board's persecution.


I now work in an industry where I am new and I am reminded I am new every single working day, I had my trade stolen off me...I had put in 25 years....




But Martin Sawyers says I should put all this behind me and get on with my life....I haven't seen "my life" since April 2009.....if anyone sees "my life"  I would love to know, tell him I been looking for him and I will happily have him back.





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 27, 2015, 05:21:29 PM
I can't go much higher.....please see below






Dear Mr Gee

I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, to acknowledge your email of 24 October 2015 concerning your request for a transparent, independent inquiry into the plumbing issues that have affected you and your employment. Please be assured your comments have been noted.

As the issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Building and Housing, Hon Dr Nick Smith, your email has been forwarded on to their office for consideration.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Prime Minister.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 27, 2015, 06:01:38 PM
Nick Smith, wrote this letter 16th April 2011, the hearing was held 3rd to the 5th May 2011.......

Just three weeks before my kangaroo court where the evidence was withheld and the investigators mate who was chairing the hearing, closed down, etc etc....



What changed?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 27, 2015, 06:24:22 PM
The thing is and this really bothers me....if this sort of corruption that I have experienced is all good with the people in power who know about it and have seen this evidence and have done nothing....

Well what bothers me is my case is relatively small in the scheme of things (although it is massive to my wife and I)......

What happens over the big stiff, the really important stuff?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 27, 2015, 09:29:43 PM
"Install Bayonets and test".....that's all I did.....all the handwriting on this side of the job card, the back side, you'll notice there are no fryers.....this is my handwriting......


Then on the front of the job card there are two types of handwriting the hand at the bottom of the "appliances" field is mine......


But the handwriting at the top, the writing for the fryers ......well according to the only handwriting expert in NZ......well that's Darnley's.

Check it out.....the samples below in attachments....and the opinion below.....




This job card was shown to the "impartial" (lol....must mean dirty as f****) investigator......

All known to the Board, but it would not be useful to relook at my case......no I don't suppose being shown for being corrupt would be useful to you.....



How would you like to loose everything in this manner?

I have identified several similarities between the 2 scripts these included.

•   Lower zone 'g' length and width of loop similar.
•   Return stroke on Lower zone of 'g' crosses at the baseline.
•   Minute hooks on the terminal stroke of 'N' in Nelson and 'F' in ' Fryer'.
•   Occasional pen lifts and partial letter connections eg 'Blue' 'Nelson'.
•   Constructional features of No 6 similar.
•   Baseline alignment ascends, then descends, eg 'John'  Nelson'  'Blue'  'seal'.
•   Connecting strokes similar garland type. eg  l and u in 'blue'. and a and w in 'Atawhai'
•   Zero on '90' elongated similar to zero in '04'.
•   Middle zone  proportions and measurements in relativity to the Lower Zones.
•   Pen pressure variable. Could be due to the type of pen used. Difficult to confirm on photocopys.
•   Full stops heavy pressure ,both scripts showed a mix of dashed and curved.
•   Slant on first stroke of '4'  in 'GT45' and '26/4/04' similar at 70o reclined.
Opinion

It is highly probable that the 2 scripts were of common authorship.The author is a versatile writer who is capable of using or adjusting his script to suit his circumstances. Both scripts were written with a different writing instrument.The writing surface and the the authors emotional and personal or medical  circumstances could have also affected the slight variation on the pictorial style of the script.

The above analysis is based on 2 short scripts on electronically submitted photocopys. More exemplars would be required to form a more definitive opinion.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 27, 2015, 09:43:17 PM
Sent tonight....I'll let you know the reply.....




Mr Sawyers,

 

Please see a link to the “Plumbers Forum”

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg10045#msg10045

 

This extensive body of evidence proves I was set up and the guilty have been allowed to walk by the Board.

 

I will take the cop out of “I am new don’t blame me”, that you are happy for the Board to have acted corruptly in the past and do not want to go after the guilty and you are willing to ignore blatant evidence in the process.

 

FYI…I have posted this email on this link.

 

I will post your reply on this link also, so please reply as though you are talking to the whole of the forum/the whole of the industry.

 

Yours Sincerely Paul
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 28, 2015, 05:48:04 AM
Mr Hammond at the first of the interviews with myself turned up with normal "black and white" copies of pink original certs, but done on pink paper.....this totally disguised the FACT that a lot, the exploding chip shop included, had all different types of ink colours all over the pink copies.

I tried several ways to get hold of the original copies, I was denied under different points of law or cost, but eventually after several attempts I got them....loads of the certs from my time at Allgas were full of different colour inks, the only writing of mine was the signature.....bare in mind I had complained about dodgy certs for 6 years before the explosion and I discovered this ink issue BEFORE the hearing....

The investigators response was to go at look for "other jobs of concern"...he claims to have checked only 10%......but I have another letter from a board lawyer that says he checked three years worth of my work.


Now according to the investigator himself both the fryers were dropped off on the 24th of June 2003, but the certs "test date" is for the 15th, with the 15 in blue ink and the rest of the date in black, there are other blue ink entries too....this was of no concern to Mr Hammond what so ever...



By co-incidence the date of signature is My wife's birthday, the 26th June and we went away for it, it is a Thursday. But I couldn't prove that I was not at work that day....Mr Hammond didn't care, he said the only important part was the signature (which was mine)....he then threatened me with a hand writing expert to check the signature.....remember the job cards for this explosion........the ones below....Hammond had them too in his possession, he could have had those checked by a handwriting expert, but he didn't....

Darnley faced a charge for this explosion......but it disappeared.......no one has explained this to me yet.....


Here's the problem....your guilty......guilty as a guy caught carrying a TV out of a strangers window in the Board's eyes.....if you can not prove it, it ain't so....they will not believe you.....



Have a think of the certs you were signing back in 2003.....how much proof do you have.....


I have ALL this proof and the "Fairness for All" Ombudsman.....uses his discretion to ignore it.....how will you go if its you or the Board, or one of their mates or if the "other guy" can trump your connections......












Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 28, 2015, 07:39:20 AM
You'll notice that the job card for the explosion......has two sets of pressure test results, the first one of higher pressure....that's my hand writing......this is what you do when your testing THE PIPE WORK ONLY.....

Then you will see there is a second test result, at a lower pressure, not in my hand writing but in keeping with the handwriting of the appliances handwriting......


This lower pressure is consistent with the appliances being added to an EXISTING pipe work......add to this the sale of the third hose sold moths after I left.....add to this the un-registered cert for the pizza oven installed long after I left....


ADD TO THIS DARNLEY FACED A CHARGE BUT IT DISSAPEARED....BEFORE HIS HEARING......




Do you think there was justification in going after me....the guy who warned about this for 6 years.....





Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 28, 2015, 09:06:22 PM

It just simply isn't in my DNA to let this go.....





Hi Nick

Please can you let me know if you are to act on this body of evidence I have posted on this link below?

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg10048#msg10048

It is for a Plumber’s Forum, which has received over 14,800 views; I have posted quite a lot of the evidence that proves that I was set up as a scape goat and that the guilty walked free.

This happened in your constituency and it is now your portfolio, please can you tell me why you do not want this evidence acted upon?

Just to be clear, I have posted this email on this link and I will post any reply on the same link.

Also below is an email from John Key, apparently it is for you to deal with.

Yours sincerely

Paul Gee


________________________________________
From: J Key (MIN) [mailto:J.Key@ministers.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2015 2:40 p.m.
To: 'gspservices@xtra.co.nz'
Subject: RE:



Dear Mr Gee

I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, to acknowledge your email of 24 October 2015 concerning your request for a transparent, independent inquiry into the plumbing issues that have affected you and your employment. Please be assured your comments have been noted.

As the issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Building and Housing, Hon Dr Nick Smith, your email has been forwarded on to their office for consideration.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Prime Minister.


Yours sincerely
A Ireton
Correspondence Manager
 
 
From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2015 8:05 a.m.
To: john.key@national.org.nz; 'Info'; 'Registrar'; complaints@pgdb.co.nz; communications@pgdb.co.nz; 'Janis Adair'; Andrew.McCaw@ombudsmen.parliament.nz
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt'; john.key@national.org.nz; Andrew Little; Ann Hunn; Nick 4 Nelson; paul@paulhenry.co.nz; Phil Twyford; Craig Hooper - Coolhead Productions Ltd; Office of Sarah Dowie MP; probono@equaljusticeproject.co.nz; 'Paul Luxton'; 'PGDB Competency Based Licensing'; bryngee@hotmail.com; 'Brendan Horan'; B English (MIN); 'Barry Forman'; Hon Clayton Cosgrove; Jacinda Ardern; johnscarry@xtra.co.nz; 'Neal and Joan Gauntlett'; TVNZ
Subject:
 
Dear Prime Minister,
 
……and others copied in.
 
1.   Please take the time to read this email it involves corruption that risks the NZ public’s health and safety. This is but the tip of a very large grimy ice burg. To not act on this, is to roll the dice with the people of this country’s safety, I ask you to call me on this. I believe the PGDB have and are trying to cover up a very badly administered gas certificate and licensing system.
 
2.   Some one nearly died in an explosion and even though I had tried to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years before, I was singled out….I believe singled out BECAUSE I had tried to warn about this.
 
3.   My wife and I were subjected to a premeditated witch-hunt and have lost our business and our reputation and we were financially forced to sell our “only just” renovated, mortgage free very modest home in a very modest area, we owned all our vehicles and had no debt what so ever other than our monthly account at the plumbing suppliers. Our goal was to enjoy our young family.
 
4.   I had spent many years and a huge amount of money re-qualifying my trade, re-sitting exams and practical assessments, because even though NZ had a shortage of gasfitters and plumbers advertised on the immigration lists, very little of my fully trained apprenticeship was recognised by the Board.
 
5.   Our business finally died when the Board sent out a letter to all the additional sites of charges to an explosion, one of these letters had most impact, it was to the local high school in the then main centre of business. This letter said I was issuing illegal gas certs in Northland; I have never been to Northland.
 
6.   The Board have since apologised for this letter but the damage has been done, the Board also offered us $500.00 for this too, but I told them to donate this money to Ronald McDonald house in CHCH, I don’t believe they did this.
 
7.   After the Board’s biased and slanted hearing I was forced to work away, my wife and young sons spent the first 16 weeks of my absence living in a caravan with no running drinking water, nor a flushing toilet, my wife emptied the caravan toilet cassette at the local i-site and refilled water bottles for them to have drinking water. She never moaned once to me about this. My kids were toddlers.
 
8.   In fact she went pretty quiet for the months leading up to the hearing and just after the hearing, she went quiet just after receiving child sexual abuse case notes to prove a point in a plumbing context, after all we had been through she found it very threatening and I found her hysterical. She opened the unmarked package at home with no indication of the filth inside on its outside wrapper and very little clear explanation of why it was sent on the inside….After all we had been through she thought, in her hysteria, that it was some sort of threat. I found her this way when I came home. We had had the Board hanging over our head for over 2 years.
 
9.   After this kangaroo court, I worked away for two years, and lost two years out of our young son’s lives. I spent this two years going from job to job, living for months at a time in a caravan on an industrial site, bed and breakfasts and spent months living in a workshop, depending on where I could find work.
 
10.   My trade was stolen from me, even though I am a fully qualified certifying/craftsman plumber and gasfitter with a limited trade electrical license I struggle to find a decent employer within my trade and have worked for two years as a trainee in a totally different industry, where I am reminded daily that I am new and know little about this new industry. 
 
11.   My “punishment” is far longer and deeper than the Board’s official one dealt out after the hearing, the hearing where the hearing chair shut it down just as I was going to go 100% innocent, shut down by the friend and confidant of the so called impartial investigator, the same impartial investigator who gifted my ex boss, John Darnley his full certifying/craftsman licence with no formal apprenticeship served. Of Note this last charge out of 44 charges laid has recently been ignored in another case, so even by the Board’s own reckoning I did nothing wrong what so ever.
 
12.   This is the same boss I had complained about for the six years before the explosion, complaining about dodgy certs covering dangerous work, complained for 6 years before the explosion.
 
13.   This explosion was caused by a third hose sold to supply two fryers, this third hose was sold because the initial one had split before, it was sold after I worked there. Please see “3rd hose receipt” and “letter of period of employment”…..please compare the dates.
 
14.   John Darnley denied his own handwriting on the job card for these fryers, please see attachments. I say this because two people have checked one sample of the hand writing on this job card for the fryers that caused the explosion and a signed sample of Darnley’s handwriting. One of these people is a very experienced investigator and the other the only hand writing expert in NZ, if media releases are to be believed. Please see in attachments.
 
15.   All this evidence is available to the Board, but they appear not to want to go after the person that all the evidence point to.
 
16.   This apparent approach has been from the get go, the Dept of Labour actually complained about a certain certificate 345138 in their complaint made after the explosion, see attached.
 
17.   Now the Board claim that this cert 345138 was never received by them, see attached.
 
18.   But the so called impartial investigator says he saw the original, see attached….which is true?
 
19.   There is also a copy of cert 345138 on the Boards Fox Pro system. Of Note ALL copies available show a lack of a record of a test for gas leaks….at the site of an explosion, caused by a gas leak.
 
20.   I tried to prevent a situation for 6 years before an explosion nearly killed someone, a situation that I now am still paying for daily, I am 100% innocent.
 
21.   I have gone to the Ombudsman and waited over two years for him to use his discretion and not investigate it, I do not believe this is fair and feel that the word “An Illusion of” should be added to their motto of Fairness for “All”.
 
22.   No body will look at the legionnaire’s case I have also tried for years to get addressed, please see attached. This address is in the Minister responsible for this Nick Smith, this all happened in his constituency, the people who voted him in, were and I believe still are at risk from this mans work.
 
23.   Well now you all know just some of the cover up and corruption that has and I believe is still done at a risk to the NZ public. And the huge cost it has had on an innocent family that came to NZ for a better life for our kids.
 
24.   I bring your attention to a press release by Phil Routhan, the ex Board member and CEO of the Board. See attached titled “A former chief exec”.
 
25.   I admit it does appear that Mr Routhan’s comments made on the state and mismanagement of the PGDB’s FoxPro cert system is a manipulation of a situation for his own ends, in trying to keep/reclaim his job. But please remember he was very, very informed and had a huge amount of access to the FoxPro system and had a lot of experience in the trades. It is reprehensible that it happened under his watch and even worse that he held on to it for his own ends, but that does not make it untrue, I believe he would not have made these claims if they were unsubstantiated.
 
26.   I agree with Mr Routhan’s comments about the danger, and have been trying air these concerns for well over a decade, BEFORE the explosion.
 
27.   I think the Ombudsman and copied in ministers owe it to the NZ public to push to have this looked in to, this would be fair.
 
28.   An open transparent independent inquiry is well over due, please before anyone gets hurt.
 
29.   If you request, and provide me an email that will accept, and I am not exaggerating here, a massive amount of evidence I will provide to back these claims. Because of the corrupt actions inflicted on my family by these people I am not in a financial position to take this to court, but I still have my voice. Please listen.
 
30.   I ask you Dr Smith, with all due respect, what has changed in your opinion expressed in these letters attached, if anything your fears have been substantiated and proven beyond doubt, I am still the hard working, honest responsible man whom you met, what has changed for you? If anything now that you are the very minister responsible for this portfolio and its is in your constituency…. there is no-one better placed to deal with this corruption.
 
 
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
 
 
 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 28, 2015, 09:19:39 PM
The chipshop exploded in Nelson, in Milton Street....it exploded at approx 09:30 am on a school day......


It was an old butchers style window, mostly all plate glass, if it had exploded just one hour earlier....it would have been surrounded by school kids, there is a dairy right next door....in Nelson....

These would have been the kids of the people who voted and still vote Nick Smith into his job......

Nick Smith said quite a lot BEFORE the hearing, see letter below....

Since he has become the minister responsible for the Board.........




Why no action?



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 28, 2015, 09:26:34 PM
This c/h system is in Nelson......no one will look at it......its lethal (if, its how I saw it started, and have been told how it was finished).

I have told everyone I can think of even the coroner.....

Why won't someone go check?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on October 28, 2015, 09:48:27 PM
I have tried pleading to peoples sense of empathy and ethics to do the right thing........have a read of the amount of times and to who I have tried to tell....not to mention told verbally....just scroll down, all the way down... on the attachment....


So here is another tack, if someone is made ill or looses their feet (like the poor lady recently) or even dies and this is a possibility, and it is a roll of the dice not to go check this job.....how is that going to effect the careers of these people?

The Board's response to look at this is to, ignore it several times and  hand it to the territorial authority twice....so they are asking the very people who signed off on the building compliance....to go around and check some thing they may have missed......

Its ok though......the guy who put this c/h system in had a full certifying gas license and an exemption for fitting hot water....no training mind, but had all the tickets.....


Please please please just go and check..... (remember the guy who had all sorts done to him for not putting a strap on a cylinder? FFS....


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 12, 2015, 02:34:25 PM
So guys here we have it...the total sum of support you can expect from those in charge....

The minister Nick Smith just weeks before my hearing thought I was being set up as a scapegoat and had no confidence in the Board.....then the hearing actually proves I was actually set up as a scapegoat....he changes his mind, apparently its all fixed now. We have to give them "new guys" a chance.....

Well at my impartiality hearing I was told about how the investigator hadn't had a chance to act egregiously YET.....(egregiously meaning dodgy in our terms, with intent)....well then, after this impartiality hearing, he is given the chance(and his mate Parker , the chair of the hearing).... well they go and do all sorts of egregious things, hiding photos, withholding evidence, Parker protecting his mate the investigator, and both not investigating the person who all this points to.....so what happens now?

Well.....The Ombudsman is using discretion not to investigate... ...

The new guys are saying nothing here move on......see attached....


I AM NOT ASKING YOU RE-OPEN MY CASE.....I AM ASKING YOU TO GO AFTER THE PERSON WHO ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.......UNTIL YOU DO YOUR COMPLIANT AND HELPING COVER THIS UP.....

The amazing guys from the Feds, Wal Gordon especially, the last bastion of fairness in this industry (I used to say our industry, but I can't find work in it and my business has been stolen)......

Well we are going to formalise the over 170 paper documents, probably even more electronic files and bundles and bundles of cold hard evidence in a report and take it to a lawyer......


I may be quiet for some time, but I am still fighting this thing.....



AND A MASSIVE THANK YOU TO THE FEDERATION.





.







Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 12, 2015, 05:02:53 PM

Martin Sawyers, PGDB Registrar......in reply to your recent letters attached below.....

I have got to ask just one question.....When did the explosion at a chipshop become MY case......Surely it is the case of the explosion, that nearly killed someone?

Lots of ignored evidence points to someone (definitely not me)......it should become an open transparent case....that no one "owns"....until that evidence proves it is their case so to speak.....

When someone is found guilty of this dangerous work, then it is their case......it is not now, nor was it ever MY case....go do your job and get the really guilty culprit.


Right I am off, got lots to do.......





.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 29, 2015, 10:15:08 AM

From the last Nov Board press release.....


Board grants fair warning.....INDUSTRY TO GET ITS OWN HOUSE IN ORDER PRIOR TO FRESH FOCUS ON COWBOYS



So what about Board sanctioned cowboys.....they are ok I suppose? and cases have expiry dates it seems.....

I think every body, Board included.....should get their OWN house in order......and address the cowboys....even the ones gifted full gas certifying status by the Board, after one oral exam......that then went on to blow someone up.......but the Board appointed as the investigator for this explosion, the same guy who gifted the said license.......hmmmm.....


There is no credibility in hypocrisy..........no integrity in a cover up.......we should ALL start on a fresh sheet.....or it is just the same sheet, rolled in glitter......


I suppose this warning is to let you know that you are about suffer the same system as I was subjected to.....I wish you well.....now touch your toes.......



 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: bugman on December 02, 2015, 04:04:03 PM
Have you heard back from any media yet??
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on December 02, 2015, 05:34:54 PM
The TV show....Story....thanked me for my info, but nothing has come of it yet, I have tried every thing I can think of......just had some replies from the Ombudsman too, they don't want to know either.......


Apparently in our system you can be set up, framed, lied about, and hounded out of an industry....while the guilty are protected.....it is so wrong.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on December 02, 2015, 09:30:01 PM
Makes you think....perhaps if I was of colour, disabled or gay it might be a story, but as I am an average run of the mill plumber, a normal father of two and husband, just trying to get by, its not news worthy.

Normal doesn't make the headlines unless it does something extreme....sad as it is....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 01:25:43 PM
Please see a list of the documents, not pages, but documents and not including electronic evidence and emails....all dismissed by the Board, Nick Smith, numerous other MP's and the Ombudsman........If I can loose everything in the face of this irrefutable evidence how can you be sure of a fair deal?

All these people tell me to get on with my life.....well when I get my life back...nothing would make me happier than to do so.....but my life was stolen by self serving incompetents to cover up their flippant issuing of full gas certify licenses to their mates and the total
mismanagement of the gas  safety (LOL) cert system.....All done at a risk to the NZ public and the industry's integrity.

YOU be the judge if I deserved to be vilified and publically humiliated......it is so wrong.

To ignore this is to be party to it. To cover up corruption is to be corrupt.


This list is more for my reference, and may not make sense to you all, but I am happy to clarify where I can and aim to place each document on here for you to read, when I have time from studying for a new industry....As I am an apprentice at the age of 43, reminded daily that I am new in a new industry, it is soul destroying, but I have no other way to gainfully feed my family, even though I was told by the Board appointed assessor that I would be in the top 10% of gasfitters he had ever met. Fairness for All.....really? I just ain't feeling it.....






Itinerary of time line paper docs leading up to the explosion and afterwards


•   Doc 1, 1994 Deregulation paper written by Tony Hammond, praising the newly utilised “self cert” system. Written as part of NZ Petroleum Conference Proceedings. States he is president of Gas Association of NZ (GANZ), with a history of 12 years with GANZ in 1994, in technical areas. Elected President in 1993, for a two year term. He was at the time a member of IPENZ and a fellow of NZIGE. This is the man appointed as the impartial investigator.

•   Doc 2, 1998, John Darnley is granted by Tony Hammond his full craftsman license after holding an exception certificate for LPG Gasfitting for several years, after one oral assessment, from page 3 of 25 of Investigation report.

