well written again guys ,

Craftsman - is that due to costs?

whats the rules around licensing under exemption if you are actually registered as a licensed/certifier?

if the company was large enough it would probably make sense to reduce costs by having one employee/principle licensed as certify-er and all others licensed under exemption - wouldnt make any difference to business - as other members have found it is not the person doing the work who is liable but the company that undertakes that work  (forget the member name who was prosecuted  by board)

this would be a saving of $265 per employee and significantly reduce associated costs with cpd as there is only the need for the one employee to undertake it....



what happens - or what is the requirement when you do not re-license for a period of time - and then go to re-license at licensed/certifying level/status?      do you have to again show competency via exams/cpd or otherwise?!?

I would love to know who got done by the Board and that the company is liable, because that hasn't been my experience.

As I understand it, it is totally down to the certifier and the buck stops there.....but saying that there is no consistancey with the Board, depends on who you know and how much influence you got.

It should be black and white, right and wrong, no grey areas and the same for all concerned but this isn't how it is.

Im not sure Badger - I may be confused - it was a plumbing issue not gas regarding a relief drain? I think he may have subbed the work out to another craftsman/certifying plumber who done the job but when things went pear-shaped he was the one done for it - as his business was the principle contractor?


I realise you got done m8 - that whole case is a sham

I know in your case it was you as a person prosecuted

I seem to remember reading about that case on this forum, photos too. Cant remember if there was any outcome.