•   Doc 3 2003, Tony Hammond represents GANZ on a committee for NZS 5263 and in 2004 Tony Hammond and Stephen Parker are on the Kennedy Trust for GANZ, secretariat for GANZ with Stephen Parker as the secretary and National Manager and Tony Hammond as Technical services. Taken from the GANZ 2005 report.

•   24th February 2003. I enter employment with Allgas, John Darnley’s manager at Allgas; it is a family run business.

•   Doc 4, 20th August 2003, Rinnai NZ fax a document to Allgas allowing a 500mm clearance to an over head openable window to a flue on a higher end rated Rinnai gas califont. This was given to me about that time when I questioned clearances against the tables of NZ 5261, I was told it was an alternative to a non mandatory acceptable solution, this was the first time I had heard this in the industry, but not the last.

•   6th November 2003, a verbal altercation takes place between me and David Bergman, John Darnley’s son in law. It was over my concerns of safety.

•   Doc 5, 10th November 2003, I submit a written statement in reply to this above incident to John Darnley.

•   Doc 6, 13th November 2003, I receive a written warning from Darnley. On receiving this I told him in no uncertain terms I was leaving Allgas.

•   Doc 7, 14th November 2003, at 13:34, someone faxes a request for 4 books of certs from PGDB. It is a strange request not just because it’s the first and only request done in my name but is done with additions and corrections to the application.

•   Doc 9, 14th November 2003 these 4 x books are paid for in Darnley’s name to the PGDB account.

•   Doc 10, 17th November 2003, the 4 x books of certs are issued.

•   Doc 11, 19th November 2003 I hand in my written notice giving my last day as 2nd December 2003. This letter is incorrectly dated 19/12/03; it should have been 19/11/03.

•   Doc 12, 3rd December 2003, I am given a calculation for my last pay, from John Darnley.

•   Doc 13, 4th December 2003, I am given further breakdown of my pay from Annie Darnley, John’s Daughter.

•   Doc 14, Early December 2003, upon leaving Allgas I go sub contracting for Nick Hobson (same gasfitter mentioned in Hammond’s later report) ultimately working for Rockgas, one of the first jobs I got sent to, was at a Jam factory, cert number 294360.

•   This cert was apparently accepted by the PGDB totally filled out in my name but with out my signature. I had refused to sign many certs before I left Allgas, because of safety concerns or they were incomplete.

•   Before Xmas 2003 I phoned the Board to ask about this and became aware of the other 4 books ordered in my name.

•   Doc 15, I then wrote a letter 6th January 2004 about my concerns and the four books ordered in my name. I specifically mention the 4 books ordered in my name “very near to my departure”.

•   Doc 16, I received a reply 23rd Febuary2004. Colleen Singleton claims that certs 294351 – 294390 were issued in Darnley’s name (I had no way of knowing what certs were bought in my name, these are not the certs bought in my name) and that cert 294360 has now been returned and signed in Darnley’s name.

•   Doc 17,  shows that these certs 294351 – 294390 mentioned by Colleen Singleton in her reply of 23rd February 2003 were issued on 20th September 2003 to John Darnley, nearly three months before my departure from Allgas. But these are not the certs ordered in my name; I had no way of knowing and had to take the PGDB at their word.

•   Doc 18, a letter dated 4th March 2004 shows someone at Allgas writing in my name and using my license number, sent to PGDB to alter cert 294370, I knew nothing of this until after the explosion.

•   Doc 19, December 2004, “National Gas Review”, a newsletter for GANZ lists Stephen Parker (later to chair my hearing) as the GANZ National Manager on an article that pictures Tony Hammond (later to be appointed the “Impartial Investigator”).

•   Doc 20, 10th January 2005 I am called to a job at “Hammered Art’ for a gas leak. I am horrified to find that this is signed off in my name on cert 273489, with work done against how I would have done it, I remember installing just a bayonet extension to an existing install, but nothing else.

•   Doc 21, 10th January 2005 An office note by Colleen Singleton proves I phoned PGDB the same day. She states that she “will write to the Board about this”.

•   Doc 22, 13th January 2005, I engage a lawyer to look at this. Colleen Singleton had told me they only talk to lawyers about these things on the phone call.

•   Doc 23, 19th January 2005 I invoice and was paid by Allgas to remove an “illegal installation”, Allgas was under new management by now. John Darnley had left.

•   Doc 24, 24th January 2005, A letter from Tony Hunter, the new manager of Allgas, he was the old salesman. Offering to cover my costs to check all the illegal sites, when I told him I would need to visit each and everyone of the sites and charge accordingly, this offer was withdrawn.

•   Doc 25,  27th January 2005, a letter from my lawyers saying they have received information from the Board that they have over 1000 certs in my name, I was told by Colleen Singleton that to get a copy of each cert would cost $25.00, a potential cost of 25 thousand dollars.

•   Doc 26, 28th January 2005, another letter from the lawyers, with a copy of the reply dated the same from Belinda Greer from the Board; the number of certs has dropped to 89. In this reply it mentions copies of certs that I later became aware lack gas leak test results, I found out about this lack on these certs, of this very important info, after the explosion.

•   It also provides copies of certain certs, free of charge. All in black and white, hiding the different colour inks, later found out after the explosion.

•   One of these copies is of the Hammered Art cert. This is the cert that I mention to Nick Smith at a later meeting, I made accusations about this cert being added to….the differing colour ink on this cert backed my claims.

•   This differing colour ink was not known to me until after the explosion, after several attempts of being denied OIA requests and a privacy request, and being shown, by Tony Hammond at interview, black and white photocopies done on pink paper (masking the different colour inks).

•   Doc 27, 15th February 2005, a letter from Colleen Singleton listing my phone calls about gaining my plumbing registration for a license. I had to re-sit everything for my plumbing license, the “oral” exam denied me, and many others, but granted to about ten people, Darnley being one of them.

•   Doc 28, 17th March 2005, an invoice for $349.97 from my lawyers. This was a large bill for my family; my first son was just 3 months old. I had just got a mortgage and was trying to start a business, I could not afford to pursue.

•   Doc 29, 6th July 2005, I am audited for my PGDB regular audit. At 8 Point Rd, cert 299755. This is one of the certs handed back to Darnley when I left and refused to sign. I told the auditor this, but he “passed” me at this site anyway. The cert shows lots of info crossed out and additions. The same auditor was later used by the Board to audit me for special audits, after the explosion.

•   Doc 30, a letter dated 25th July 2005 from Wintech, I am allowed to do a practical assessment which took two weeks and I was charged a relatively expensive amount to do this. I met other fully qualified plumbers and gasfitters mostly from the UK, re-sitting their qualifications, remember Darnley was ex UK and gifted his full gas certifying license after one oral exam, and was obviously clueless (just read his transcript for his hearing).

•   Doc 31, a letter from PGDB acknowledging my registration as a plumber on 25th August 2005, but refusing my application as a craftsman plumber.

•   Doc 32, December 2005 NZIGE newsletter. Pictured are John Darnley, Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond in a group of approx 50 people. Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond are mentioned to be representing GANZ, as well as being members of NZIGE. Other Board members are in the photo too.

•   Doc 33, GANZ newsletter 2005/06, Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond listed together on the Kennedy Trust and on the secretariat. Stephen Parker is now the Executive Director and Tony Hammond is still Technical services.

•   Doc 34, 25th May 2006, a letter from PGDB Phil Routhan refuses me a gas inspector license.

•   Doc 35, May 2006, a report is done by Hazel Armstrong, it is critical of the Board, out of interest is has a photo of Kern Uren on the front, he was later appointed the registrar.

•   Doc 36, I have a meeting with Nick Smith, I actually mention the cert for “Hammered Art” above, remember at this meeting I hadn’t seen a colour copy that was accepted by the Board as of yet.

•   Doc 37, this meeting above resulted in the letter dated 6th June 2006, sent by Nick Smith to the PGDB, mentioning my concerns over dodgy certs covering dodgy dangerous work.

•   Doc 38, this resulted in a PGDB reply dated 15th June 2006, from Phil Routhan. I did not see this reply until after the explosion.

•   Doc 39, 12th July 2006, a press release from Dr Cullen, Health minister is made about the PGDB, based on a review done for him on relationships in the PGDB. Damien O’Conner MP then replaces the entire statutory Board.

•   Doc 40, 21 August 2006, I fax a copy of Nick Smiths letter of 6th June 2006 and a hand written letter of my concerns to David Coxhead who had been appointed to the PGDB.

•   Doc 41, 5th September 2006 I email Dr Cullen MP about my concerns.

•   Doc 42, 12th September 2006 I receive a reply from Dr Cullen, passing my email to Damien O’Conner MP, as it came under his portfolio.

•   Doc 43, 12th September 2006, I receive a reply from Damien O’Conner’s rep, I am told that the “minister has asked officials to look into the issues I have raised” and “you will receive a response as soon as possible”.

•   Before and after these dates, approx this time, my son had had major surgery on his skull and my mother, suffering from empherscymia and the resulting nervous breakdown of being dumped on my door step by my father, these personal issues were first and foremost in my mind.

•   Doc 44, December 2006 NZIGE news letter, pictured is John Darnley, Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond, with Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond representing GANZ in presentations. Other Board members present.

•   Doc 45, GANZ newsletter with work groups for 2007-2008, Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond listed together on the Kennedy Trust and on the secretariat. Stephen Parker is still the Executive Director and Tony Hammond is still Technical services.

•   Doc 46, January 2008, the NZ Law Commission release a paper on tribunals, it says that industry Boards should be free of Industry groups, just like GANZ and NZIGE…….not being on gasfitting Boards.

•   9th July 2008 Stephen Parker is appointed to the PGDB.

•   Doc 47, 18th November 2008, I receive a newspaper clipping from a friend listing the Auditor General casting an eye over a poor performing PGDB.

•   Doc 48, a list of PGDB members for the year ended 31st March 2008; it lists Dave Coxhead who I sent the fax to back in August 06.

•   Doc 49, a list of PGDB members for the year ended 31st March 2009; it is missing Dave Coxhead who I sent the fax to back in August 06. But it now lists Stephen Parker as Deputy Chair, with Hazel Armstrong as Chair. It also lists Anthony Salisbury, who is pictured in the NZIGE photos in the news letters mentioned above. And Kern Uren as registrar, the same person from the photo from the front of the report by Hazel Armstrong.

•   PGDB March 2009 Newsletter, it features Stephen Parker as deputy chair, and there is an article in it by Tony Hammond, baring in mind, the pipe work in the explosion was altered, the unregistered pizza oven cert and the gas hose sold to the explosion, after I left Allgas, Tony says this…..

The Gas Regulations (REG 24) define, amongst others, that the following require certification:

Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations.
Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the operation of the installation.

It is worth noting that an installation is defined in the Gas Act as “including a gas appliance”. Therefore, replacement of one appliance by another, even if very similar, requires certification. Further weight is added to the argument when one considers that even a “like for like” replacement needs to be adjusted to ensure gas pressure and aeration are set appropriately, the connections are gastightness and the safety devices operate at the right levels; that is, the appliance needs to be commissioned in accordance with clause 1.6.7 of NZS 5261.

•   April 9th 2009 The owner of the Milton St Fish and Chip Cafe in Nelson was badly burned in a dramatic gas explosion at his takeaway store, the front window and rear wall of the shop were blown out in the blast, which happened about 9.30am, and debris and glass from the shop were strewn across Milton St. Taken from a press release in the Nelson Mail.

•   Doc 50, April 17th 2009, another explosion at the Prince Albert Pub, all certs for this address are in the name of Nick Hobson, the guy I worked for and became a witness for the Board’s investigator, but with drew his testimony when I later pointed out the untruths in it.

•   April 17th 2009 is the same date that these statements below were written about Belinda Greer by a Board lawyer,

I have just gone back through the file and can confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138.
Please see attached Belinda’s file note of her request to John Darnley for a copy of certificate 345138.  This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street.   

•   Cert 345138 is for the last work done at the site of this explosion. It is for a pizza oven and all available copies are missing tests for leaks and are totally in Darnley’s name, the Board claim to have never received a copy for it, but a copy appears on their website. I only found this out after the explosion, actually after my hearing, 11th of may 2011.

•   Doc 51, Hand written notes from PGDB 20th and 21st April 2009, John Darnley “engaged” and mentions “copy of Cert 345138 is to be posted to PGDB” in these notes.

•   Doc 52, NZIGE newsletter May 2009…John Darley resigns as a member from NZIGE. I am told he was a GANZ member as a seller of gas also.

•    Doc 53, May 2009 I make a voluntary statement through my lawyers that I had re-engaged. It was the same law firm from before, but a different lawyer.

•   Doc 54, 8th July 2009, a complaint from DOL, actually listing concerns over dodgy gas certs covering dodgy gas work, it mentions cert 345138 by number, the pizza oven cert.

•   Doc 55, 14th July 2009, I receive a letter from Belinda Greer (this name keeps coming up) from the PGDB telling me that the Board had received the above mentioned DOL complaint.

•   Doc 56, 19th July 2009, I email my lawyer giving brief outline of events, apologising for the delay as my mother had been taken to hospital again.

•   Doc 57, 21st July 2009, my lawyer reiterates to the Board the same concerns I had raised with them for many years, ones mentioned in Belinda Greer’s responses.

•   Doc 58, 21st July 2009, a letter is sent by John Darnley to the PGDB to explain his issuing of photocopies of cert 345138, the pizza oven cert.

•   Doc 59, 23rd July 2009, I receive a letter from the Board appointing Tony Hammond as the investigator.

•   Around this time I have several interviews with Tony Hammond, and sometimes accompanied by John DeBernardo (I am told for training purposes).

•   Doc 60, 31st July 2009. My lawyer is sent by Tony Hammond an email to confirm that the 4 books of certs were ordered in my name (with out my permission) as mentioned above, and that they were paid for by John Darnley.

•   Doc 61, 18th June 2009. Nick smith writes to Maurice Williamson MP, saying that I had raised concerns with him before; backing my claims and that there is some justification for a formal investigation.

•   Doc 62, 5th August 2009, after other voluntary interviews I present a large body of evidence to Tony Hammond and made several statements outlining dangerous work.

•   27th August 2009, the Board request from Casey services special audits (same Auditor that did the earlier annual audit for 8 point Road mentioned above)

•   Doc 63, 3rd September 2009. I meet with Nick Smith again.

•   Doc 64, 3rd September 2009. My lawyer tells of my prior warnings and makes an official information act request but is told by Kern Uren the PGDB are not subject to this Act in his reply dated *21st Sept 2009.

•   Doc 65, 7th Sept 2009, Nick Smith writes to Pansy Wong MP raising concerns on my behalf and my being made a scapegoat.

•   Doc 66, 19th September 2009, Police are investigating a scam of several cases of people signing blank certs and selling them, this is in the North Island in places I have never visited.

•   Doc 67, *21st September 2009, letter from Kern Uren mentioned above in response to OIA request.

•   Doc 68, 21st September 2009, NZIGE Annual Meeting shows apologies from John DeBernardo, who accompanied Tony Hammond on my interviews, Anthony Salisbury Board, a PGDB member and Bret Oldfield, son of one of the people accused of selling blank certs in the North Island (he is later granted a license to be a certifying gasfitter, in a very similar manner as was John Darnley’s license. This was done after his father didn’t renew his license, his fathers case may still be before the Board to this very day). Stephen Parker moves accept these apologies.

•   Doc 69, 24th September 2009, a letter is sent out to all license holders by Kern Uren about dodgy gas certificate issue in the media, this is the signing of blank certs as mentioned above.

•   Doc 70, 1st October 2009, Kern Uren on behalf of the PGDB writes to some of the 6 additional sites of charges (later to be laid), extra to the explosion, telling the people from all over my business area that the certs I have issued to their premises are involved in the blank cert fiasco.

•   Doc 71, 2nd October 2009 Kern Uren on behalf of the PGDB writes to the local high school that the cert I have issued to their premises are involved in the blank cert fiasco mentioned above, from this point on my business floundered and disappeared, I was also verbally attacked for putting people at risk on building sites by other tradesman.

•   How these addresses were available to Uren at this time is a question I would like answered, I was only made aware of them in Doc 81, dated 7th January 2010

•   Doc 72, 5th October 2009, a letter from Kern Uren to my lawyer stating that it is all about the signature on a cert and that it is common practise for an employer to purchase books of certs for an employee. Kern Uren later uses an electronic signature, well PGDB staff use the electronic signature without Kern’s Knowledge, he is ok with this.

•   Doc 73, 11th October 2009, I send to my lawyer to send to PGDB a wealth of information/evidence to show the above history before the explosion.

•   Doc 74, 20th October 2009, a news paper clipping from the Dominion post saying that Phil Routhan has been suspended and had taken lots of documents with him ,and another with no date quoting Routhan’s fears about the state of the cert system and the danger it poses to the NZ public.
•   Doc 75, 21st October 2009, email to my lawyer saying I had gone to Mot High as I only became aware when they contacted me, and that I had discovered Darnley’s connections to NZIGE through the internet.

•   Doc 76, 2nd November 2009, my second voluntary statement to the Board.

•   Doc 77, 12 November 2009, a reply to a privacy act request from Kern Uren, as my OIA requests were turned down to access docs.

•   Docs 78, 3rd December 2009, reply from Kern Uren fobbing off my previous concerns as mentioned in doc 77 above.

•   Doc 79, 10th December 2009, news article NZ Herald, police not to pursue gasfitter signing blank certs and selling the, Kern Uren Won’t answer calls.

•   Doc 80, IPENZ Annual Review 2009, listing as collaborating societies IPENZ, GANZ, NZIGE, Gas Appliance Suppliers Assoc and the gas ITO. Most of the people mentioned above are members of one or all of these organisations, including Darnley.

•   Doc 81, 7th January 2010, the Investigator’s findings (none of which made the final charges) and Casey’s findings to the “special” audits are made available to my lawyer.

•   Doc 82, 12th February 2010, an email to my lawyer and with Nick Smith copied in, addressing these audits.

•   Doc 83, 11th March 2010, my lawyer’s letter to Board claiming a concerted effort being made against me and the astonishment at the evidence that is becoming apparent and being ignored by the Board and its investigator.

•   Doc 84, 12th March 2010, my lawyers letter to Tony Hammond listing a lot of evidence and his concerns that I am being targeted.

•   Doc 85, 18th May 2010, my lawyers letter to Kern Uren, confirming contrary to earlier advice from PGDB that the complaint for the explosion, is based solely on the DOL complaint, and that DOL’s representative and the actual author of this complaint, had made the comment to my lawyer over the phone that I need not worry as …. “none of my work was a point of investigation”.

•   Doc 86, 20th May 2010, one of the emails about the legionnaires’ risk, installed by Darnley and still ignored as far as I know until today.

•   Doc 87, April/May 2010, Maurice Williamson makes comments in NZ Plumber’s mag about misuse of the cert system and it being dangerous to the public. The Auditor Generals report is expected.

•   Doc 88, 1st June 2010, Investigators report is issued into the explosion.
•   Doc 89, 12th July 2010, Investigator releases a second “revised” report. In this report Hammond claims to have seen cert 345138 the “pizza oven” cert, he claims to have referenced “originals received by the Board at the time that the work was certified clarifies the original information”. The sites of the charges were re-investigated after the initial investigation by Hammond (around this time, not sure of dates).

•   July 2010 Auditor Generals report is released.

•   In this same “revised” report Hammond states that Darnley didn’t recognise his own hand writing on the job card for the fryers that caused the explosion, according to two recent hand writing assessors.

•   Doc 90, 30th July 2010, the PGDB agree to appoint a due inquiry.

•   16th Sept 2010, appoint other members to the Board

•   Doc 91, 9th November 2010, I issue an answer to the investigators reports.

•   Approx October 2010, I start to circulate my situation publically by emails.

•   Doc 92, 8th October 2010, notes on the content of a first and last phone call that I found threatening from Kern Uren, up until then we had used written correspondence.

•    Doc 92, 11th October 2010, I ask for clarification from Kern Uren on a letter dated 20th Sept 2010, this letter references the above report from Hammond when ignoring my complaints.

•   Doc 93, 18th October 2010, letter received from Kern Uren, dismissing my complaints and blatant evidence as vexatious.

•   Doc 94, several emails to Kern Uren from myself concerning the missing info on the originals but missing on the carbon copies of these originals, it is dismissed as vexatious.

•   Doc 95, 20th October 2010, Minutes from NZIGE annual general meeting, listing Tony Hammond and Anthony Salisbury as present and John DeBernardo and Stephen Parker as giving their apologies.

•   Doc 96, 28th October 2010 I down loaded from PGDB website the licenses for Richard Oldfield and Brett Oldfield, Richard Oldfield still has his full certifying license, Brett is still on an exception, he is later granted full certifying status.

•   Doc 97, 3rd November 2010, I prepare notes for a QC that I was to meet at my lawyers, the meeting on the 9/11/10 ay 15:30 this meeting resulted in me being told to plead guilty to charges. I ended my association with this lawyer.
•   Doc 98, 7th November 2010, around this time I start to be helped by members of the Federation. It has been a huge help.

•   Around this time the people involved with the “sites of concern” start to back what I am saying to the Board.

•   Doc 99, 28th and 29th December 2010, notes on my concerns over impartiality of the Board and its investigator and the History leading up to the Explosion.

•   Doc 100, 13th January 2011, I inform the registrar that Wal Gordon of the Federation will now represent me.

•   Doc 101, 25th January 2011, an application was made to dismiss charges with prejudice.

•   Nearly 50% of the charges were amended at the last minute, application for amendments made on 1st February 2011, the hearing on the 3/5/11, after over 2 years of investigation.

•   Doc 102, 3rd February 2011, a complaint is made about preference shown to the investigator, and his ignoring of dead lines which gave him an advantage.

•   Doc 103, 7th February 2011, Teleconference minutes for the up coming “impartiality” hearing for the 22nd Feb, (after complaints of conflicts of interest my original date of a hearing was used).

•   Doc 104, 14th February 2011, an affidavit is issued by Hammond that appears to contradict most of the above wrt impartiality.

•   Doc 104, 14th February 2011, an affidavit is issued by Kern Uren. Amongst other things it gives an excuse for the untrue letters prejudicing all the extra sites of charges.

•   Doc 105, 14th February 2011, a letter from Nick Hobson giving a statement that undermined his testimony mentioned in Hammond’s report.

•   Doc 106, 18th February 2011, confirmation from the Board for the venue to hold the “impartiality” hearing.

•   Doc 107, 18th February 2011, submission from investigator regarding “motion to dismiss”. The investigator says that the only basis for a stay of proceedings was if the investigator could be shown to have conducted any “egregious” behaviour. This behaviour was evident at the later hearing.

•   22nd February 2011, the impartiality hearing is held.

•   Doc 108, 22nd February 2011 Opening Statement, page 5, lines 5 to 13 appear to contain untruths wrt the relationship between Stephen Parker and Tony Hammond.

•   Doc 109, 22nd February 2011 transcript and legal adviser comments of the two hour hearing I was told to allow three days for, leaving me marooned in Wellington.

•   Doc 110, 24th February 2011, email from me to the Board referring to letters with a ten day deadline sent by Kern Uren.

•   Doc 111, 25th February 2011, an email in response to the email above 24th Feb, confirming that Kern Uren uses an electronic signature that is used with out his knowledge by other PGDB employee’s.

•   Doc 112, 3rd March 2011, PGDB decision that they them selves are impartial.

•   Doc 113, 17th March 2011, teleconference minutes confirming dates of 3rd 4th 5th May for hearing.

•   Doc 114, March PGDB newsletter telling people to read the manufactures instructions when using proprietary piping systems wrt UV effects, i.e. Pexal in sunlight, the total cause of Hammond issuing the first seven sites of concern, none of which made it to the final charges.

•   Doc 115, 29th March 2011, email from PGDB to Wal “confirming” that we have all the relevant information from the report. Hammond later withheld over 100 photos taken by the forensic police expert, that proved the pipe work had been changed, and more.

•   Doc 116, in an April 2011 Board newsletter the Board state….

“The system bids farewell to old paper-based certificates and the associated risks of fraudulent activity as highlighted in the OAG report and recent incidents in Auckland and other NZ cities”

•   5th April 2011, Darnley’s hearing is held, Stephen Parker stands down on the first day and hands the chair to Mark Whitehead, but stays on panel.


•   Doc 117, 16th April 2011, Nick Smith writes a letter condemning the Board and backing my claims.

•   Doc 118, 27th April 2011, Hammond puts a witness reply statement in, in reply to one made on the 19th April 2011. There are a few contradictions in this document.

•   Doc 119, 28th April 2011, I receive receipts from the west coast Caltex confirming what I said and revealing yet another manipulation of certs done in my name.

•   Doc 120, April 2011, historical complaints policy is released by the PGDB.

•   Hearing is held 3rd, 4th and 5th of May 2011, it was a sham withheld photos misrepresented evidence, an ignored fraud and finally shut down by Parker before I could clear my self, while cross examining Hammond. 42 out of 44 charges blown out of the water.

•   11th MAY 2011, I become aware of the PGDB’s claim that the “pizza oven” cert 345138 was not registered with PGDB.

•   Doc 121, 16th May 2011, closing submissions entered for me by Wal Gordon.

•   Doc 123, July 2011 decision released by Board and new “grievance” system launched by PGDB.

•   Doc 124, 13th July 2011, press release by owner of exploding chip shop saying he never thought I was guilty, an untruth about me referring to myself as a “mere” plumber and a big deal is made about the one final charge, that the Board later ignored in another case, and Nick Smith saying the new Board should be given a chance and even though he had said I was a scapegoat, no inquiry was needed, a lot changes in a month eh?.

•   26th July 2011, Allan Bickers is announced as chair of PGDB, he doesn’t see his term out resigning for personal reasons. But going on to join other Boards.

•   Doc 125, 29th July 2011, investigators submission on penalty. He pushes for the full punishment.

•   Doc 126, 21st August 2011, my submission on penalty, lists the effects and losses incurred due to the bad faith investigation I faced.

•   Doc 127, 5th October 2011, I am quoted $3,123.16 plus gst for an OIA request by the PGDB.

•   Doc 128, 7th November 2011, press release saying I had to undergo training to uplift a license, this training didn’t exist I was assessed and was told that I would be in the top 10% of gasfitters the assessor had ever met.

•   14th October 2011 I lay complaints under the historical complaints procedure.

•   Doc 129, 5th December 2011, I receive a confirmation of my complaints, these ended in a written apology for the letter sent saying I was issuing illegal certs, an offer of $500.00 which I told them to donate to Ronald Mc Donald house and the rest were “outside of scope” of the complaint.

•   Doc 130, 7th December 2011, Email from PGDB lawyer stating that ‘All installations certified by me were audited installed between 2003 and 2006”, up until this letter I was told all audits including special audits were based on 10% of my installs, not all for a certain 3 year period.

•   Doc 131, December 2011, a spread sheet of the financials for my business, showing decline and final failure.

•   Doc 132, 2nd February 2012, letter from Board about my concerns about the electronic copies of certs, this I believe ended in the disclaimer placed on the website.

•   Doc 133, 10th February 2012, letter from Board claiming several certs can’t be found after my OIA request.

•   Doc 134, 16th February 2012, letter from Board claiming that these certs can now be found, may be the photos I took at the gas suppliers copies allowed this? Of note most if not all of these certs were missing the gas test results….just like the site of the explosion and missing pizza oven cert.

•   Doc 135, 5th March 2012, High Court appeal docs, shut down.

•   Doc 136, 12th April 2012, receipt of my complaint about how Darnley was investigated.

•   Doc 137, 7th May 2012, reply my complaints about how Darnley was investigated, legionnaires risk British Standard, etc.

•   Doc 138, May 2012, sketch and cert of legionnaires risk.

•   Doc 139, 25th May 2012, informing me of a report to be done from PGDB.

•   Doc 140, 22nd June 2012, Helen Cull initial findings, most of my complaints are outside policy.

•   Doc 141, 2nd August 2012, PGDB 33 pg report on my complaints, more of an admission of guilt.

•   Doc 142, 30th August 2012, PGDB letter dismissing my complaints about where the DOL complaint mentioned me, which it didn’t, requesting the conflicts of interest register, etc….just covering up referring to the 33pg report as being addressed.

•   Doc 143, 6th September 2012, letter from PGDB claiming a missing cert 299760, hadn’t been received in 2005, but then it was …and then misplaced.

•   Doc 144, 13th September 2012, letter from PGDB response to Helen Cull. An offer of $500 and an apology.

•   Doc 145, 7th November 2012, letter from PGDB saying my complaints, missing certs etc…. have been carefully considered ….and then dismissed.

•   Doc 146, 29th November 2012, warning and release papers from police after I snapped and entered the PGDB buildings with a trespass notice in place.

•   Doc 147, 1st February 2013, Helen Culls findings, of note she accepts that the letters telling untruths did affect my business.

•   Doc 148, 21st March 2013, my submission to a select committee.

•   Doc 149, 22nd March 2013, my letter to community law, I used this to have a try with the Ombudsman.

•   Doc 150, 3rd April 2013, apology from PGDB for the poor drafting of the “kern” letters, the letters that ruined my business, sent out separate from the disciplinary process according to the Board….so it can be treated differently, outside of policy?

•   Doc 151, 10th April 2013, letter from Maori Party acknowledging my complaints.

•   Doc 152, 3rd May 2013, PGDB reply to my OIA about an exploding pizza hut, this resulted in Maurice Williamson having to retract his words in Parliament. Then he did his by gay rainbow speech.

•   Doc 153, 3rd September 2013, Ombudsman letter fobbing me off referring to the 33 page report, which is blatant flannel.

•   Doc 154, 2nd October 2013, PGDB letter asking for specifics about the legionnaire’s risk, all of which I had made available to them before.

•   Doc 155, 17th October 2013, PGDB letter confirming that Darnley’s charge for the explosion disappeared before his hearing. How does this happen?

•   Doc 156, 23rd January 2014, PGDB letter confirming that the fraud at Powick St that was shown at my hearing, wasn’t acted on by the Board, apparently leaving the “dangerous” work still in place…the only contact was the one letter sent ….the ones they apologised for…the ones that ruined my business.

•   Doc 157, 21st March 2014, the “loosing” of my application for a license by PGDB leaving me unlicensed for a year.

•   Doc 158, 2nd May 2014, letter from Maryan Street. Asking Nick Smith to reconsider his position.

•   Doc 159, 7th May 2014, letter for an application for fees waiver decline from Board.

•   Doc 160, 9th May 2014, letter for an application for fees waiver decline from Board, a replacement letter for the one above.

•   Doc 161, 12th May 2014, letter from PGDB acknowledging my request about what has been done about the 560 blank certs fiasco.

•   Doc 162, 20th May 2014, letter from PGDB acknowledging that one person is still before the Board for the 560 blank certs fiasco, all these years later, these are the blank certs that resulted in my business being ruined, by kerns letters that had to apologise for.

•   Doc 163, 30th May 2014, Ombudsman letter dismissing my complaints, putting weight in the reports issued by PGDB, the very people I had complained about.

•   Doc 164, 25th July 2014, Reply from Nick Smith to Maryan Street, saying that my case showed deficiency’s at the PGDB, but they have changed and fixed this (wish they would fix my life) ….so there is no reason to revisit.

•   Doc 165, 13th June 2014, another reply from the Ombudsman, believing the Board and blaming me for the four books of certs ordered in my name with out my knowledge.

•   Doc 166, 18th September 2014, letter from PGDB dismissing my complaints about a waiver of fees, and “loosing” my application.

•   Doc 167, 13th October 2014, Ombudsman letter requesting a report from the Board…Highgate (this ignored califont, was the subject of my last charge) and the signing of 560 blank certs.

•   Doc 168, 14th October 2014, Ombudsman letter dismissing my complaints of misplacing my license application, relying yet again on a report done by the people I have complained about, i.e. the PGDB.

•   Doc 169, 16th October 2014, Ombudsman letter dismissing my complaints of not investigating Darnley properly, the biased findings of my hearing, etc…. using his power of “discretion”, relying yet again on a report done by the people I have complained about.

•   Doc 170, 8th December 2014, Ombudsman letter dismissing my complaints of ignoring my complaint about the Highgate situation, the elderly couple who complained about fumes entering their home, the PGDB ignored them….but in my case where the client hadn’t complained….they went after me and said I had no appreciation of how the fumes were dangerous….but they told the Highgate’s to close the window when you use the califont!

•   Doc 171, 20th July 2015, “new” Board letter refusing to act on my complaints.

•   Doc 172, 21st October 2015, reaffirming non action.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 01:32:42 PM
Not to mention the hand writing expert.....who thinks that the added writing for fryers on the job card was Darnley's hand.....



ALL IGNORED BY EVERYONE WHO SHOULD BE APPALLED.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 01:38:30 PM
Doc 3 2003, Tony Hammond represents GANZ on a committee for NZS 5263 and in 2004 Tony Hammond and Stephen Parker are on the Kennedy Trust for GANZ, secretariat for GANZ with Stephen Parker as the secretary and National Manager and Tony Hammond as Technical services. Taken from the GANZ 2005 report.



How would you feel to be sat in a hearing where the chair (Stephen Parker) is over seeing an investigation by Tony Hammond......after Tony Hammond gifted the full certifying license to Darnley years earlier? All three members of NZIGE and IPENZ.

Have a look at Nick Smiths membership of IPENZ too......makes you think eh?


But I just get back on with the train wreck of a life these bastards left me.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 02:02:01 PM
The thing is the dickhead who was gifted his full certifying license AND was a member of NZIGE, giving the impression he was not only a fully certified gasfitter but a gas engineer to boot....well he worked unhindered and legally empowered in Nelson, Blenheim and every where in between for over 15 years...

To say he was clueless is an understatement, but his attitude was worse, he once....when told he couldn't fit a certain appliance in a bedroom, scribbled the word "bedroom" out and wrote "study".....he was quite chuffed with that one.....

Another time when I asked for a schematic for the central heating system he was installing that also was connected to the hot water system.....he told me to "use poker face" and pretend I knew what I was doing......this system has the potential to kill some one.......but nothing is done........

THIS GUYS WORK IS STILL OUT THERE LIKE A TICKING TIME BOMB......NO ONE WANT TO KNOW, THE POWERS THAT BE STILL COVER THIS UP AND PROTECT HIM......PERHAPS SOMEONE CAN ASK WHY......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 02:10:08 PM
I went to Nick Smiths caravan last Saturday.....even though it is his portfolio and the people of his constituency are potentially at risk......well he said I should just move on......

I even offered to take him to the house where the same water in the central heating rads, is coming out of the shower.....he declined to came with me.....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 07:06:21 PM
Remember Tony Hammond said this.....in March 2009, the chipshop exploded in April 2009, weeks later.....

The Gas Regulations (REG 24) define, amongst others, that the following require certification:

Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations.
Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the operation of the installation.

It is worth noting that an installation is defined in the Gas Act as “including a gas appliance”. Therefore, replacement of one appliance by another, even if very similar, requires certification. Further weight is added to the argument when one considers that even a “like for like” replacement needs to be adjusted to ensure gas pressure and aeration are set appropriately, the connections are gastightness and the safety devices operate at the right levels; that is, the appliance needs to be commissioned in accordance with clause 1.6.7 of NZS 5261.


Now I have a receipt for a third hose sold weeks after I left Allgas, BECAUSE THE HOSE AT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION HAD SPLIT, THE SECONG TIME IT SPLIT IT NEARLY KILLED THE OWNER.....remember Hammond says "like for like".......and not forgetting the missing cert for the pizza oven, which all carbon copies show a lack of gas leak tests.....the original pink copy is claimed not to have been received by the Board........but there is a copy of the cert on the website, same number, same appliances, same address, same everything.....including the missing test results.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 07:11:18 PM
John Darnley is still protected by the Board for this, he faced a charge but it disappeared before his trial......well how would Tony Hammond look if he had to prosecute the same bloke he gifted a full certifying gasfitting license to.....after one oral exam....but then his work blew someone up and nearly killed him.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 08:24:25 PM
Tony Hammond said this in a Board newsletter March 2009....

The Gas Regulations (REG 24) define, amongst others, that the following require certification:

Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations.
Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the operation of the installation.



The over 100 withheld photos showed that the pipe work was altered, lowered.....this caused the explosion......Tony Hammond withheld those photos.......

Also the cylinder station was altered and there was a pizza oven fitted half way along.....all by Allgas/Darnley.......but they went after me....



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 08:27:11 PM
Have a read of it......attached....

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 08:32:45 PM
One further matter that runs through many of the investigations
of complaints is the lack of effective record keeping. While it is
recognised that some of the installation details are recorded on
the Certificate many are not and the results of pressure tests, flue
performance, burner pressures and safety device settings should all be
recorded to demonstrate that an installation has been commissioned
effectively.

From the same newsletter......remember the missing test results that the Board suddenly had no problem with.....AFTER AN EXPLOSION!!!!!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 09:52:47 PM
So weeks before the explosion,

One further matter that runs through many of the investigations
of complaints is the lack of effective record keeping. While it is
recognised that some of the installation details are recorded on
the Certificate many are not and the results of pressure tests, flue
performance, burner pressures and safety device settings should all be
recorded to demonstrate that an installation has been commissioned
effectively.



now compare the Boards opinion AFTER an explosion nearly killed someone....see attached...


It appears to be one rule for one and another rule for others......its a continuous membership Board....the sins of the past are inherited by the present....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 08, 2016, 09:54:55 PM
A tad hypocritical eh!

This explosion landed a guy in a burns unit for over two weeks, intensive care and ruined his business.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 10, 2016, 06:56:40 AM
Look at the list of documents below......had I not tried to warn about dodgy certs covering dangerous work? Look at the dates BEFORE the explosion.

My work was of such a standard that out of 44 charges laid against 3 YEARS worth of my installs (not 10% as claimed by Hammond) only one job was found to "stick"....this is bullshit too, as you can see by the photos earlier in this post and the documents and testimony at my hearing....but I still lost everything.

Now think of any of the past jobs you have signed off......how would you fair in a slanted system like this? Are you going to keep your head down in hope that these people leave you alone?

I was the president of Nelson master Plumbers, I was told I was in......then they firmly planted a dagger in my back.....




Why?   Because I put public safety over these incompetents ego and a cert system so badly run it eventuated in an explosion, had to carry a disclaimer and was finally taken off the Board.....




They refeuse , still to this day to look at a central heating system installed where the water comes in to a califont then to the hot out lets WITH RADS OFF THE RING MAIN!.....fitted by Darnley using his gifted license and dispensations......contaminated water coming out of the shower, atomised so it can be breathed in......

Who's here to police this......it's in Nick Smiths back yard....he don't want to know, the Board don't want to know.....I wonder if they will frame me for it when someone is made ill or worse........I been warning about this one for many years........same as I warned about the other dangerous work......that they framed me for.......


No one has been held responsible for the explosion, Darnley faced a charge but it disappeared before his hearing, most if not all evidence points to Darnley.....but I have paid the price and do every day......

Every one involved in our trade should be appalled and very nervous, nervous that it doesn't suit these people to frame YOU instead of fixing the industry......it has to be fair and transparent.....but most of all the past has to be addressed, otherwise you condone it.



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 11, 2016, 10:03:11 PM
Here’s the thing.….and believe me I know from experience…the Board’s judicial system (and most law for that matter) is run, judged and governed by “past precedents”….basically any past and accepted history determines the future direction taken.

Historic Board findings, accepted behaviour and results/punishments, statistics, etc, etc are what will determine the Board’s future decisions, i.e. and I can not emphasis this enough....the history of past Board’s will determine the future behaviour of future Boards, this is the basis of Law.

This is how the “Law” works, the Law is a historical record, a body of accepted decisions/out comes, proven evidence with which to use as a measure for future rulings.

For instance I was told (done in a manner that gave the impression that the Board were doing me a favour)…… that the “past president” for plaintiffs accused of any wrong doing are “more likely” to be guilty of the lesser set of circumstances that are part of the accusations that are levelled against the said plaintiff. If you need to see a small part of the twisted content of this SICKNESS just scroll back through this post, its there.....The sick bastards did it in several depraved child sexual abuse case notes on past precedents, applied in a plumbing context (FFS) and sent to my home under a plain wrapper and read by my wife (which shows, I believe the true direction that they were trying to achieve, nothing more than pure intimidation).

Any way I digress….my point being is that they run on past precedents…all governments do......

Now let us look at the Board’s past precedents…..which you can (if we take the intention of the law at face value) be expected to have levelled against you for any future misdemeanours/offences (or if they just want to protect a mate)…..

You might be on the wrong side of a grumpy customer that wants’ it done for nothing and decides to “dobb you in”, bit like the poor sod who fell out with a customer over cost before he had completed the job…..cost him $1000’s for not having a strap on the hot water cylinder….screwed over by the Board, a past precedent.

Now look at just some of the Board’s past precedents ….

They made such a cock up of the gas safety cert system that it had to carry a disclaimer for accuracy…then they had it taken from them, all ignored and swept under the carpet (because it suits them).

When these shortcomings were revealed by a near fatal explosion, they framed someone (me) who had spent the 6 previous years trying to warn about dodgy certs covering dodgy work.

More than happy to ignore huge conflicts of interest.

Sit back and watch evidence being withheld that proved my innocence.

Send letters to your customers telling untruths that prejudiced every site of the charges laid.

They are happy to set people up (and I am not alone) to cover their own short comings/incompetency’s even when someone nearly dies (actually I think the worse the problem, the more chance of a cover up and the appointing of a scapegoat).

They are happy to bail out/ cover up for their certain select few mates at the expense of the innocent people.

Still to this day refuses to look at dangerous work when it suits.

Happy to take illegally 2 million dollars from the industry, because they needed it to stay solvent….(how many struggling plumbers would like to try and get away with that, when your looking at loosing your home and not being able to feed your kids?)

When it goes wrong no one gets punished….they just resign (for private reasons) and get replaced….AND IT CARRIES ON…..

There is much much more, I could go on and on (and I intend to)…….

This is their past precedent…..and when it goes so terribly wrong, the government change the law, allow them to carry on with a new faces at the front, no one who was corrupt is ever punished, even reprimanded, they just get away with it until they get so bad that they are replaced……

I have a novel idea, a deterrent if you will……

A new precedent…..lets have it out in the open, lets punish the corrupt…..so the next time any “new” guy thinks about doing something dodgy or corrupt….he thinks twice....because there are repercussions to their dodgy actions......



The thing is they CAN act with impunity because they know they can, and then get bailed out by the very minister who appointed them in the first place  ......(and these ministers don’t want… and will never want …..any egg on his/her face and admit he/she was wrong in appointing their goons). And the cycle of shit continues….ruining and spitting people’s lives out as it spins.


Guys you need to address this sort of behaviour BEFORE you are on the stand looking at loosing everything….do me a favour, pick out any old PGDB publication/newsletter/etc. …..if you go back to ANY past releases, they ALL claim to be putting the trade and public first, all the new Board’s all claim to up hold the industry and act with integrity and good faith……I beg to differ, the past precedents tell me other wise.....if you don't address the past you are doomed to repeat.....

I don’t and never will believe them until they face up to their past precedents and fix them…..and I don’t think you should either…..

We need a new past precedent….a fair open one where the innocent and public are protected and the trade is treated with respect and fairness.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 11, 2016, 10:08:40 PM
Basically the governments take on....."past precedents" is.....


You have happily accepted it up to now.....what's your f****ing problem....



Don't wait until they decide (or their good mates decide) that your business is not needed as competition in your area.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 12, 2016, 06:22:26 PM
Is it too much to ask for fair play........it really does make you wonder ......

Why are we judged on others past precedents....

But those in charge, those running the show, those that pontificate about these past precedents of others when it concerns us......

Well it appears that they aren't even judged on their own past precedents.....what's all that about?

Is this democracy?......sounds more like a dictatorship.....or perhaps a democracy of hypocrisy.....its where you think you got a say and a vote....then they do what ever they like anyway, in the face of what they publicly say....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 12, 2016, 06:33:54 PM
Remember now the "Board" is an entity, a continuous membership Board, celebrating 100 years of BEING........a bit like a person in law, like a ltd company.....

For them to say we are new and won't do it again.....

The equivalent in my mind is a career repeat offender who claims to be a new person and will never re-offend, because he has been on a sunbed, dyed his hair another colour, had a perm, then had a facelift and liposuction..... hey I am new, I look different....but it is still the same body underneath......

Don't forget the people that are still there, in positions of power too, those that stood by (actually at my hearing) and watched the list of documents and actions below and on this post, the thing is the body underneath the plastic surgery is still the same....just got a face lift.....

Answer up to the past precedent of corruption.....or you have zero credibility or integrity.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2016, 06:02:55 PM
I saw a gasfitter today, for the first time since my kangaroo court in 2009.....I told him some of the FACTS.......do you know what shocked me the most......he didn't bat an eye lid.....he said nothing surprises him....and that was why he was going to retiring early....can't wait to be out of it.....


This is the worst part about all this......there is an expectation that this is how you can be treated.....really?..... is this the way forward?

Will this help New Zealand? Will this help build the shortage of houses? Will it promote our trades? Will it grow any respect for our industry?......

I don't believe it will......

What it will do .......it empowers a very small minority, to screw over who ever they choose, when ever they choose.....



The worst part is, we do not only allow them to do this to us and our industry.......but we expect it!!!!!


REALLY?




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 15, 2016, 06:05:23 PM
The people who are responsible for this crap should be pulled out into the sunlight for public scrutiny, judged only on the facts.....let the public decide if this behaviour is helpful or wanted.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: spud on February 17, 2016, 12:07:00 AM
Give it a farkin rest mate!
Jesus!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 17, 2016, 06:23:31 AM
Not going to happen, you might be able to live with corruption but I won't Kerry.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: wombles on February 18, 2016, 08:00:21 AM
I can understand why some people feel that this has been done to death but, I agree with Badger. So would most people if they had dealt with the kangaroo disciplinary hearings that masquerade as justice. It is a real shame that it is so expensive to take a private prosecution.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on February 18, 2016, 09:43:35 AM
well said Wombles,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 18, 2016, 05:34:21 PM
Thanks for your support guys, yes I have done this to death...but it has had a huge impact on my family and it SHOWS a complete sham of a process that anyone of you could face.

At the end of the day if you don't want to read it, then block me or just don't read it....but with this many views in public, it needs airing.

I did notice that old "spud" didn't comment until I talked about holding people to account....I been going on and on for years.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on February 18, 2016, 07:53:26 PM
Yeah Badger it's hard to know how to get justice in this country just take the 'David Bain'  case that has surfaced again today after many years of trying, cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 19, 2016, 06:42:05 AM

Face it Robbo....the establishment do as they please....with little to no repercussions, mostly because they single out individuals for treatment, if we got together and showed them that it isn't acceptable then they soon flip flop and change.


Difference is mate, Mr Bain has is being told to prove his innocence..........

But I can prove that the investigation, process and people I was subjected to was corrupt and biased, done at a risk to the NZ public. Fact.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on February 28, 2016, 09:41:42 AM
I have a problem with a governing Board, gifting a salesman a full certifying gas fitting license, then the same people allow this salesman to join an engineers group....

All the available proof points that he is so clueless that he installs and changes installs dangerously....so badly that it causes an explosion.....he faces a charge but it conveniently "disappears" before his hearing....

This same Board that gifted the license.....flippantly handing out these licenses to a select group......administers the gas safety certificate system so badly that it carries a disclaimer about accuracy.......still has to this day a case before it for the selling of 100's of blank, but signed certs being sold.....560 of them.....90% of these none compliant...with 16 potentially deadly......

These are the people who after I had proven 42 charges out of 44 charges were bullshit......went in my local area expressing their concerns about MY understanding of the regs and the fumes entering a building........they then go and ignore the exact same circumstances when an elderly couple actually make a complaint.......

And still to this day ignore a central heating job, installed by the same person gifted the licenses..... where the stagnant water stored all summer in the rads....comes out of the shower and other hot water outlets.......



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 01, 2016, 07:05:26 PM
Trying to raise funds to fight this corruption and risk to the NZ public, please share.....




http://givealittle.co.nz/profile/individual/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz





I will not use any donations made to this fund raising for anything other than lawyers fees, what is left after the law proceedings goes to the children hospital accommodation at Ronald McDonald house in CHCH.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: wombles on March 01, 2016, 08:14:23 PM
I checked this out and I couldnt find anywhere to push a "button" to pledge. Any clues?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 01, 2016, 08:18:40 PM
Just setting up the page mate....posted the link a bit prematurely  ::)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 01, 2016, 08:47:51 PM
22,000 views
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 01, 2016, 08:51:13 PM

I hope they don't shut this down......which will speak volumes eh?




Hi Paul Gee,

Congratulations on successfully creating your Givealittle Project page: justiceandfulldisclosure4nz

Your page is now ready to receive online pledges from your own networks but must pass the moderation process before it will publicly be available via the search and explore pages on Givealittle.

To get the fundraising kickstarted, consider making a pledge to your page now ? http://givealittle.co.nz/project/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz/pledge ? and then emailing the above page link to two carefully selected supporters to help you get the ball rolling. Givealittle requires the first 3 donations to a page as evidence of independent endorsement of trust and confidence in your fundraising activities.

Moderation Process Reminder
---------------------------
Our moderation process requires that all Givealittle pages:
1. comply with standards set out in the Givealittle Terms,
2. are reviewed and approved by the Givealittle service team,
3. receive 3 prerequisite donations from 3 unique donors before displaying in the Givealittle search and explore pages.
---------------------------
(See this link: Page Moderation and Donor Validation)

If you have any questions regarding moderation, please contact helpdesk@givealittle.co.nz.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 01, 2016, 08:54:01 PM
The only thing stopping me exposing the threat to the NZ public is funds.....I got the proof, letters, photos evidence, handwriting experts, etc etc.....


Not one letter from the PGDB's lawyers saying I am telling untruths though!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on March 02, 2016, 04:48:06 PM
hi guys, Badger we will now know how many of our trades support the rank and file instead of big business b.s. that passes of as gods law, hope the site is up and running soon as all i can get is: 404 not found, good luck with it, might have to contact someone who can spread the word about the cause to generate interest, cant think of a similar give a little objective so could be ground breaking enough that the media will want to get involved, cheers   
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 02, 2016, 05:45:15 PM
Just received tonight, below in blue, it will take a bit more setting up, wouldn't it be very telling if they shut this down before it starts.....or even if they were get caught asking to!




Hi there

Thanks for creating a page at https://givealittle.co.nz/project/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz

Before we moderate your page, I wanted to clarify with you that you wanted to create a project page:

A project page means the credit cards of your pledgers will NOT be charged and you will be paid only if you reach the target set within the specified end date.

If otherwise please advise and we will help you set up a cause page.





Cheers Robbo for your on going support mate, means heaps to me.




The way I see it is it is anonymous way to get behind this type of injustice... for ALL our sakes, it can really make those who pontificate to us about being competent and bringing the trade in to dispute face up to their history and dodgy dealings.....and actually protect the health and safety of NZer's homes, if there is a dodgy system covering dangerous work it needs to be aired.....tell the whole story to the NZ public and left them decide.


Also, I say it again so it is in writing..... if there is anything left of the donations made on this "give a little" fund raiser....after the legal action is paid for, then it goes to CHCH Ronald McDonald House.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 02, 2016, 07:47:29 PM
I truly think that the NZ public deserve to know that their gasfitting in their homes has been done by people who are/were endorsed and empowered by the PGDB..........

....... gifted their licenses after one oral exam, issuing incomplete and dodgy certs, which were accepted and filed by the Board......These certs missing test results for gas leaks....

......then the Board letting people like this off and not pursuing blatant evidence AFTER someone nearly gets killed....in fact covering it up....

The Board denying the dodgy certs were even ever received.....ignoring the fact it appears on their defunct electronic register.....it is embarrassing....its an insult to every single tradesman who funds their gravy train....



The NZ public should know all this.....it is done in their name.....done for THEIR protection!!!!! what a crock of shite.....


Lets have it out in public....for the public......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 02, 2016, 08:40:23 PM
This is my profile write up, just awaiting "verification".....

I am trying to raise funds to fund lawyers to expose corruption and incompetence done at a risk to the NZ public, carried out by people entrusted with the NZ public health and safety, but are prepared to ignore huge conflicts of interest, persecuting the innocent to protect the guilty. One person almost killed in an explosion with other NZer's put at risk.

I have a problem with a governing Board, gifting a salesman a full certifying gas fitting license, then the same people allow this salesman to join an engineers group....

All the available proof points that he is so clueless that he installs and changes installs dangerously....so badly that it causes an explosion.....he faces a charge but it conveniently "disappears" before his hearing....

This same Board that gifted the license.....flippantly handing out these licenses to a select group......administers the gas safety certificate system so badly that it carries a disclaimer about accuracy.......still has to this day a case before it for the selling of 100's of blank, but signed certs being sold.....560 of them.....90% of these none compliant...with 16 potentially deadly......

These are the people who after I had proven 42 charges out of 44 charges were unfounded......they then went in my local area expressing their concerns about MY understanding of the regs and the fumes entering a building........they then go and ignore the exact same circumstances when an elderly couple actually make a complaint.......

And still to this day ignore a central heating job, installed by the same person gifted the licenses involved in the near fatal explosion..... where the stagnant water stored all summer in the central heating radiators....then comes out of the shower and other hot water outlets.......

There is much much more to this and the NZ public deserve to know, their homes and families could be affected.

I am going to donate any left over money from the donations, after the cost of the lawyers are met,  to the CHCH Ronald McDonald House, please take the time to read the huge amount of evidence I have posted on the link to the Plumbers forum.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 07, 2016, 05:25:26 PM
Still waiting for verification......funny that!
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 17, 2016, 06:54:31 AM
Still waiting....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 17, 2016, 06:33:47 PM
Just been watching the news tonight......about a guy who was "selling" dodgy driving licenses, a gentleman with the name Lovepreet Brar.....and the dismay expressed by the Government that there might be unqualified people masquerading behind these licenses issued by some people who work for the very organisation that is entrusted with this license issuing job......these licenses looking very authentic....so that public can't tell the difference.....

Apparently.....we need to look in to this asap, before someone gets hurt.....I mean issuing licenses to people who are incompetent, untrained and ..... well dicks really.....because they know someone who works there......risking peoples lives for selfish reasons......hmmmm where I have heard a similar situation like this before..........

Oh wait there now I remember....

Can anyone tell me the difference between the Board issuing a license to John Darnley?

Remember all the available evidence (and there is a lot) points to him being responsible for blowing at least one person up and then lets not forget the unresolved ticking time bomb of the legionnaires risk....not to mention all the other jobs.....

I wonder how much he paid for the license? 20 years of signing off gas work would be quite lucrative.....





Spot the difference, one is a guy with a very cool name and is a private entity.......the other is a government backed board.......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 19, 2016, 08:13:21 AM
And know they are worried that this Lovepreet Brar was issuing heavy goods licenses people who have no idea how to drive large heavy vehicles....

Bit like granting a salesman who never sat an apprenticeship with a full gas certifying license after one oral exam and then allowing him to join an engineers industry group....but what if then this guy nearly killed someone in a gas explosion.....what dismay was expressed then........not a lot, they just frame someone else for it......there's a nice system we live in eh? nice and democratic....







.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on March 22, 2016, 07:04:24 AM
Well the news is full of them this week.....a camera man leaves a tape recorder next to 2 politicians in a café having a cup of tea.....the camera man gets accused of doing this purposely......he thinks he is due 1.25 million dollars and the PM is willing to settle out of court....


I wish I was a camera man, not a gasfitter....I can prove not only was I set up and framed and lied about, but that the guilty walked free after nearly killing some one in an explosion.....oh to be a camera man, they are so integral to the running of NZ....so  much more than plumbers and gasfitters.

Why are we shat on when every they like?

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 09, 2016, 08:54:42 AM
Severn Years ago today, the 9th of April, a man nearly died in an explosion.....evidence was withheld by the Board investigator and misrepresented and ignored....with 220k spent investigating me with only a further 30K approx. spent on the guy who all the evidence pointed to.

Charges disappearing before trial for the person who all the evidence pointed to.

Still waiting for my "give a little" page to be authenticated......


If you think you play on a fair level playing field with a neutral ref.....you're delusional.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 12, 2016, 06:39:39 PM
Hi Guys please see the reply below, apparently the page for the "givealittle" donations is live, please could you test it and see if it works as it should.

I am hoping you will take this opportunity to force an issue that will give you all protection in the long run, to send a message to the powers that be, that cronyism and corruption isn't ok, that we all deserve to get a fair go and to be judged on a level and even playing field, looked over by an impartial system, with a search for truth and that the safety of the Kiwi public comes before who's mate you are.

Remember that any monies left over from covering the legal fees to force this issue, goes to CHCH Ronald McDonald House, a place I have used where real problems are dealt with, not some bullshit ones invented by a plumbers Board trying to justify their existence.

Please give what you can, every little helps.

Thank you in advance for your donations.






Hi Paul Gee,

This is an automated notification that Givealittle page: http://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz has been moderated by the Givealittle service team.

Please note that your Givealittle page is active and you are able to share the above page link with your own networks in order to receive the minimum 3 donations required to complete the moderation process. Time to get sharing this page with generous folk!



http://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 12, 2016, 06:53:36 PM
http://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz

If you Google this link, then it does go to the page, but it needs three donations to allow the link to be functional.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Wal on April 13, 2016, 06:24:32 AM
Well done Badger. I've made a small donation to help get it started and will make more later as we progress. It's a pity that yet again tradespeople have to pay to get fairness and accountability. When to we stop paying to protect the public?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 13, 2016, 07:09:07 AM
Thank you very much Wal,

I really believe that if this is exposed for what it is, it will set a president for what the powers that be can do to us.....

....it is just plain wrong to protect a small cabal of people at a very real risk to the NZ public and at a cost of the innocent......

What sort of system do we want to work under?

I think it should be fair, transparent and above all else based on fact with a goal to protect the public and the integrity of the trade.....it is all very well to say this PGDB in your newsletter.....but lets see some action.

The Federation have been showing you the proper and true way for a long time now....lets see some real action, not just talk.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on April 13, 2016, 04:26:08 PM
hi badger, any reason I get  `404 not found` cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 13, 2016, 05:10:59 PM
Hi Robbo,

Until I get the first initial three donations my "give a little" page won't be "live".....if you copy and paste the link into Google, then it comes up and it directs you to the donation page, then when the three initial donations are in then it should be accessible via this forum. I think, but I am a plumber, lol.

Thanks for your support.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on April 13, 2016, 08:22:34 PM
HI BADGER, o.k. I can get to the givealittle site but what then lots of site choices I go no further, perhaps Wal can direct me,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 13, 2016, 08:48:57 PM
My Missis can't find it either, perhaps Wal could show us....or its been taken down....that would be weird eh?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 13, 2016, 09:03:20 PM
https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz

Robbo copy and paste this link above in the URL at the very top mate of your screen, you could be the third donator, the one that makes it go live!...

Cheers mate
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: robbo on April 14, 2016, 09:29:26 AM
hi badger, worked that time and donated, will love to see them run for cover when the fund gets going,cheers
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 14, 2016, 05:08:44 PM
Thank you guys for the donations, it is up an running now, but if you use the link straight off this forum, it says  "404
not found"

So just copy and paste the link into your web browser and it takes you right there.

http://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz



Thanks again. 8)
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 14, 2016, 08:45:34 PM




https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 27, 2016, 01:20:52 PM
http://givealittle.co.nz/cause/justiceandfulldisclosure4nz


This link is now working and functional, if I could just get a dollar a "view" then I would be able to hold those to account who have to date brought the trade into disrepute and risked the NZ public's health and safety in their homes, all done in your name as a license holder and kiwi, and endorsed by those who we trust to do the right thing and look after running this system.

It is anonymous if you wish and any request for privacy I will respect.


If people get away with this it sets a precedent....




The precedent we live under now is they can do what they like, shaft who they like and if they get exposed they can just change the faces and carry on, I believe this is wrong, and the way forward is to hold people to account, this will make people rethink any future actions, its about fairness and looking after the trade and the NZ public.



Please give what you can, any thing left over from the donations not spent on legal fees will go to the CHCH Ronald McDonald House.




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on April 27, 2016, 06:53:37 PM
Who ever you are thank you, for your donation, its quite humbling. Thank you.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 03, 2016, 07:13:34 AM
http://coverupforanexplosion.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/is-this-cover-up.html

This is a history I wrote a while ago, and just today Nick Smith is being criticised for the housing crisis on TV.....and he let this happen in his back yard to his constituents.....


Can you imagine if we carried out our duties and practiced our trade to these standards.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 05, 2016, 09:06:24 PM
Thank you for the donation, very much appreciated, I don't know whether its ok to mention names on here, because I really do want to respect peoples privacy....all I can say is I'm not going to "Holden" for long.....thank you mate.


Don't forget guys these donations will go toward addressing corruption in our industry, which will help everyone get a fair go, or it will help people stay near there kids if they are sick enough to have to go to CHCH hospital and use the Ronald McDonald House.

My family have used these facilities and it really puts everything into perspective, it also makes you abhor people who inflict unnecessary hurt on others just to keep their dodgy mates safe and fill their pockets.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 06, 2016, 05:44:27 PM
The Ombudsman has asked me for feed back on how they have appeared to have helped the PGDB cover up my witch-hunt......


Remember "Fairness for All".....lol, what a f****ing joke.....more like "Damage Control"....I showed them heaps of proof and they have shut it down.....nice bit of democracy there for you.......





I feel that the Ombudsman appears to be an agency for damage control for the government.

Where my very real concerns have been assessed, dissected then trivialized, ignored and then shut down, I make this comment based solely on my treatment, and am deeply disappointed in the system and the treatment I have received, but even more disappointed in how the powers that be are happy to ignore the very real threats to the NZ public's safety, just because the egos and reputations of those who are better connected is deemed more important.

The Ombudsman appears to be prepared to ignore massive conflicts of interest, ignoring blatant evidence that prove I was treated in a biased way and subjected to a witch-hunt.

Mr Patterson, the acting Ombudsman even prepared to contradict previous statements made when in another role, all done at a risk to the NZ public. And an ex-Ombudsman rang me and tried to dismiss this from the start. And my compliant was allowed to languish for years.

Somebody nearly died in an explosion, and it appears that the Ombudsman are part of the cover up. NZer's health and safety have been put at risk in their own homes and the PGDB have covered it up with the apparent blessing of the Ombudsman.

I suggest that, with all due respect, the Ombudsman's motto should be changed to "Fairness for all, as long as it suits".


I did once hold the Ombudsman in the highest regard, but this is very sadly not the case any more, I don't believe that this complaint will be chased up and nothing will happen to address this dire situation.


I have said this many times, for 6 years before an explosion nearly killed someone, and for 7 years since....sadly it will take a fatality or a serious incident for someone in authority to look at this.....I would have thought a near death in an explosion would have been enough, but sadly it appears that it will take more.

You have done the NZ public a disservice in your dealing with this case/complaint.


I would take this opportunity to formally complain again and have posted this reply on the "Plumber's Forum" where my thread has nearly 28 thousand views, I say this because if you ignore this, then you ignore this larger group of people as well and in public at that.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 06, 2016, 06:02:48 PM
Hi Katrina,

 

 

Just to be clear I have also posted this below in black on the “Plumber’s Forum” link below, also see my blog on the link below, the thread has nearly 27 thousand views and to ignore this is to ignore the people who have viewed this thread aswell.

 

The Ombudsman can do better by actually looking at the blatant evidence and not ignore it, you will also find a wealth of evidence on this link below to back my claims.

 

I won’t hold my breath on any actual action, and expect ever more flannel and trivialisation of this, but I just want it in the open, so the powers can be can show the industry and public just how much they actually care, which it very little in my experience, if at all.

 

 

I would like to formally complain to the Ombudsman about how my complaint has been trivialised and ultimately ignored.

 

 

 

Thank you Katrina for you time, please can you pass on my comment to Mr Patterson, thank you.

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg10325#msg10325

 

http://coverupforanexplosion.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/is-this-cover-up.html

 

 

 

 

I feel that the Ombudsman appears to be an agency for damage control for the government.

 

Where my very real concerns have been assessed, dissected then trivialized, ignored and then shut down, I make this comment based solely on my treatment, and am deeply disappointed in the system and the treatment I have received, but even more disappointed in how the powers that be are happy to ignore the very real threats to the NZ public's safety, just because the egos and reputations of those who are better connected is deemed more important.

 

The Ombudsman appears to be prepared to ignore massive conflicts of interest, ignoring blatant evidence that prove I was treated in a biased way and subjected to a witch-hunt.

 

Mr Patterson, the acting Ombudsman even prepared to contradict previous statements made when in another role, all done at a risk to the NZ public. And an ex-Ombudsman rang me and tried to dismiss this from the start. And my compliant was allowed to languish for years.

 

Somebody nearly died in an explosion, and it appears that the Ombudsman are part of the cover up. NZer's health and safety have been put at risk in their own homes and the PGDB have covered it up with the apparent blessing of the Ombudsman.

 

I suggest that, with all due respect, the Ombudsman's motto should be changed to "Fairness for all, as long as it suits".

 

 

I did once hold the Ombudsman in the highest regard, but this is very sadly not the case any more, I don't believe that this complaint will be chased up and nothing will happen to address this dire situation.

 

 

I have said this many times, for 6 years before an explosion nearly killed someone, and for 7 years since....sadly it will take a fatality or a serious incident for someone in authority to look at this.....I would have thought a near death in an explosion would have been enough, but sadly it appears that it will take more.

 

You have done the NZ public a disservice in your dealing with this case/complaint.

 

 

I would take this opportunity to formally complain again and have posted this reply on the "Plumber's Forum" where my thread has nearly 28 thousand views, I say this because if you ignore this, then you ignore this larger group of people as well and in public at that.

 


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

From: Katrina McLaughlin [mailto:Katrina.McLaughlin@ombudsman.parliament.nz]
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2016 2:23 p.m.
To: gasnsolarservices@gmail.com
Subject: Ombudsman Survey - Have your say - How can we do better?

 

image001-original

6 May 2016

 

Mr Paul Gee

gasnsolarservices@gmail.com

 

Dear Mr Gee

 

Have your say – how can we do better?

 

We are conducting a survey about our complaints process. 

 

We would greatly appreciate your feedback, as your opinions are important to us.  We intend to use the results of the survey to assist with staff training and the ongoing review of our service.

 

This survey should take no more than 5 minutes to complete.  Almost all questions simply ask you to tick a box. 

 

The focus of the survey is on the service we have provided.  A summary of the results will be made available later this year in our annual report. 

 

Your response will remain completely confidential.  The information you give will be grouped together with responses from other people to ensure that individuals cannot be identified in any presentation or publication of the results. 

 

If you have any questions about this survey, please call me on freephone 0800 802 602, or 04 473 9533.

 

Please complete the survey online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LZFWRQP by 3 June 2016.

 

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

 

Yours sincerely

Katrina McLaughlin

Executive Assistant to the Deputy Ombudsmen

Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 06, 2016, 07:42:57 PM
Please complete the survey online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LZFWRQP by 3 June 2016.


This link still works have your say! Comment of the Ombudsman's performance.....


Ask your self....and put your self in my position (literally, because if it goes unaddressed it could be you).........




Is it ok for "the" NZ agency for fairness , the Ombudsman, who claims to be apart/separate from the government.....decides to ignore a witch-hunt and cover up for an explosion, that nearly killed someone?

You know....where the person who (me) warned about dodgy certs for 6 years before an explosion, gets 220K spent on persecuting him and his young family, with only 30k spent on going after the person who ALL the evidence points to, this 30k guy facing a charge....for the explosion, but it disappears...poof....before his hearing....same bloke I spent 6 years trying to warn about.......

Is it fair for the PGDB to send child sexual abuse case notes to my home unmarked for my wife to read?

Or is it fair to send letters to prejudice every site of the 44 trumped up charges that claimed I was issuing illegal certs in Northland(a place I have never even visited)

Or is it fair to hide photos that prove my innocence until the hearing, with the investigator being in possession of these photos, over 100.... from the very start?

Or is it fair to appoint as the impartial investigator Tony Hammond as the investigator, the same guy who gifted the full certifying license to the person who all the evidence points to, you know the guy who faced a charge but it disappeared, the 30k guy....fair?

Or is it fair that the PGDB told the explosion victims lawyer that the cert missing the test for gas leaks, at this explosion....was never received.....apparently the only evidence of the Board receiving this dodgy cert is it is on their f****ing website and there is a date of entry.......BLAH VLAH BLAH BLAH....fair is it f****...


BECAUSE ALL OF THIS AND MORE.....WELL THE OMBUDSMAN HAS NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF IT......







Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 06, 2016, 07:50:23 PM
Mr Patterson is the Ombudsman.......I sent this years ago......





Dear Mr Patterson,


1.   I am in receipt of your two letters dated 30 May and 13 June 2014. I also thank you for extending my time of reply.

2.   I fear that I may not have made myself clear to you and your office. My complaint is not about the outcome of the biased and flawed hearing, although the outcome does warrant a complaint as it is un-founded and my advocates questioning of the investigator was halted by the conflicted Chair of the hearing when the Chair closed the hearing down, just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the regulatory criteria relevant this very charge. And also in light of recent actions by the Board where there is a dubious double standard being applied by the Board in relation to clearances of califonts to openable windows, which I will go into further later on in this reply.

3.   My complaint is about the flawed process and investigation I was subjected to by the Board and it’s so called “impartial” investigator. This same Board who are willing to ignore blatant conflicts of interest and the withholding and misrepresentation of evidence by their appointed so called “impartial” investigator. This is my complaint.

4.   It concerns me greatly that it appears your office is blindly relying on spin, excuses and a 33 page report written by this Board and members of its Secretariat. It concerns me because these are the very people I have complained about, who have written a report to excuse themselves, is it confusing to say the least? It is a kin to they themselves judging themselves impartial, (an oxy-moron or very bad grammar to say the least), which apparently your office also has no problems with either.

5.   In point 1 of your letter dated 30th May, it appears there is some confusion over my situation, I did not under any circumstances sit a prescribed course of “INSTRUCTION”, which implies, even demands the learning of new skills and knowledge, skills and knowledge that I was deemed by the Board to have lacked.

6.   I was in fact ASSESSED…. learning nothing new (I am sure I could have learned from the assessor as he was very knowledgeable), but the “course” prescribed by the Board wasn’t available, and so I was assessed.

7.   Of note I was told by this assessor that I would be within the top 10% of people he had ever assessed, this he discovered after my assessment, when I had not been taught anything new, but was being assessed on my already attained knowledge and skills (I did this assessment with my arm in a full plaster cast, perhaps this is where I dropped 10%). This is the same knowledge that I had used to position the califont. Your office is charged with seeing fair play served; do you think this is fair?

8.   Of note, and this is the double standard that I mention above, the Board has recently told an elderly couple who complained about a similar installation of a califont, but their califont was positioned much nearer than the one mentioned above in my case, by some 6 inches. The Board told them to “close the window when you use it”.

9.   This elderly couple have since withdrawn their complaint and are on anti stress medication due to this situation. I have promised to leave them out of this until it is vitally necessary because of this stress that they have been subjected to. This double standard shown by the Board, do you think it is fair?

10.   This goes toward showing that the Board haven’t changed since my hearing and are still using one rule for one, and ignoring other rules for others; this double standard has only just came to light in recent weeks. Do you think this fair?

11.   Of note the customer involved in my case, the customer subject of charges laid for a califont installation at Malvern Pl, had laid no complaint and had never in 6 years smelt any fumes, this is because the position of his califont was more open and had a better clearance to the floor, backing on to a very large open plan room and with its powered flue issuing into a much larger clear and open garden, this was all taken into account when I positioned it. But the califont where the Board has told the people to “close the window when you use it”, these poor people who have actually complained about fumes entering their home, their califont is positioned in a more enclosed area and is nearer the floor, backing on to much smaller rooms, which is a concern due to the availability of free air for the dilution of these flue gases, and the elderly couples califonts power flue is issuing into a more enclosed and partially covered area with a deck and railings to one side. Is this Fair Mr Patterson? Is the Board’s blasé flippant hypocrisy fair? This attitude of the Board is where my complaint lies, right here.

12.   In point 2 of your letter of 30th May, you speak of my lack of attempts in airing my concerns and the use of a “British Standard” at the High Court Appeal. I ask you to look at the recent reply I have received from the High Court, a reply to my request for a transcript of this appeal.

13.   Please also see my extensive written submission to the High Court, already supplied to your office.

14.   This recent application for a transcript for my appeal was made to enable me to show you that I was told categorically to talk only about the distance from the window to the califont by Justice Kos and had actually tried to air my concerns. The reply to my recent transcript application is below.



From: Stack, Michaela
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12:09
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: hearing transcrpit.

Mr Gee
Thank you for your email.  As you are aware this matter was an "Appeal" hearing before the High Court.  No witnesses were called to give evidence at the High Court hearing and the parties relied on written submissions to present their arguments to the Court.   Therefore no transcript would have been made. It is usual procedure that no transcripts are taken for civil  appeal hearings.
Therefore I am unable to provide any transcript.

Kind Regards

Michaela Stack
Deputy Registrar
Wellington High Court
email : michaela.stack@justice.govt.nz


15.   My high lights in red above. As you know, I did make an extensive written submission for my appeal, which I have provided to your office, detailing my concerns that you say I did not submit. So in effect I did address this and other issues, and as I can take it is was read by Justice Kos, I do not know why it isn’t in his summing up.

16.   All the testimony, evidence and opinions issuing from my impartiality hearing and my actual hearing. All given so much credence by the Board and by Justice Kos appear to be based solely on the foundation of the integrity and reliability of the Board’s appointed so called “impartial” investigator and his opinion, even down to the strict enforcement of an acceptable solution, a NON COMPULSORY acceptable solution.

17.   I was told at my impartiality hearing that as Mr Hammond hadn’t been shown to have acted egregiously, that he was deemed to be suitable and the right person for the job, even in light of all the conflicts of interest I had raised.

18.   I ask you Mr Patterson, is this investigator, who withheld forensic photos which proved my point that I had maintained for two years…. the same investigator who misrepresented evidence and was prepared to ignore his own huge conflicts of interest, is he suitable? Has he acted egregiously? Has he any integrity? Do you value his opinion? This where my complaint lies.

19.   Is it fair that Mr Hammond’s colleague of many years, a Stephen Parker who was chair of my hearing, the same Chair who closed down this very hearing….. just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the califont measurement from an openable window? This is the basis for my complaint.

20.   It is the reliance on this one mans “opinion” by the involved authorities’, to base the whole ruination of my life, business and reputation, that I base my complaint.

21.   I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. well, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who lobbied for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system, the same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.

22.   And so for your office to blindly rely on the Board’s excuses while they are ignoring the unsuitability of Mr Hammond is reason for concern. You are relying on the Board’s own spin for your reasons to not investigate, I believe this is unfounded and I will ask the human rights commission and perhaps even the leaders of our Commonwealth if they think this is reasonable. This same Board who have miss quoted me, told untruths about me and sent vile perverted case notes to my home. I will never let this lie and am in communication with a law firm to pursue this further if you decide to go on the path you appear to be following.

23.   Is this conflicted and biased man, Mr Hammond, a reliable person for both the Board and Justice Kos, even the Ombudsman, to totally base their judgment on, up holding this last and final charge out of 44 trumped up charges? Is it fair for your office to listen to this man, to give him credibility? He has acted egregiously. This is my complaint.

24.   Think on this, I feel it is relevant to you in a previous chapter in your life……As you are aware, I had spent 6 years warning about my old boss, about him altering my certs after I had signed them (not forging my signature as one of your letters has claimed).

25.   As you know at one point I had a letter sent on my behalf in 2006 by Nick Smith MP, amongst many other attempts by myself to highlight the short comings of my old boss. Ironic, because I also have a photo of several Board members and the “later to be appointed” investigator pictured in 2006 along with my old boss at a NZIGE meeting, all of them paid up long serving members of the same club, and other clubs.

26.   Basically I was, in 2006, complaining about my old boss, to the very Board members pictured with him in the very same year, all members of the same club, also present in this photo is the man later appointed to investigate the explosion AND who had awarded my old boss his full licence…along with the chair of my hearing Stephen Parker…..all in the same picture, all paid up members of the same group.

27.   All of this contrary to Mr Hammonds own affidavit, an affidavit written about how well he knew my old boss and how many times he had met him, is Mr Hammond the right person for the job? Is it fair? This is where my complaint lies.

28.   Nick Smith MP stated in a letter that if the Board had heeded my warnings then the explosion “could have been averted”, written two years after the explosion. Is it fair that I lost so much?

29.    This is why I believe it may be relevant to you as I think you said it best in these comments attributable to a Prof Ron Patterson, I take it this is you…


Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it.

* My additions in blue and highlights in red and bold.


30.   How about adding to this statement above, attributable to you…..These “raisers of concern” being set up and made a scapegoat when all that they had warned about comes to pass, nearly killing someone.

31.   I ask you Mr Patterson. What is the difference between a patient’s health and safety to that of paying customer? Or are the rights of a gasfitter and his customer to be deemed less than that of a health professional and his patient? I did not get a fair hearing, this is my complaint.

32.   Doesn’t a patient pay for a service from a health professional and in doing so should be able to expect to be kept safe and healthy after procuring these services, please explain to me the difference? I say this because a man nearly died in an explosion and NO ONE has been held accountable but I have been made the scapegoat.

33.   Here’s an analogy for you. How does it sit with you if…….. a “health professional” was to be gifted his full practicing licence because he was a pharmaceutical salesman?........Then a well meaning, fully qualified health practitioner had aired concerns about the obvious lack of ability of this “gifted licence” holder for 6 years, and was later proven right in his concerns when a patient nearly died………but as the well meaning, fully qualified person had signed a prescription (which was manipulated after signing) and was made the scapegoat, by the very person who gifted the licence to the pharmaceutical salesman. Now apply this rational to mine and Mr Darnley’s situation. Is this fair? How would the author of the above excerpt, attributable to you, feel about this state of affairs?

34.   All the evidence points to my old boss, he actually faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared with no relevant questioning or a hearing. Is this fair?

35.   I ask you, is it fair to base your opinion that my old boss was investigated thoroughly and adequately because the investigator said he did? This same investigator who was also his fellow member of NZIGE and the same person who gifted my old boss his licence…..the same investigator, who withheld forensic photos, misrepresented and ignored evidence? This same Mr Hammond who was willing to Ignore a third hose supplied to supply the two fryers, this third hose sold well after, months after, I left Allgas’s employ….this same hose being the very one that caused the explosion. Is this fair? This is where my complaint lies.

36.   You mention the Board’s 33 page report. As you appear to have a copy please look at page 31, point 4.6…..I believe this double speak spin doctoring is part of the cover up and one of the root causes for making me a scapegoat, its plain to see for those willing to see. Cert 345138, a cert for the last, most recent work carried out at the site of the explosion, the same one mentioned in the Board’s 33 page report, this is also the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Dept Of Labour (DOL) original complaint.

37.   The DOL author of this letter of complaint told my lawyer right at the beginning of this fiasco that, at no point, was my work of concern to DOL. I have since personally talked to Mr Windleburn; he has no problem with my work. To ignore this. This is where my complaint lies.

38.   I ask you to read the DOL complaint and ask yourself who in this letter of complaint would a fair minded lay person think was more deserving of a thorough investigation.

•   The fully trained Gas Service Engineer who had complained about Mr Darnley and dodgy certs covering dodgy work….for 6 years and came forward freely.

•   Or the person gifted his licence with no formal training, whom the Board had received letters of concern about dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, who worked at the site of the explosion last but didn’t register the cert for this last work, i.e. a dodgy cert covering not only dodgy work…. but an explosion? I find it bizarre that a copy or cert 345138 was entered into the Board’s own website, but they claim not to have received a copy. 

39.   All available copies of cert 345138 lack the legal recording of a gas leak test, even the electronic version. With the only copy missing, the original. This is the only copy which was, in all probability, received by the Board.

40.   I put it to you that it is possible that this original copy of 345138 was, in all probability disposed of and shredded when the Lawyers acting for the owners of the exploding chipshop asked for a copy of all gas safety certs for their gasfitting work carried out at their chipshop. Perhaps you could ask Belinda Greer, a worker for the Board.

41.   Cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint. This is where my complaint lies.

42.   I ask you in all fairness, if the person responsible for the last work installed at the exploding chipshop, the same person who according to the Board didn’t register this cert for this work with the Board. But he saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, and even kept a carbon copy himself as the supplier and another copy himself as the certifying gasfitter. With this same cert 345138 that appears in the complaint by DOL by actual number, the same cert mentioned in 4.6 on page 31 of the Board’s report……how can this man, the person responsible for initiating cert 345138, face a charge for the explosion, but then that charge disappears with no relevant questioning, trial or hearing? These are per the Board’s own correspondence. I am happy to provide. It is here my complaint lies, this came to light days after the explosion and before the Board appointed an investigator.

43.   I ask you Mr Patterson……..how would the Board look if they had openly accepted an incomplete gas safety certificate for the last work done at a site that then later exploded…..lacking of all things a gas leak test? How would the Lawyers for the chipshop owners have acted on such findings?

44.   In ever more double standards a person involved in yet another case, a situation where there was a pre-signing of some 560 blank certificates, which were on sold, including to unqualified lay persons, with 90% of the work covered by these blank certs done against regulation and non compliant…..with some 16 very dangerous, with the signatory on record as saying he signed and checked every job. What would you think if someone involved in this fiasco, probably the signatory of these blank certs…..still has charges before the Board some 5 years later? Is this fair? These double standards, this is where my complaint lies.

45.   The Board are also willing to ignore a potential fraud and manipulation of gas certs to cover dangerous work, this was discovered at my hearing, the Board did nothing. Is this fair?  This is yet another double standard and is where my complaint lies.

46.   The list of poor performance is long and deserves a proper independent investigation. It does not deserve for the Board to be apparently protected and sheltered by those, like yourself, who would take all that the Board say on face value and fall for their spin doctoring and double speak, this is a mistake. I was told by Mr Christopher Littlewood that all you could do was make a recommendation……please recommend that a proper, fair and independent investigation is held, I will do the rest, along with the support of over 1000 members of the Plumbers Federation.



Thank you for your consideration and time. Please can you tell me when I might receive a reply, it has been nearly an year and a half since my original complaint.


Best Regards Paul Gee
 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 07, 2016, 08:22:00 AM
So the Ombudsman has no problem with this blatant conflict of interest.......



21.   I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. well, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who lobbied for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system, the same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 07, 2016, 08:34:23 AM

Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it.


This statement above was apparently written by the Ombudsman, before he was the Ombudsman.....I added the comments about gas in brackets....

But this same concerned and apparently "stand up" guy..... when he is actually granted the position and entrusted with the ability to actually help with these "particular concerns" all be it in a different context....well he gets his broom and lifts the carpet.....in my mind this is hypocrisy....

Perhaps the health industry is more important than the plumbers industry....but the root of this hypocrisy, in my mind, is that the giant elephant in the room is that the end result of who are actually put at risk in these two situations is that the NZ public's health is put at risk .........

Makes you think doesn't it....perhaps it is the Doctors that are more important than plumbers.....this is not democracy and equality and the previous words become empty.

Unless of course we live in tiered system with us at the bottom, which is what I am lead to believe.... by how we are screwed over, paying for it as we go to boot.




Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 07, 2016, 08:41:39 AM
I spent 6 years trying to highlight dodgy certs covering dodgy and dangerous work 6 years BEFORE the explosion.......


Now read the empty words......

Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it.




Mr Patterson is now the "subsequent commentator", who appears WILLFULLY blind to ALL this evidence.......and he leads the last bastion of fairness within our system....

How does this bode for our expectations of ever getting fairness.....ever.....



APPARENTLY, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE.....FAIRNESS IS ALLOCATED AND DISHED OUT WHEN IT SUITS.....

THE OMBUDSMAN........FAIRNESS FOR ALL......IF IT SUITS.....







Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 07, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
How you apply fairness is the real test, not what you say but what you do, words are just words without action, I believe the real test is how you apply fairness to those less connected, those smaller than the rest.....how you treat the weak.....


If you only provide "fairness" to the strong and connected..... you are not applying fairness at all.....you are applying partiality, you are bullying the weak, you are putting the weak at a disadvantage, you are weighting and slanting the field.....


This is so wrong on so many levels.






Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 08, 2016, 12:02:44 PM

Copy and paste this link.....


http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/18161.


Watch this link from a few years ago, the local MP for Nelson actually agrees on the corruption........Ms Street sums it up quite nice.....then they still rushed through Parliament the bill that allowed the illegal taking of two million bucks off us........


Fairness for who?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 08, 2016, 08:20:32 PM
Sent tonight......if people think that I will let this go then they are more delusional than those that think we get a fair go and play on an even playing field and believe me they are right out there.....







Dear Mr Little,

 

Please see below some links to the “Plumbers Forum” it has nearly 28 thousand views to date and also a blog I have circulated that gives a brief background of the corruption levelled on my family by the PGDB.

 

 

http://www.plumbers.co.nz/forum/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-236-dated-12-december-2014/1810/msg10325#msg10325

 

http://coverupforanexplosion.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/is-this-cover-up.html

 
I wrote late last year, please see the email below; please can you help me and my family.

 

 

We continually live with the stigma of this corruption every day; I am forced to work out of my industry everyday just to make ends meet. I am reminded every day that I am new to this new industry and at the age of 44, I am a trainee and that I am at the bottom of the pile.

 

 

What do I have to do to get a fair go?

 

 

My young families life was turned upside down by a bunch of corrupts. It appears that my only crime was to try and warn about dodgy gas work being covered by dodgy gas certs for 6 years before someone got hurt, then lo and behold……when my fears actually came to pass with a near fatal explosion….and was covered by a very dodgy certificate. I even named the person who all the evidence points to for the explosion in my warnings made 6 years before the explosion.

 

But I was blamed, set up and made the scape goat. I will not let this be my legacy to my sons; sadly it appears only extreme measures get any traction these days.

 

 

I have a massive amount of evidence and correspondence which I am happy to put at your disposal if you will just look into it and judge it on the facts. Kiwis have been put at risk (and I believe still at risk), just to protect the egos and reputations of some very corrupt people……this is wrong on so many levels.

 

I have tried Mr Key, but he used his recent mantra…..that he has passed it to the minister responsible……who is Dr Smith of Nelson, where the explosion happened….. in Dr Smiths own back yard…… to his own constituents…..still nothing has been done. Dr Smith actually in writing, initially backed me up…..until he got his “good friend” (Dr Smiths words) on to the Board….then he wanted nothing to do with it.

 

Still to this day no one has been held accountable for the explosion, even in the presence of over whelming damning evidence……the person who all this evidence points to could have been asked at his hearing……but even though he faced a charge for the explosion…….the charge disappeared before his hearing……how does that happen Mr Little?

 

Please can you help us?

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 09, 2016, 05:59:44 PM
Received today, see what comes of it....

 

Thank you for your email.
We have passed it to Labour's Building and Construction spokesperson, Phil Twyford MP,

for consideration.
Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to write

 

Yours sincerely

 

Dinah Okeby

Office of the Leader of the Opposition

 

Authorised by Andrew Little MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington

 

labour.org.nz

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 12, 2016, 06:41:02 PM
I must drop Judith a line when she gets back....





Judith Collins

6 May, 2016

Police Minister to attend London Anti-Corruption Summit


Police Minister, Judith Collins will represent the Prime Minister at the London Anti-Corruption Summit being hosted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron on 12 May 2016.

The Summit will promote the importance of exposing corruption, punishing those responsible and supporting those who have suffered, and driving out the culture of corruption, where it exists.

“The Summit is an opportunity to promote New Zealand’s reputation as one of the least corrupt countries in the world and demonstrate our commitment as a responsible member of the international community,” says Ms Collins.

World leaders from the G20, as well as other nations who face challenges with corruption, will agree a package of practical steps to counter corruption at the Summit.

New Zealand has recently taken steps to combat corruption. Last year Parliament passed the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill in November 2015, which enabled New Zealand to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

Prime Minister Cameron is also inviting the leaders of the world’s major international institutions that play a key role in anti-corruption efforts around the globe.

While there, Ms Collins will call on the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the Under Secretary of State for Prisons and the Director of the SFO. Ms Collins will also visit a prison.

Ms Collins returns to New Zealand on 16 May 2016.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 12, 2016, 06:48:41 PM
Apparently.....

The Summit will promote the importance of exposing corruption, punishing those responsible and supporting those who have suffered, and driving out the culture of corruption, where it exists.


Then I can write to the United Nations eh?


I got a funny feeling it don't apply to us plebs, just Nigeria.....



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2016, 06:28:04 AM

So.....


New Zealand has recently taken steps to combat corruption. Last year Parliament passed the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill in November 2015, which enabled New Zealand to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.


But is ok to allow to allow Tony Hammond to be appointed as an investigator , against my many complaints about his conflicts of interest, where he misrepresents evidence, makes untrue affidavits and withholds over 100 forensic photos, all the evidence points to John Darnley, the same John Darnley who Tony Hammond gifted a full certifying gas license to.

John Darnley faces a charge for the explosion but it disappears before Darnley's hearing, all the evidence points to Darnley.

I end up being made the scape goat at a hearing overseen by Stephen Parker, Tony Hammond's colleague for many years and members of the same industry groups...Stephen shuts down the hearing just as we are pushing Hammond on the last of the charges, this is the only charge that I was found "guilty of" out of 44.....no one is held responsible for the explosion.

Nick Smith backs me until he gets his "good friend " on to the Board, this same guy goes in my local paper and further slates me after the hearing.....for an "offence" that Board decides to ignore just months later. All of these people mentioned above are members of the same industry groups.

After my hearing I find that the Board knew about a gas cert issued for the last work done at the site of the explosion, the cert is missing a test for leaks....at the site of an explosion....claimed to have never been accepted/received by the Board...even though it appears on their FoxPro system.....

So they appoint as the investigator, Tony Hammond to investigate this explosion....the same guy who lobbied heavily for the self cert system, and the same tony who gifted Darnley the gas certing license......


Where's my dictionary........must look up what corruption means.......

I lost my trade and way to provide for my family, after warning for 6 years about Darnley....BEFORE THE EXPLOSION...


Until I clear my name, I can't have my life back......I am reminded about this every day, every day I am reminded I am new to a new industry, a trainee at 44 years of age.







Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2016, 06:33:47 AM
I would have thought that a country that ranks so highly in the anti corruption tables would protect that ranking and practice what they preach.....stamping out this sort of corruption.....but it seems the Establishment is above corruption.....but isn't that corrupt? Isn't that the epitome of corruption?


Apparently the rules only reply to us......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: wombles on May 13, 2016, 03:44:57 PM
Badger, by now you will have realised that the govt does not do as it says, that the actions almost never match the election promises. Dont hold your breath for any honesty from those in power.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 13, 2016, 06:11:47 PM
Totally mate I couldn't agree more Wombles.....but bad people will always get away with it if good people just stand by and watch.

I have always been stood up talking, instead of sat down watching.


I also have a wealth of evidence and a very public paper trail if I loose the plot and go mental, lol  ;).
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 29, 2016, 08:17:42 AM
Just to recap then....

In Allgas's own words, attached is letter of my term of employment, this was all in the possession of the Investigator. I worked for these dodgy people from 24th Feb 2003 to 2nd Dec 2003.

So how could I have fitted the hose sold on 21st Jan 04, the original install was done June 03, this is the hose that caused the explosion, sold after I left, you'll notice the receipt looks like it was taken from a bound set of documents, that's because it was taken from the "bundle" for my hearing, the Board's bundle.

Also in the third attachment you'll see some one asking, in my name, for the Board to alter a cert in March 2004, three months after I left.


All of this evidence was in the Board's possession before my hearing, but it was Darnley who's charge for the explosion disappeared before his hearing, whereas I was subjected to a hearing where evidence was withheld, lying letters sent to my customers and plenty of public slating in the local paper.



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on May 29, 2016, 08:18:47 AM
Somebody nearly died in an explosion and they do this?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 01, 2016, 08:58:45 AM
And here in the previous Registrars own words......the disappearing charge, for the explosion.

No body has been able to explain to me how, in the face of undeniable and blatant evidence, can a charge just disappear before a hearing......how does that happen?

Any takers?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 07:11:41 AM
These are the words of the guy who nearly died in the explosion.......and yes I will go on and on about this because it is so very wrong......

My emphasis in bold......


A fish and chip shop owner injured in a gas explosion last year blames shoddy workmanship for the explosion which cost him his health, his confidence and his livelihood.

Ron Clark had to flee his Nelson fish and chip shop and spent two weeks in intensive care.

"An enormous bang, the wall went, the roof went, I'm standing there and the skins coming off my legs," says Mr Clark.

It took six months to rebuild the shop but he says it was all too stressful and he could no longer work. Mr Clark estimates between making a loss in selling the shop and the shortfall in rebuilding, he's more than $120,000 out of pocket.

"Basically I couldn't keep business going, it was all too much. You end up having to sell it and get out. eight years of work down the toilet."

The issue of gas certification was highlighted recently by the sacking of chief executive Philip Routhan, who claimed there were potentially hundreds of faulty gas installations in New Zealand.

"These guys get away with bloody murder, doesn't do his job, gets fired, goes back and says I want my job back. Well I'd like my shop back, I'd like my life back, Id like my health back, you know there are a lot of things I'd like back," says Mr Clark.

Mr Routhan's attempt to get his job back was rejected.

"If the authorities don't check the certification of all of these things then we might as well be living in a third world country."

The Department of Labour laid a complaint with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board after the blast," says Mr Clark.

The board says it's now completed its investigation and two men, aged 53 and 38, are due to appear at a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing in February.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 07:23:36 AM
The board says it's now completed its investigation and two men, aged 53 and 38, are due to appear at a Disciplinary Tribunal hearing in February.

.......but the 53 year old faced a charge for the explosion.....AND IT DISSAPEARED......the 38 year old (me ) had evidence and photos misrepresented and withheld....with most if not all evidence points to the 53year old (Darnley).

It mentions in these comments from the poor guy who watched his skin fall off and spent two weeks in intensive care, he mentions certificates......and the ex ceo (old Routhan) says there are 100's of dodgy certs.......

The last cert for the explosion issued was missing the "test for leaks" field, it was blank, but it was apparently accepted by the Board......I say apparently because they deny ever having received it......


BUT IT APPEARS ON THEIR WEBSITE CERT  HAVE A LOOK FOR YOURSELF........CERT 345138


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 07:25:28 AM
In the words of the Board's lawyer.......


From: Melanie Phillips [mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 4:13 p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Cc: Wal Gordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee 
Hi Paul
Please see attached Belinda’s file note of her request to John Darnley for a copy of certificate 345138.  This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street.   
Also attached is a copy of the certificate received which, as you will see, is of quite poor quality.
Please let me know if you need any more information. 
Regards
Mel
 
From: Melanie Phillips[mailto:melanie@pgdb.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2011 3:22p.m.
To: Paul & Emma Gee; WalGordon
Subject: RE: Paul Gee
Hi Paul
I have just gone back through the file and can confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138.  The only copy the Board has is a photocopy of the certifier’s copy, which you produced as exhibit PG007 together with a copy of the gas suppliers copy.
I see notes from Belinda Greer on the file that the Board copy of certificate 345138 was received after the explosion in 2009, I think from the Department of Labour.
I’m sorry I can’t help you further.
Regards
Mel
 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 07:31:06 AM
I am yet to receive a reply to this email.....






From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 29 May 2016 8:27 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'
Subject: OIA Request

 

Dear Registrar,

 

By means of an Official Information request please can I get the contact details of Mr Clark’s law firm? For clarity this is Ron Clark the poor man involved in the explosion at Milton Street, the lawyer mentioned in the comment below from the attachment.

 

This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street. .

 

Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 07:38:36 AM
The investigator says he saw the original.......see attached......
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 07:48:33 AM
Copied from the PGDB website today.....

Gasfitting certificates are a legal document. Under the Gas Regulations, a gasfitter must provide a signed copy of the certificate to the consumer and the Board. There are strict time frames around when these certificates must be filed online by the gasfitter. Within ten working days of the work being commissioned a certificate must be filed. An additional allowance of five days is given for the certificate to reach the consumer. The certifying gasfitter is required to keep a copy of the certificate for seven years.

Now the guy who faced a charge but it disappeared (Darnley).....in the Board's own words.....issued carbon copies of a cert to the consumer, himself twice (as he was the gasfitter AND the gas supplier), but didn't send one to the Board (which I believe is total bollox because the cert appears on the electronic register)........and it ends in an explosion........


So after this near fatal explosion, that made the blast victim watch his own skin peel off, the guy who most ( if not every scrap of) evidence points to.....faces a charge bit it DISSAPEARS before his hearing.......how does that happen?


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 08:01:08 AM
Apparently the ONLY evidence available that the Board received (and if this is true lets not forget accepted ) an incomplete gas safety cert, that resulted in an explosion.......missing test results of all things.......

I got to ask, do you need any more evidence of receiving this cert.......but even if we take the Board at their word (lol)......


Darnley did the last work at a site and didn't register the cert with the Board, but he did issue the cert to the customer then it blew up. And this is in the Board's own words......but he faced a charge but it disappeared.......HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 08:03:57 AM
You'll notice that cert 299760 has the same "missing" status......funny that because that misses the leak test too.....I got 33 pages of this bullshit, issued by Max Pederson, the old registrar, the new one won't even talk to me, funny that.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 07, 2016, 08:07:06 AM
If this system isn't used fairly......how can you protect anyone?..... whether it is the customer or the tradesman, and if it goes unaddressed then a precedent is set, and believe me if these people can protect themselves at the expense of anyone of you they most certainly will.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 08, 2016, 09:05:49 AM
Now there are people out there, and I have met them……… (not to mention been threatened to my face by them)……….

Well they think “I brought all this on my self for winding up other better connected plumbers”......

Their reasoning for this........

For trying to warn about dodgy certs covering dangerous work done in PEOPLE’S HOMES, LIVES AND BUSINESS'....

Ironically, this was when I tried to get this sorted BEFORE the explosion....for 6 years to be exact.....

Apparently I am a cheeky little immigrant; I can hear them now.....who does he think he is.....


I put it to you bullies and spineless backroom deal merchants......


HOW IS IT THAT THIS CHEEKY LITTLE IMMIGRANT HAD MORE COMPASSION AND CARED MORE FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE NZ PUBLIC AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRADE THAN THE BOARD AND ITS CRONIES?

Who and what would be better for everyone else…the ones filling their own pockets at the trade’s and everyone else’s detriment and risk, or the people trying to do the right thing……

Here's a story for you…sadly a true one.....

A chipshop owner paid for the services of a certifying gasfitter, he trusted the system…..

What he got was an untrained gas salesman empowered by the Board and an engineering group to give the impression that this “salesman” was an expert in gasfitting.

When it went terribly wrong and this shop owner was involved in an explosion, then he watched his skin peel off his legs, spent two weeks in intensive care and lost his business….

Well the same people who gave this poor soul the impression he was employing an “expert”….... they go cover it up and try to frame an innocent person…….and still do to this day.







Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 13, 2016, 10:14:05 AM
Who would you back, who would you rather stand by, who would be better for the NZ public?

Some one who could see there was a problem and spoke out? Bearing in mind that was gaining quite an income out of fixing these dangerous f**** ups that endangered the public and it did my reputation no harm to be the "go to" guy to fix this dangerous work, like the time I isolated a fire that was turning the ceiling of a living room black from soot and the owner said don't turn it off my 6 year old daughter loves the fire, SHE GOES OUT LIKE A LIGHT IN FRONT OF IT!!!!! .........FFS its carbon monoxide poisoning....or the time when the commercial extractor fan was turned on in a restaurant kitchen that caused the flames of the living flame fire go up the front of the fireplace and suck the fumes in to the restaurant....I could go on and on (and I will).....

OR

The goon squad that cover up an explosion, protect their "connected" cronies and couldn't give a shit about who they trample over or who they make a scape goat for THEIR f**** ups?


Who would you stand next to?



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 15, 2016, 08:46:43 AM



Now I have complained to the Ombudsman, see below with attachments, I have complained before and our "Office for Fairness For Everyone"........ appear to "not" want to touch it......Bearing mind they have all this info/evidence and have received complaints......


Fairness for who?




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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2016 11:25 a.m.
To: 'Info'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Registrar'
Subject: FW: OIA Request

 

Dear Ombudsman,

 

I would like to lodge a complaint against the PGDB for ignoring an OIA request I lodged with them many weeks ago, please see below.

 

I have received no reply what so ever. I was under the impression that I was to receive a reply within a set time frame. Please can you let me know if there is to be any action by your office?

 

This involves an explosion that the Board would rather was brushed under the carpet; the Board “confirm that the Board never received a pink copy of certificate345138”, (my emphasis). Ironically a copy of this cert appears on their website and they offer the strange and contradictory explanation that the only evidence it was ever received was that it was entered on their website, even giving the exact date and time, please see attached page 30 from a 33 page report issued by the PGDB. I do not believe you need any further evidence of them receiving this cert 345138, it is impossible otherwise. It even appears in the original DOL complaint, by its number 345138.

 

It is of note that the original copy of cert 345138 which is “missing”…… lacks a record of the test results for a leak test. This cert was issued for the last work done at the site of an explosion. A huge amount of evidence points to a person, a John Darnley, who faced a charge for this explosion, but this charge then disappeared before Darnley’s trial. As your office deals with fairness, I ask you is this fair, and how would this come about in a legal context?

 

I ask you how would the PGDB look if they accepted an in complete cert for the site of an explosion? There are many more of these certs, incomplete and accepted by the PGDB. These other certs still need to be addressed.

 

I would complain to your office that this is a cover up and that corrupt actions have taken place, all done at a risk to the public of NZ.

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee

 


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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 29 May 2016 8:27 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'
Subject: OIA Request

 

Dear Registrar,

 

By means of an Official Information request please can I get the contact details of Mr Clark’s law firm? For clarity this is Ron Clark the poor man involved in the explosion at Milton Street, the lawyer mentioned in the comment below from the attachment.

 

This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street. .

 

Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 15, 2016, 11:24:27 AM
And here are the some of the replies that I have received from our "Office of Fairness.... if it suits".......



Now these are just some of the replies I have, I have one where the Ombudsman says that they must respect the privacy of the complainants....so that they are not deterred from coming forward with their complaints....believe it or not this is the elderly couple who complained about the fumes entering their home, but was told by the PGDB to "close the window when you use the califont".....this califont was nearer than the one I fitted and my customers hadn't complained......

These people might need to look up "Fairness" in the dictionary......





.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 15, 2016, 11:43:38 AM
Please see my reply to the Ombudsman "office of convenient fairness".........check the dates I wrote this below over a year before receiving those limp replies attached in my other post below.....this letter was written in reply to the first fob off given by the Office of Fairness for Some" in July 2014, the other replies from the Ombudsman below received in Oct 2015..............


Now these guys are here to ensure fairness and to be independent from the Govt.....you decide I think it is total bollox myself......



From: Paul & Emma Gee [gasnsolarservices@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 12 July 2014 8:11 p.m.
To: 'Info'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'; 'Allan Day'; 'Colleen Upton'; 'Lyndon Moffitt Building Ltd'
Subject: Ref 310809

Attachments: Doc 1 OIA Complaint for cert 696383.htm; Doc 2 OIA request for Board's action in a fatality.htm; Doc 3 Photos of califonts.doc; Doc 4 Nick Smith's Letter 160411.pdf; Doc 5 Maryan Street letter.jpg; Doc 6 Keynote Speaking Notes Ron Patterson.pdf; Doc 7 Disappearing charge.jpg; Doc 8 3rd hose receipt.jpg; Doc 9 Excerpt from the forensic report by David Neale.doc; Doc 10 Pg 31 from report.gif; Doc 11 DOL Complaint pg 1.jpg; Doc 11 DOL Complaint pg 2.jpg; Doc 12 letter requesting to change a legal doc, 3 months after resign.jpg; Doc 13 Conformation of the non registration of pizza oven cert.doc; Doc 14 5 years to take action.jpg; Doc 15 OIA fraud reply 23 1 14.jpg

Dear Mr Patterson,

 

Ref 310809.

 

 

    I am in receipt of your two letters dated 30 May and 13 June 2014. I also would like to take the opportunity to thank you for extending my date of reply.

 

    I fear that I may not have made myself clear to you and your office. My complaint is not about the outcome of the biased and flawed hearing and slanted investigation.

 

    My complaint is about the flawed and biased investigation and the subsequent stacked hearing that I was subjected to by the Board and it’s so called “impartial” investigator, the Board’s words not mine. This same Board who are willing to ignore blatant conflicts of interest and firm evidence that points to my old boss and are quite happy with the withholding and misrepresentation of evidence by their appointed so called “impartial” investigator. This is my complaint.

 

    It concerns me greatly that your office appears to be putting so much emphasis and weight on the 33 page report written by the Board and Secretariat, who of course will have put a great deal of effort into excusing themselves. This is confusing to say the least. It is a kin to they themselves judging themselves impartial, (an oxy-moron and very bad grammar to say the least), which apparently no one has any concerns with either.

 

    In point 1 of your letter dated 30th May, it appears there is some confusion over my situation, I did not sit a prescribed course of “INSTRUCTION”, which implies, even demands, the learning of new skills and knowledge, skills and knowledge that I was deemed by the Board to have lacked.

 

    I was in fact ASSESSED…. learning nothing new. I am sure I could have learned a lot from the assessor as he was very knowledgeable, but the “course” prescribed by the Board wasn’t available, and so I was assessed. As this "punishment" imposed by the Board did not exist, I was forced to pay someone to assess me and this then imposed yet further additional costs.

 

    Of note I was told by this assessor that I would be within the top 10% of people he had ever assessed, this he discovered after my assessment, when I had not been taught anything new. I was assessed on my already attained knowledge and skills (I did this assessment with my arm in a full plaster cast; perhaps this is where I dropped 10%). This is the same knowledge that I had used to position the califont. Your office is charged with seeing fair play served; do you think this is fair?

 

    Are double standards fair? Is it fair to have been financially forced to sell my home, to have lost my business and reputation and been subjected to a witch-hunt when it appears that there is no consistency in the actions and findings of the Board? They appear to apply certain rules for some and ignore the same rules for others.

 

    Of note, and this is why I requested an extension in my time of reply, I have recently been made aware that the Board has received a complaint from an elderly couple who complained about an installation of a califont, this califont was positioned much nearer than the califont in my one and only standing charge, by some 6 inches to two openable windows.

 

    I have been told that the Board’s advice to them was to “close the windows when you use it” and did not pursue it any further. I have requested a clarification of this to the Board in the form of an OIA request, Doc 1 in attachments. I have copied your office in to this OIA request, as well as another OIA request to see if they have taken any action in the case which involved the very sad situation of a young lady losing her life; her horrific situation is to be found on this link, http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/native-affairs-lesleys-legacy. Doc 2 in attachments.

 

    I ask you Mr Patterson is this Board effective? Which way do you think the Board will lead our industry and protect our public with these mixed and conflicting messages? What messages are they sending the people of this country when in one explosion they are willing to let it go with no one held accountable, even though there is evidence that indicates someone? And in another explosion, that actually took the life of an innocent, as far as I am aware, do nothing.

 

    I am told that this distraught elderly couple, mentioned above, have since withdrawn their complaint and are on anti stress medication due to this terrible situation. Do these people in their twilight years deserve this? I have promised to leave them out of this until it is vitally necessary because of this stress that they have been subjected to. This double standard shown by the Board, do you think it is fair?

 

    This goes toward showing that the Board haven’t changed since my hearing and are still using one rule for one, and ignoring other rules for others; this double standard has only just come to light in recent weeks. Do you think this fair?

 

    Of note the customer involved in my case, the customer who owned the dwelling that was subject to charges laid for a califont installation at Malvern Av, had laid no complaint and had never in 6 years smelt any fumes, this is because the position of his califont was more open to a cross air supply and had a greater clearance to the floor, their califont was placed under one restrained opening window (only opening to 100mm as it was restrained by safety chains). This window opening into a very large open plan room and with its powered flue issuing into a much larger, clear and open garden, this was all taken into account when I positioned it. Fitted 40 mm over the 500mm minimum from the window, as per the tech note I had.

 

    But the califont where the Board has apparently told the people to “close the window when you use it”, these poor people who have actually complained about fumes entering their home, their califont is positioned in a more enclosed area and is much nearer the floor, fitted under two windows that open, unrestrained, to much smaller rooms, (which is a concern due to the availability of free air, i.e. volume, for the dilution of these flue gases), and the elderly couple’s califonts power flue is issuing into a more enclosed and partially covered area with a deck and railings to one side. Is this Fair Mr Patterson? Is the Board’s apparent blasé flippant hypocrisy fair? This apparent attitude of the Board is where my complaint lies, right here. Doc 3 in attachments for photos of the califonts positioning.

 

    In point 2 of your letter of 30th May, you speak of my lack of attempts in airing my concerns and the use of a “British Standard” at the High Court Appeal. I ask you to look at the recent reply I have received from the High Court, a reply to my request for a transcript of this appeal.

 

    Please also see my extensive written submission to the High Court, already supplied to your office.

 

    This recent application for a transcript for my appeal was made to enable me to show you that I was told categorically to talk only about the distance from the window to the califont by Justice Kos and had actually tried to air my concerns. The reply to my recent transcript application is below.

 

 

 

From: Stack, Michaela
Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2014 12:09
To: Paul & Emma Gee
Subject: RE: hearing transcrpit.

 

Mr Gee

Thank you for your email.  As you are aware this matter was an "Appeal" hearing before the High Court.  No witnesses were called to give evidence at the High Court hearing and the parties relied on written submissions to present their arguments to the Court.   Therefore no transcript would have been made. It is usual procedure that no transcripts are taken for civil  appeal hearings.

Therefore I am unable to provide any transcript.

 

Kind Regards

 

Michaela Stack

Deputy Registrar

Wellington High Court

email : michaela.stack@justice.govt.nz

 

 

    My highlights in red above. As you know, I did make an extensive written submission for my appeal, which I have provided to your office, detailing my concerns that you say I did not try to submit. So in effect I did make a valid attempt to address this and other issues, and as I can take it was read by Justice Kos I do not know why it isn’t in his summing up.

 

    All the testimony, evidence and opinions issuing from my impartiality hearing and my actual hearing. All given so much credence by the Board and by Justice Kos appear to be based solely on the foundation of the integrity and reliability of the Board’s appointed so called “impartial” investigator and his opinion, even down to the strict enforcement of an acceptable solution, a NON COMPULSORY acceptable solution, the investigator offered no physical evidence to make his point, it was based solely on his opinion and translation of the NZ 5261 and a contradictory table that he helped write.

 

    I was told at my impartiality hearing that as Mr Hammond hadn’t been shown to have acted egregiously, that he was deemed to be suitable and the right person for the job, even in light of all the conflicts of interest I had raised.

 

    I ask you Mr Patterson, is this investigator, who withheld forensic photos which proved my point that I had maintained for two years, these same forensic photos taken before he was appointed as the investigator, the same photos which were in all probability in his possession as and when I told him at interview that it was my opinion that the pipe work had been altered after my initial pipe installation…. the same investigator who misrepresented evidence and was prepared to ignore his own huge conflicts of interest, is he suitable? Has he acted egregiously? Has he any integrity? Do you value his opinion? This where my complaint lies.

 

    Is it fair that Mr Hammond’s colleague of many years, a Stephen Parker who was chair of my hearing, the same Chair who closed down this very hearing, just as my advocate was cross examining Mr Hammond about the califont measurement from an openable window and trying to get the investigator to clarify and give his reasons for his “opinion” on the clearance of the califont? This is the basis for my complaint.

 

    It is the reliance on this one mans “opinion” by the involved authorities’, to base the whole ruination of my life, business and reputation, that I base my complaint.

 

    I base my complaint on the Board’s willingness to ignore these blatant facts and cover for Mr Hammond….. which I suppose is understandable, after all, the Board did appoint Mr Hammond….the same Mr Hammond, an ex Board member, who had lobbied extensively for the deregulation of the gas industry and pushed for the self certification gas cert system to be introduced, this same self certing system shown to be wanting……..by none other than John Darnley, my old boss…….the same John Darnley who was gifted his license by Mr Hammond, gifted to Mr Darnley with no formal training….who was also a fellow member of NZIGE and other gas groups with Mr Hammond, Mr Parker and Mr Bickers…..Please Mr Patterson explain to me why this is acceptable. Explain to me, if you explain nothing else, why this is acceptable and why these blatant conflicts of interests should be ignored. Here is the heart of my complaint.

 

    For your office to apparently be so willing to rely on the Board’s own excuses while they are ignoring the unsuitability of Mr Hammond is reason for concern. You are relying on the Board’s own spin for your reasons to not investigate, I believe this is unfounded and I will ask the human rights commission and perhaps even the leaders of our Commonwealth if they think this is reasonable. This same Board, who have misquoted me, prejudiced all the witness’s to all the sites of charges and told untruths about me and sent vile perverted case notes to my home. I will never let this lie and am in communication with a law firm to pursue this further if you decide to go on the path you appear to be following.

 

    Is this conflicted and biased man, Mr Hammond, a reliable person for both the Board and Justice Kos, even the Ombudsman, to totally base their judgment on, up holding this last and final charge out of 44 trumped up charges? Is it fair for your office to listen to this man, to give him credibility? He has acted egregiously. This is my complaint.

 

    Think on this, I feel it is relevant because of papers you have written. As you are aware, I had spent 6 years warning about my old boss, about him altering my certs after I had signed them, not forging my signature as your letter of 30th May has said.

 

    As you know at one point I had a letter sent on my behalf in 2006 by Nick Smith MP, amongst many other attempts by myself to highlight the short comings of my old boss. Ironic, because I also have a photo of several Board members and the “later to be appointed” investigator pictured in 2006 along with my old boss at a NZIGE meeting, all of them paid up long serving members of the same interest groups.

 

    Basically I was, in 2006, complaining about my old boss, to the very same Board members pictured with him in the very same year, all members of the same club, also present in this photo is the man later appointed to investigate the explosion AND who had awarded my old boss his full licence…along with the chair of my hearing Stephen Parker…..all in the same picture, all paid up members of the same group, three years before the explosion. I actually have more similar photos taken at NZIGE seminars.

 

    All of this in contradiction to Mr Hammonds own signed affidavit, an affidavit written about how well he knew my old boss and how many times he had met him, is Mr Hammond the right person for the job? Is it fair? This is where my complaint lies.

 

    Nick Smith MP stated in a letter that if the Board had heeded my warnings then the explosion “could have been averted”, written two years after the explosion. Is it fair that I lost so much? Doc 4 in attachments. And the Labour MP, Maryan Street believes I was served an injustice Doc 5 in attachments.

 

     This is why I believe it may be relevant to you as I think you said it best in these comments attributable to a Prof Ron Patterson; I take it this is you.

 

    In reading Doc 6 in attachments, please replace doctors with tradesman and the Medical Board with this Plumbers Board when rereading these notes, excerpt below:-

 

First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.

 

    And from another paper….

 

 

Finding effective ways to raise concerns within the health (or may be gas?) system is a particular concern. Too often, health professionals (or may be gasfitters?) who attempt to do so lack institutional support and are met by denial and resistance. Even external inquiry bodies learn to expect re-litigation of findings by interested parties, denigration by critics, and revisionism by subsequent commentators who did not hear all the evidence and sometimes seem wilfully blind to it!

 

* My additions in black.

 

 

    How about adding to this statement above…..That these “raisers of concern” are being set up and made a scapegoat when all that they had warned about comes to pass, nearly killing someone. Isn’t the Board denying and resisting my complaint, just as they did with my warnings, made 6 years prior to the explosion.

 

    I ask you Mr Patterson. What is the difference between a patient’s health and safety to that of paying customer of a tradesman? Or are the rights of a gasfitter and his customer to be deemed less than that of a health professional and his patient? After all we are licence holding practitioners and have in the past been over seen by the health system. I was set up as a scape-goat, this is my complaint.

 

    Doesn’t a patient pay for a service from a health professional and in doing so they should be able to expect to be kept safe and healthy after procuring these services, please explain to me the difference? I say this because a man nearly died in an explosion and NO ONE has been held accountable but I have been made the scapegoat. What message does this send?

 

    Here’s an analogy for you. How does it sit with you if…….. a “health professional” was to be gifted his full practicing licence because he was a pharmaceutical salesman?........Then a well meaning, fully trained health practitioner had aired concerns about the obvious lack of ability of this untrained “gifted” licence holder for 6 years, and was later proven right in his concerns when a patient nearly died………but as the well meaning, fully trained person had signed a prescription (which was manipulated after signing) was then made the scapegoat, by the very person appointed to investigate, this same person who had also gifted the licence to the pharmaceutical salesman, and was in several interest groups with this salesman. Now apply this rational to mine and Mr Darnley’s situation, in light of your publications. Is this fair? How would the author of the above presentation feel about this state of affairs? A presentation about, of all things, “self regulation” and Board’s ignoring evidence.

 

    All the evidence points to my old boss, he actually faced a charge for this explosion but it disappeared with no relevant questioning or a hearing. Is this fair? Doc 7 in attachments. You’ll notice that this letter mentions 3.7 of the report (the 33 page report that is mentioned above and in your correspondence). Point 3.7 makes no mention of the charge at the site of the explosion. Also a list of the charges laid against Mr Darnley has no mention of the explosion at Milton Street. How can someone face a charge then have it disappear with no trial/hearing or relevant questions? Is it fair?

 

    I ask you, is it fair to base your opinion that my old boss was investigated thoroughly and adequately just because the investigator said he did? This same investigator who was also my old boss’s fellow member of NZIGE and the same person who had gifted my old boss his licence…..the same investigator, who withheld forensic photos, misrepresented and ignored evidence?

 

    This same Mr Hammond who was willing to ignore, amongst other ignored evidence, a third hose supplied to supply the two fryers, this third hose sold well after, months after, I had left Allgas’s employment and a long time before the secondary work covered by cert 345138 for a pizza oven….this same hose being the very one that caused the explosion, the same hose that, in the opinion of the forensic investigator, David Neale, had had its sealing outer rubber coating cut away, the same outer coating that makes the hose gas tight. Is this fair? This is where my complaint lies. Doc 8 & 9 in attachments.

 

    You mention the Board’s 33 page report. As you appear to have a copy please look at page 31, point 4.6, Doc 10 in attachments. I believe this double speak spin doctoring is part of the cover up and one of the root causes for making me a scapegoat, its plain to see for those willing to see. Cert 345138, a cert for the last, most recent work carried out at the site of the explosion, the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Board’s 33 page report, this is also the same cert 345138 mentioned in the Dept Of Labour (DOL) original complaint. Two pages of Doc 11 in attachments.

 

    The DOL author of this letter of complaint told my lawyer right at the beginning of this fiasco that, at no point, was my work of concern to DOL. I have since personally talked to the author Mr Windleburn; he has no problem with my work either. To ignore this. This is where my complaint lies.

 

    I ask you to read the DOL complaint and ask yourself who in this letter of complaint would a fair minded lay person think was more deserving of a thorough investigation.

 

·         The fully trained Gas Service Engineer who had complained about Mr Darnley, specifically about dodgy certs covering dodgy work for 6 years and came forward freely.

 

·         Or the person gifted his licence with no formal training, whom the Board had received letters of concern about, specifically dodgy work covered by dodgy certs, who was the last person to have worked at the site of the explosion but didn’t register the cert for this last work, but saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, i.e. a dodgy cert covering not only dodgy work…. but an explosion? The same person who ran the company that sold the third hose and this same company also showing a willingness to act in my name when Allgas requested to alter a cert 3 months after I had left its employ? Doc 12 in attachments.

 

    I find it bizarre that a copy or cert 345138 was entered into the Board’s own website, but they claim not to have received a copy. In the Board’s 33 page report it mentions that a “fox pro” entry is there for this cert I should imagine that this system would require a log in pass word for the person entering the certs information and this person could attest to whether the Board had in deed received a copy. How on earth does all the information on the carbon copies get on to the fox pro system, even down to the correct cert number…..without receiving a copy of the original! To deny receiving this cert alone deserves an investigation. 

 

    All available copies of cert 345138 lack the legal recording of a gas leak test, even the electronic version. The only copy missing…. the original! This is the only copy which was, in all probability, received by the Board.

 

    I put it to you that it is possible that this original copy of 345138 was, in all probability disposed of and shredded when the Lawyers acting for the owners of the exploding chipshop asked for a copy of all gas safety certs for their gasfitting work carried out at their chipshop. Perhaps you could ask Belinda Greer, a worker for the Board. Doc 13 in attachments. Look at Doc 13 and reread the 33 pages of excuses in their report, it is nonsense.

 

    This Cert 345138 is actually mentioned by number in the DOL complaint. This is where my complaint lies.

 

    I ask you in all fairness, if the person responsible for the last work installed at the exploding chipshop, the same person who according to the Board didn’t register this cert for this work with the Board. But he saw fit to issue a carbon copy to the customer, and even kept a carbon copy himself as the supplier and another copy himself as the certifying gasfitter. With this same cert 345138 that appears in the complaint by DOL by actual number, the same cert mentioned in 4.6 on page 31 of the Board’s report……how can this man, the person responsible for initiating cert 345138, face a charge for the explosion, but then that charge disappears with no relevant questioning, trial or hearing? These are per the Board’s own correspondence. It is here my complaint lies, this “non registration” came to light 8 days after the explosion and months before the Board appointed an investigator. Is that Fair?

 

    I ask you Mr Patterson……..how would the Board look if they had openly accepted an incomplete gas safety certificate for the last work done at a site that then later exploded…..lacking of all things a gas leak test? How would the Lawyers for the chipshop owners have acted on such findings?

 

    In ever more double standards a person involved in yet another case, a situation where there was a pre-signing of some 560 blank certificates, which were on sold, including to unqualified lay persons, with 90% of the work covered by these blank certs done against regulation and non compliant…..with some 16 very dangerous, with the signatory on record as saying he signed and checked every job. What would you think if someone involved in this fiasco, probably the signatory of these blank certs…..still has charges before the Board some 5 years later? Is this fair? These double standards, this is where my complaint lies. Doc 14 in attachments.

 

    The Board are also willing to ignore a potential fraud and manipulation of gas certs to cover dangerous work, this was discovered at my hearing, and the Board did nothing. Is this fair?  This is yet another double standard and is where my complaint lies. Doc 15 in attachments. The letters sent by the Board, that are mentioned in this letter of excuse in Doc 15 were issued well before the manipulation of the certs was revealed at my hearing, it is actually one of the letters that the Board had to apologise to me for, because it contained untruths about my ability to act illegally in other areas of NZ. Ironically this letter of untruths sent by the Board came about because of the situation where the man mentioned above signed 560 certs in the North Island, apparently I got lumped in with him, but he potentially still has charges before the Board, even right up to today. This farcical state of affairs is where my complaint lies.

 

    The list of poor performance by this Board is long and deserves a proper independent investigation. It does not deserve for the Board to be apparently protected and sheltered by those, like yourself, who would take all that the Board say on face value and fall for their spin doctoring and double speak, this is a mistake.

 

    I was told by Mr Christopher Littlewood that all you could do was make a recommendation……please recommend that a proper, fair and independent investigation is held, I will do the rest, along with the support of well over 1200 members of the Plumbers Federation, a group set up because of 15 years of mismanagement by this Board. Sadly my case is but one of many.

 

 

 

Thank you for your consideration and time. Please can you tell me when I might receive a reply, it has been nearly a year and a half since my original complaint.

 

 

Best Regards Paul Gee

 
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 15, 2016, 11:49:11 AM
So in the Ombudsman's own words....


First, what do I mean by evidence? My Oxford English dictionary tells me that the word comes via Old French from the Latin evidentia, meaning ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ – from videre, to see. This is revealing, since one of the most common criticisms of medical (or gas ?) regulators when a licensed doctor has harmed patients, is that the board turned a ‘blind eye’ to the available evidence.


Now when you look at my situation and the blatant evidence I think this is a tad hypocritical as a statement by Ron, the term I would use is "crock of shit", "crock" derived from the old English word for a container and "shit" derived from the working class slang for the stuff that issues from your arse.....



One rule for one and another rule for tradesman apparently......


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 16, 2016, 04:39:59 PM
Just came home to this letter, now remember the Board has a problem finding dodgy certs, then they find them, then some are missing for ever, some are never received but they appear on the website......



Well now the Board can't readily find the address of a law firm that represented an explosion victim....


I got to ask you all......

How do you like paying these guys for a license to practice your trade, when they can't look, can't be bothered, to look for someone's details, in a system that we pay them to administer......


My complaint to the Ombudsman....below sent today.....it is a joke......(not my email, but the situation).....


Dear Ombudsman,

 

I would like to complain about the attached letter from the PGDB.

 

This letter is part of an obvious and on-going cover up; you have seen my case and are aware of the corruption I have been subjected to, you’ve done nothing but you are aware of it.

 

 

This “excuse” is nothing short of ludicrous and frankly insulting (but I have had a lot worse from the Board).

 

Now I know I am a mere tradesman to these people, but to say that the contact details aren’t readily available is simply not true in this electronic day and age, the Board were using the email system extensively in 2009.

 

A simple data search in your email file with the filter “Ron Clark” would work. My I suggest trying searching in your “in box” for the email address for this law firm. This would take minutes to do, which when found could be “copy and pasted”, which could then be forwards to me by email, a further few minuets. 10 mins max!

 

Failing this just look up the case file number, or has the Board “misplaced” these, like all the other “missing” information.

 

It seems that nothing has changed at the Board.

 

Yours truly, Paul Gee.

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 17, 2016, 08:14:51 AM
What do you do when the office for "Fairness for All" appears to be as bad as the people you're complaining about.....


Sent this morning.......



Dear Ombudsman,

 

Supplementary to my complaint made yesterday, please can I bring to your attention the actual initial email that I sent. You will notice that the attachment which was also sent with the original OIA request gives a date…..

 

“This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street”.   (my emphasis).

 

I ask you to bear in mind that this certificate which is mentioned in this correspondence between the Board and the explosion victims lawyer is the actual certificate that is mentioned by number in the DOL complaint, attached for your convenience, cert 345138.

 

This date of 17th April was just days after an explosion nearly killed Ron Clark, just 8 days from memory. This date should help narrow down the search for the correspondence from the contact details of the lawyer of this explosion victim.

 

Also bear in mind I had spent the previous 6 years before the explosion trying to warn about dodgy certs covering dangerous work, you can not get more “dodgy” than an incomplete certificate issued to the customer but not registered with the Board (even more “dodgy” if this same certificate appears on the Board’s own website, but they claim never to have received it)….. and you can not get more “dangerous” than an explosion that levelled a shop nearly killing the owner.

 

Also bear in mind that the person who most, if not all, the evidence points to who is also the issuer (and lets not forget according to the Board the non “register”-er) of this “dodgy” cert 345138 mentioned above…… faced a charge for this explosion, but the charge disappeared before his hearing. How does that happen?

 

 

I was then framed and made a scapegoat for this explosion at a biased hearing under the scrutiny of a very conflicted investigator.

 

 

I ask again, does the Ombudsman think this is fair…..please just a simple yes or no will suffice. You see things are either fair or they are not…..there are no degrees of fairness.

 

 

If you think this treatment is fair then I put it to you, publically, that this adds to the cover up and I question your motives and feel this would be contrary to your motto “Fairness for All”, please respond in a public fashion as I will post this for the plumbing industry to see on a public forum, which I believe is a tradesman’s only avenue of “gazetting” this.

 

 

 

I will post your reply for the Plumbing industry to view how you feel about our industry and those who govern us.

 

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.

 

 


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

From: Paul & Emma Gee [mailto:gspservices@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 29 May 2016 8:27 a.m.
To: 'Registrar'
Cc: 'Wal Gordon'
Subject: OIA Request

 

Dear Registrar,

 

By means of an Official Information request please can I get the contact details of Mr Clark’s law firm? For clarity this is Ron Clark the poor man involved in the explosion at Milton Street, the lawyer mentioned in the comment below from the attachment.

 

This occurred after she was contacted by lawyers acting for the owner on 17 April 2009 requesting copies of all gas certificates relating to 136 Milton Street. .

 

Regards Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 17, 2016, 09:35:01 AM
So they have received it...... I will let you know what the reply is, you'll notice the address at the bottom.

 

17 June 2016

 

Dear Mr Gee

Thank you for your correspondence received on 16 June 2016 about the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. Your complaint has been allocated reference number: 431604.

We will contact you again once your complaint has been assessed.

You can contact us by calling 0800 802 602, emailing info@ombudsman.parliament.nz , or writing to our postal address below.

Yours sincerely

Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata


 

Phone 04 473 9533  0800 802 602| Fax 04 471 2254

Email info@ombudsman.parliament.nz | www.ombudsman.parliament.nz

PO Box 10152, Level 7, SolNet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 17, 2016, 10:57:18 AM
Lets not forget that this poor man that was nearly killed in an explosion.....well he thought he was employing an expert in gasfitting, what he got was a LPG salesman.......

An LPG salesman who was a member of the NZ Institute of Gas ENGINEERS as well (I would be pretty pissed off at this state of affairs if I was a REAL member of the NZIGE)

This LPG salesman who sold him a gas cert to say the installation was safe....it wasn't safe.....it exploded.


The Board not only empowered this numpty with a full certifying license based on one conversation and no formal apprenticeship served, but then went and tried to cover it up just days after the explosion while he lay in a burns unit.

THE BOARD APPARENTLY IGNORING THE FACT  THAT DARNLEY DIDN'T REGISTER THE CERTIFICATE, BUT ISSUED A CARBON COPY OF IT TO THE POOR BURNS VICTIM.....REALLY FFS.


And now the Board won't look for this poor man's lawyers details........


Perhaps its because Darnley, who was gifted his license (by the Board), and didn't register the cert with the Board(which is bullshit because it appears on their electronic register, you know the register that carries a disclaimer for accuracy, lol).....Well he faced a charge for the explosion but it disappeared before his trial.....perhaps the Board might have a reason for not giving me the details of these lawyers.........did I just really write that.....all based on fact!....yes I did, because it is true.


How wrong is that? How wrong is it I can publically say this, because it ain't slander it is it based on the truth.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 17, 2016, 11:11:56 AM
How do you feel about a selfish group of people who put themselves and their cronies above what they preach, the integrity of the trade, the public's best interest and just pure common decency......and get you to pay for the privilege, funding their gravy train?

How would the NZ public feel about this?

How should the Ombudsman feel about this?


It is a sad state of affairs if the powers that be allow this to go unaddressed, real sad.



Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 17, 2016, 11:19:50 AM
I don't believe corruption has a sell by date, but it does fester and grow over time and the more you entwine yourself in it..... the more tainted you become, even if you just joined in.......until a new guy decides it needs addressing and then you'll see the legacy you've left.....I ain't going nowhere.


Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 23, 2016, 08:27:54 PM
So you have seen the evidence posted on here and how even the Ombudsman has turned his back on me with my complaint of how I was beyond a shadow of a doubt set up as a scapegoat.

One of them even rang me to tell me we don't usually get involved in these things.....


But apparently it all depends who you are and what level of society you range from, sent to night for clarification of why us Plumbers don't matter, why are we at the bottom of the pile?







Dear Mr Patterson, 

 

Supplementary to my initial complaint. Please see below, in blue, an excerpt from the media.

 

Please can you explain to me why my case is of no concern to you but the one mentioned below is, other than the obvious fact that I am a mere plumber and the other aggrieved party mentioned below is an ex-diplomat.

 

I believe my family and I have been subjected to a far greater amount and higher level of egregious acts at the hands of the PGDB, that far exceed the case mentioned below, but it appears that because I am from a lower level of the strata in society, then my family and I mater not, my reputation matters even less.

 

I was under the impression that your office motto was “Fairness for All”, this is not my experience. It is far from it.

 

Please can you tell me why my family and I matter less and the defaming of my reputation is of no concern to you.

 

Yours Sincerely Paul Gee.

 

 

 

 

CAMERON BURNELL/FAIRFAX MEDIA

 

Outgoing State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie slated by Ombudsman

 

The Government has rejected parts of a damning report into its handling of an inquiry into leaks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

 

Ombudsman Ron Paterson has told the Government it should compensate a former top diplomat whose career ended in tatters after he was targeted by the inquiry, which was instigated by the State Services Commission.

 

He has also recommended a formal apology.

The 2013 inquiry has already cost taxpayers as much as $1 million, including lawyers costs and fees paid to the woman who headed it, Paula Rebstock.

 

State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie said on Thursday he did not agree with some of Paterson's findings and Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully stood by comments made at the time the inquiry was released.

McCully said the Ombudsman's review criticised the steps taken in assessing the responsibility of particular individuals for "some very unprofessional behaviour" - but did not dispute that those behaviours occurred.

"My statement, made at the time of the release of the Rebstock report, referred to unprofessional and disreputable conduct but did not name any individuals. My statement was undoubtedly correct."

 

The 2013 inquiry headed resulted in senior diplomats Derek Leask and Nigel Fyfe being singled out , despite evidence the leaks that sparked it originated from within the State Services Commission itself. The person responsible cannot be identified because of suppression orders.

 

While they were not named in the State Services Commission-ordered inquiry, Leask and Fyfe were easily identifiable and their conduct was publicly  criticised by the State Services Commissioner and Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully after personal emails were published revealing their opposition to restructuring of the ministry.

 

In his report, Paterson says the SSC acted unreasonably during the inquiry, and singled out flaws including

* the findings in relation to Leask exceeded the inquiry's terms of reference.

* Leask was not given fair notice prior to his interview that his conduct would be examined.

* Insufficient material was provided him about the applicable standards against which his behaviour was being measured

* He was not treated fairly.

* The evidence relied upon by the inquiry did not reasonably support some of the criticisms made about him in the final report and some highly relevant evidence was not properly addressed

* The manner in which Leaks's actions were addressed in the final report was disproportionate when compared with the comments about the actions of other senior MFAT managers.

* Publication of the report, in a manner that identified him and contained unfair criticisms of him, was unjust

* State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie's public statement about Leask was unreasonable.

Paterson recommends Leask receive compensation for harm to his reputation caused by the deficiencies in the inquiry and publication of the report.

In a statement, Leask said the 2013 findings against him and other MFAT staff had been rubbished by the Ombudsman.

"It is good to have the slur on my reputation removed. Today's findings by the Ombudsman go beyond the vindication of my actions. The Ombudsman's report suggests that the 2012/2013 SSC investigation was out of control from start to finish."

Leask, a former deputy secretary of foreign affairs and New Zealand's high commissioner in London, said It was a matter of great public concern that the SSC acted in the way it did.

In a statement, Rennie said he did not agree with all elements of the Ombudsman's findings, in particular that in making findings relating to the investigation being outside its terms of reference.

But  he accepted that the way in which the investigation dealt with Leask "could have been better".

 

 

 

 

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 23, 2016, 08:36:39 PM
Why can't my name be cleared? I have proved I did nothing wrong, proved I was set up and proved the Board are covering up a dodgy cert system that effects peoples homes and families......where is my fairness?


Oh wait there I am a mere tradesman, that should be glad that I am allowed to pay for a license to crawl through shit,

I is a sorry masser..... I promise I be a good boy masser........ FFS I thought we had progressed from this sort of discrimination and down right hypocrisy.


Where is the equality and fairness in all this? It is most definitely one rule for us and one rule for them, and it is wrong on every level, especially when they hid behind the slogan "Fairness for All"....what a crock of shite....




.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on June 23, 2016, 08:43:37 PM
From the media release below....

The 2013 inquiry has already cost taxpayers as much as $1 million, including lawyers costs and fees paid to the woman who headed it, Paula Rebstock.



Aren't we lucky, we saved the tax payer at least $250,000.00 (cost of my "investigation" 220k and the 30k spent on Darnley, notice the difference in costs) plus all the other costs......because we all paid for that, us tradesman.....

Its just a shame we are a far smaller amount of people chipping in to fund the Board........than the 5 million taxpayers, oh wait there we pay tax on top of funding the Board....Fairness for who again?



...
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 01, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
To all the new readers of this thread, take a look at the evidence posted on this thread to back up this submission below.....


Dear Select Committee,
 
1.   Introduction

2.   My name is Paul Gee, a certifying gasfitter and plumber from the Tasman/Nelson area. I am in full agreement with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Federation’s submission, and only offer this personal submission under my own steam and banner to go toward showing how the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) have spent the illegally gained funds,  needlessly savaging my life and terrorising my wife in doing so.

3.   I have lost my business and reputation, my home and time with my young family, all for a situation that I had tried to warn about for 6 years previously, before an explosion nearly killed someone, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy work. With no one held accountable for this. As this situation spans almost 10 years of my life and is hugely personal to me I am truly thankful for all understanding and consideration shown for this lengthy submission and I thank you in advance for this.

4.   I believe the Board have made a scapegoat of me to hide their own short comings and in-action.

5.   Concerns

6.   My concerns are centred on the illegally funded past and current prosecution and discipline systems of the PGDB within the gasfitting industry and the apparent covering up by the PGDB of either a badly designed gas safety certification system and/or incompetence/malpractice administering this system. 

7.   I believe that the Board ignored conflicts of interest and acted in bad faith, with out duty of care and against natural justice; leading to an unfair and needless investigation and the resulting decision by the Board in respect to me. Please note that I strongly believe in industry regulation and the holding of “cowboys” to account within the industry, which was why I had tried to warn about all of this from the outset.

8.   I believe they undertook a needless disciplinary action against me, utilising these illegally gained funds spending over $200,000.00 on my case. What has occurred to me has since been made available to the Building and Housing Minister.

9.   In particular, my concerns are not just about the afore mentioned conflicts of interests that were ignored, but also the misrepresentation and withholding of evidence and the resulting decision of the Board, and in particular the way the investigation was carried out.




10.   Background

11.   I am a qualified gas service engineer in the United Kingdom, trained by British Gas in 1989. I was registered by the PGDB as a craftsman gasfitter on 15 February 1999.

12.   I began working for a gas company in late February 2003 in Nelson. At the beginning of this employment, I was instructed by the manager to fill out the work sheets only and the office staff would fill out the gas certification certificate and I only had to sign them, then the office staff would file them. Note: The manger and office staff was a family and related, i.e. a husband (manager), wife (office manager), daughter (office girl) and son in law (limited licence gasfitter, who worked unsupervised most of the time).

13.   After approximately five months of employment with this gas company, I became very concerned about how gasfitting work was being carried out and the possible safety implications of this apparent malpractice. I attempted to raise this concern verbally with the manager; however it was dismissed by him. Toward the end of the period of this employment I handed back certificates to the manager, refusing to sign them as they were unfinished or unsafe.

14.   On 10 November 2003, I attended a meeting with the Manager. At this meeting, I submitted a written statement outlining my safety concerns; this written statement was later provided to the Board and appears in my Hearing’s Bundle (HB).

15.   On 13 November 2003, I was issued with a written warning by the manager for how I had expressed my concerns about safety to his son in law, (HB). In response to this written warning I indicated I would resign as soon as was practicable.

16.   On 14 November 2003, four books of non-transferable gas certificates were ordered, for the one and only time, by some one at the gas company. It was done in my name, without my knowledge, (HB).

17.   On 19 November 2003, I gave two weeks notice and resigned from this gas company, (HB).

18.   I later found out, after the explosion, that on the 4th March 2004, three months after I left, someone from this gas company, on this company’s letterhead, wrote a letter in my name to alter a gas certificate to the PGDB, which was apparently acted on, (HB).

19.   I then began work as a subcontractor for a different gas company in December 2003 where I immediately became aware of improper use of gas certificates that were in my name, actually one of the certificates I had refused to sign because the job was unsafe/unfinished, (HB).

20.   In response, I contacted the PGDB by telephone, which was when I became aware of the 4 books ordered in my name, and again in writing on 6 January 2004. In response, the PGDB replied to me, dismissing my complaint and providing what I believe are inconsistencies and incorrect facts. (HB)

21.   A year later I came across yet another irregular certificate in my name, covering unsafe work. I contacted a lawyer, as the Board refused to talk to me without one, on 13 January 2005. (HB)

22.   I also contacted my former employer, the gas company mentioned above, which had a new manager, on the 24 January 2005.

23.   The outcome of my lawyer’s inquiry to the PGDB was there were over a 1000 certificates in my name and it would cost $25 per certificate to check. I could not afford this potential sum of $25,000 and told them so by phone. The letter from the Board’s lawyer had inconsistencies and incorrect facts. I had only worked at this gas company for some 10 months.

24.   I approached a Member of Parliament on 24 May 2006 after hearing no further from the PGDB. A letter was written to the PGDB on 6 June 2006. No response was made to me. I followed up this letter by sending a fax to a member of the PGDB on 21 August 2006. Again, I had no response. I later contacted another Member of Parliament by email, outlining my concerns for health and safety. This was passed on to the Minister for Safety and Health at the time. This Minister replied indicating he would look into the matter; however I received no further contact. Most, if not all, of the proof of this correspondence is in the possession of the PGDB, (HB).

25.   On 8 July 2009, the Board received a complaint from the Department of Labour, regarding a gas explosion at 136 Milton Street, Nelson. An “impartial” investigator was appointed according to section 40 of the Act.

26.   I requested an impartiality hearing with PGDB, it was held on 22 February 2011 where I raised concerns about conflicts of interest. They were dismissed.

27.   Disciplinary action was taken against me under section 42 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976 (“the Act”) as a result of the investigation. The matter was heard between 3 and 5 May 2011 by the Board. The decision was given in July 2011 where I was found guilty under section 42(1)(c) of the Act in relation to only one of the seven properties that were investigated by the “impartial” investigator.

28.   Out of 44 charges laid by the Board, I was found guilty of only two, neither of which was at the site of the explosion that initiated the complaint by the Department of Labour. No one else as far as I am aware was questioned about the site of the explosion, whether as part of the initial investigation or since.

29.   The Board required I undertake a course of instruction as an extra condition of re-licensing as a certified gasfitter for the 2013/2014 licensing year.

30.   This “course of instruction” had to be custom made for me at my expense. I have recently carried out an “assessment”, rather than course of instruction. I passed with a 90% mark and was told by the assessor that I would be in the top 10% of the people he had ever assessed.

31.   Of the “impartial” investigators initial audits of my work, none of his initial concerns made it to charges that later surfaced in a second audit. This second audit was ordered by him on the basis of these initial audits and “concerns”. A letter from the Board’s lawyer states that three years worth of my work was audited, but the “impartial” investigator only claims to have audited 10% of my work for that period.

32.   On 2 October 2009, the then Acting Registrar of The Board sent letters to the owners of six properties where the PGDB alleged I had carried out gasfitting work and that were identified by the “impartial” investigator’s investigation as having compliance issues.

33.   These letters, which covered each and every area that I had ever worked in for my own business, from the West Coast to Havelock of the top of the south island, with Nelson and Motueka in between, one or two letters per area. By far the most damaging was the one to Motueka High school, the only high school in what WAS my main centre of business, and my business disappeared not long after these letters. I wasn’t made aware of these letters until the Motueka High school contacted me.

34.    These letters noted there was an issue with a number of gas certificates illegally sold affecting a number of homes from Northland to Waikato and the Bay of Plenty, and that the certificate pertaining to their address was one of these. I have never carried out work in these North Island areas and these letters caused me the loss of my business, distress and loss of reputation.

35.   By far the worst event on a personal level was during the build up and preparation for my Hearing, the “impartial” investigator’s lawyer sent to my home, unmarked child sexual abuse case notes to prove his point on probabilities. As they were unmarked of their vile content, my long suffering wife read them and I came home to find her hysterical. At this time she was facing living in a caravan for the winter with her husband working away, minding our two young sons, as we were financially forced to sell our home. This situation that my wife faced later happened and I have had to work away for nearly two years since. I have told the present CEO of the Board about this, he has no problem with it and another PGDB member’s solution that he offered to me was “…had I thought of returning to the UK or going to Aussie”.

36.   I filed a notice of appeal to the decision of the Board on 16 November 2011. The appeal was heard in the High Court on 5 March 2012 and the decision given on 14 March 2012. The focus of this appeal was on the finding I was guilty of an act or omission contrary to the integrity of the gasfitting trade. The appeal was dismissed.

37.   On 22 June 2012, the Boards external assessor and QC released an opinion on eight complaints I raised. She concluded that under the Board’s Historical Complaints Resolution Policy, only one of my complaints fell within the scope of the Policy: that the letters sent by the Board’s Acting Registrar on 2 October 2009 did cause me a disadvantage. I have heard nothing since.


38.   Impartiality

39.   My claim is that the “impartial” investigator was not an impartial investigator as is required for natural justice. He is a member and fellow of the NZIGE and a member of IPENZ, GANZ and the Kennedy Trust and at the time my old boss was also a member of NZIGE and other gas groups.

40.   In addition, I believe that the “impartial” investigator was the person who granted my old boss his full craftsman status, after just one oral exam and with no apprenticeship served.

41.    The “impartial” investigator also was nominated by GANZ to co-author the NZ 5261, the standard that I had offered an alternative to in defending against my two founded charges. This is a conflict of interest that should not have been ignored. I tried to raise the issue at the impartiality hearing in February 2011, where my concerns were dismissed.   

42.   I believe that the table 16 of NZ 5261, which he refers to within this Standard and is particular to my charges, is contradictory and confusing. Table 16 had also been amended which gives the tradesman the impression that the table is not strict in its application, not to mention it is in the non-mandatory part two of the standard.

43.   The present Chairman of the PGDB and a panel member of my hearing is also a member of IPENZ, of which NZIGE is an arm of that according to a press release from IPENZ – “NZIGE collaborates closely with IPENZ”. This same person released a press release just after my Hearing stating I lacked fundamental knowledge of my trade, this appeared in my local newspaper.

44.   I also believe there was a conflict of interest between the “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member at the disciplinary hearing. The “impartial” investigator and the Presiding Board Member have served together in numerous organisations, NZIGE, GANZ, and the Kennedy Trust, and have made numerous presentations together as a duo to the gas industry.

45.    The Presiding Board Member was on the executive of GANZ, the nominating organisation for the “impartial” investigator to co-author the referenced standard NZ 5261.



46.   The “impartial” investigator was the technical adviser to the Presiding Board Member at GANZ. I believe this would lead to the Presiding Board Member to put more weight in the “impartial” investigator’s opinion because of their personal relationship and their work on NZ 5261. They would both, in all probability, want the integrity of NZ 5261 to remain intact because of their involvement in developing it.

47.   The “impartial” investigator was also heavily involved with the deregulation of the gas industry and a driving force behind self certification for gasfitting. In light of this I believe he would also have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of this certification system he had helped create, which has some apparent serious flaws in its application and the PGDB’s administration of it, most if not all of this was raised at the impartiality hearing I had requested, but was dismissed.

48.   Further, at the site of this explosion no one has been held accountable, although all copies of the last certificate issued for work carried out at this site of an explosion; lack any gas leak test entry which is a compulsory field on the now electronic website. This certificate is totally in my old manager’s name and was signed for a year after the initial installation and at least a year after my leaving the employment of the gas company mentioned above. The PGDB claim never to have received or registered this certificate, but an electronic version appears on the electronic register on their website. This electronic register also carries a disclaimer stating the inaccuracy of the register.

49.   Unfair Investigation

50.   I believe I was unfairly investigated, as were the charges brought against me regarding seven properties. Only two, out of 44 charges, regarding one property were upheld, which would be dismissed by a well used British Standard, if it was allowed.

51.   As a result my business and reputation was damaged and my ability to earn an income suffered. I believe that the PGDB appointed investigator was not an impartial investigator and that serious evidence was misrepresented or ignored at the Hearing. I was presumed guilty, having to prove innocence and disadvantaged by not allowing me to submit further evidence, which would clear me of all wrong doing, for a situation I had tried to warn about for 6 years.

52.   My appeal was dismissed because I could not, due to limiting PGDB policy, give any further evidence. The evidence I tried to adduce was a British Standard that would show what I had done was safe and a relevant alternative to the non-mandatory part two of the NZ 5261 standard that I was found guilty of contravening. Of note, the only other certifying gasfitter in the room at the hearing was on the panel for the PGDB, and he was British.

53.   I also tried to adduce an email from another, co-author of NZ5261. This email said I could use a British Standard if it was relevant, and I believe it is. This would have left me completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

54.   At the actual hearing I had offered other information and illustrated how I knew the fumes would behave on the appliance I had been later found guilty for installing and certifying. The owner of the same dwelling said he had no problems with it in the previous six years since installation, and it was the only obvious place to put the appliance in question. Even the “impartial” investigator also commented that if the fumes were not entering the building then I would have complied with Part one of NZ5261 which is mandatory, and so I would have done nothing wrong. All of this evidence was apparently ignored, with no further evidence put forward by the PGDB, other than the above mentioned “Table 16”, to go to show what I had done was dangerous, which I still believe it was not.

55.   In light of this treatment, and it is very brief and incomplete and a pick of the worst, I would like to ask a question and make a suggestion to the Select Committee

56.   My question is-

•   Is the Committee comfortable for the PGDB to enforce over a 1000% increase in discipline levies in under a decade and then claim it illegally from tradesman, BUT THEN (and this is my main point and reason for my submission) to use this ill gotten money as a fund to persecute and disadvantage innocent, well meaning, registered trades-people, using this illegal discipline levy as a war chest to bring down any opponents within the industry, or anyone they have a grudge with? As is evidenced by my treatment. They openly boast of a 100% conviction rate.

57.   My suggestion is-

•   While you are being asked to amend this Act, please consider changing the Act so that the Board is a liable entity or at least open to more than just recommendations, which they routinely ignore. As it is now the Board is non-liable under the Act, and accordingly the PGDB apparently acts with scant regard and impunity The PGDB have done this even while hiding behind, and trying to maintain, the façade of a registered charity, spending as far as I am aware over $46,000.00 in appealing their de-registration as a charity, apparently using the same clause** that is limited to $500.00 when used in making a compensation payment to me because of the letters sent to my customers.
**The Part 148 of the 2006 Act enables the Board in any financial year, to expend for purposes not authorised by any act, a sum not amounting to more than $500.



58.   I thank the Committee for your time. And ask with all due respect and humility are these the actions and the behaviour of an organisation that are moral or ethical? Are they the people best suited to lead our industry? Can you trust these people to have a blank cheque as it were, which is what will happen if this is bill is validated and acting with impunity as they are non liable for their actions.

59.   There is a huge decline in the industry and training sector, of which I fear we are just seeing the tip of this huge iceberg, the future is bleak. The PGDB is still apparently acting in a corrupt, nepotistic and incompetent manner, continually acting against the best recommendations of the damming OAG report and in the face of the best practice recommendations of the NZ Law Commission, acting apparently in bad faith.


60.   If you were in a position to, and are able to appoint a public enquiry, I will provide proof and substance to back my claims.
 
 
 
Yours Sincerely Paul Gee
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 01, 2016, 08:46:20 PM
I think it is a huge worry that the person responsible for this is allowed to walk away from this with all the evidence pointing to him, all done in the homes of the very people who voted in the current building minister, with the dodgy work done in their homes on Nelson.

Wrong on so many levels.....
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 17, 2016, 10:12:20 AM
I have told everyone and no one listens......now everyone thinks self certification is a liberating and freeing experience and I agree, but only for those selling gas.

We have a system where the problem WILL NOT  become apparent until AFTER an incident......

Believe you and me human nature will mean if you are in their sights and its is the system/authorities' or YOU who will be blamed it will ALWAYS be you who gets shafted....unless you're at the top of the pile, remember I was Nelson president and a paid up member of Master Plumbers for years....it was me or the system who was going to get blamed (oh or the guy the system granted a full license to with no training, so they weren't protecting him, they were protecting themselves).....

So the system is totally f****edup.....

The cert system was found to be extremely wanting in my case....which showed other cases of fraud and mismanagement....but they went to pin it on me........then I receive this email below......it is not an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff it is a hearse, which by the what you will pay for with your sanity and business and reputation, then get brushed under the carpet......so very wrong...you have all probably seen this email, below...

From: EnergySafety [mailto:EnergySafety@med.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 14 November 2016 5:24 p.m.
Subject: Electrical and Gas High-Risk Database (EGHRD) – Entering physical installation addresses [UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Good afternoon,

You are receiving this email as a registered practitioner or delegated person on Energy Safety’s Electricity & Gas High Risk Database.

Electrical and Gas High-Risk Database (EGHRD) – Entering physical installation addresses:
The Issue: There are too many “manually” entered addresses, and; they are being entered incorrectly, so this makes it hard to search and find the entry again. It’s easy to avoid this problem – please read on:

There are now over 200,000 entries in the high-risk database. The system is designed to be searchable by anyone, including the public, so installation addresses need to be consistent and correct. About 70% of the installation addresses are selected using the drop-down post office addresses file (PAF) the preferred process where possible, and the rest (30%) are manually entered addresses.

Practitioners have contacted Energy Safety complaining that they or their customers cannot find the entry relating to the work done on customers’ property. Most times this is due to an incorrect format or misspelled address being used. This can also affect the practitioner as a miss-entered record may be considered invalid under the legislation.

Energy Safety has undertaken an analysis of the manually entered addresses. This shows that some addresses are not entered correctly and that the spelling of many places is incorrect (e.g. Auckland is spelled more than 15 different ways and Christchurch more than 20 ways).

"There are now over 200,000 entries in the high-risk database".........HOW MANY ARE COVERED BY A PRINTED OFF CERT WITH NO TRACE ON IT?




Please bring back inspectors and a second opinion......deregulation is a massive mistake and the whole of NZ will be badly served by it.


YOU will foot the bill for this in every way, it is immoral and so very f****edup, but its ok we don't have to wait for an inspector before we walk away and count our money.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 17, 2016, 10:16:40 AM
The funny thing is I could use the old carbon copy system to show how much the PGDB had messed up the system...then it was done away with for a print off all you like system, no handwriting (which also helped me show how the PGDB had messed this up).....just a printer and internet access.....


What could possibly go wrong?





.
Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 17, 2016, 10:49:19 AM
No one noticed there was a problem.......until the PUBLIC went looking for certs.....

HERE'S SOMETHING TO PONDER.....


If I installed a giant elephant with a package burner inserted in his rectum in someone's living room but misspelled, and wrote ForfeckingChristsakeChurch instead of Christchurch, no one would know until we had trunk and bowels and elephant shit all over the place.....


I am dyslexic, and so are quite a few of the tradies I know......I think a high % might be misspelled......



The morons have taken over the asylum.....

.

Title: Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 236 Dated 12 December 2014
Post by: Badger on November 17, 2016, 10:53:03 AM
Newsflash.....


ITS A HIGHL