Plumbers NZ is New Zealand's largest online plumbing, gas and drainage resource. Plumbing exam help, plumbing news, directory and free quotes.

Author Topic: Who is responsible?  (Read 15470 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Who is responsible?
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2011, 07:10:45 PM »
I have some questions New Guy -
1.  Did the certifying plumber get prosecuted?  And if so what was his/her outcome?
2.  Did you plead guilty in the end or did you fight the charge?
3.  Did they ask you to submit your financial status before the fine was handed down?

I note it has taken since May of this year for the whole thing to be resolved.  That's an awfully long time for someone to be under such stress - did this get mentioned at the hearing, and did the hearing take place in Auckland or Wellington in the end?  After going through the process did you feel you had a real opportunity to explain the situation or did a lawyer do the talking for you?  How fairly do you think you were treated?  What will the decision mean for you - i.e. do you think the attendance at a HWC install course will be of any help?
Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you?  Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?  (Walt Whitman 1819-1891)  American Poet

Offline newguy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: Who is responsible?
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2011, 08:31:43 PM »
In the end I threw the towel in, this year has been a bad financial year as it is and didn't want to spend more with lawyers as I knew they would fine me in the end anyway. It turns out that even if your a certifying plumber it doesn't matter the owner of the business is always liable and not the CP that did the job if he was subcontracted. Lesson learned. So he was not persecuted.

This was over 2 years ago so yes it has taken very long! I don't see the point in the coarse total waste of time!! and knowing how the system works i bet there isn't even CPD points. I think the board was friendly during the process they did help me through and it almost felt like they felt bad about it but had to proceed.

I'm almost confident that I will not re register next year and persue a different carrier path. Its to much to deal with. In the end its just work, we work to feed our families. The economy is in free fall, competition is growing, margins are dropping and then the PGDB and councils make things even more complicated and harder. I understand that they want a safer and healthier NZ but looking at how things are managed and operated makes me cry inside. It not like we don't already have enough to deal with. This year I have not done 1 CDP. I simply couldn't find the time. What do they expect?? I'm over it.


Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Who is responsible?
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2011, 08:38:16 PM »
Hey New Guy
What would happen if the owner of the business was not a licensed person what would they do?  Say the owner was not a plumber, but employed licensed practitioners and then subcontracted out to another certifier becasue, say they were too busy to do all the work.  That would be an interesting scenario, then surely the Certifer who did the work would HAVE to be responsible as the owner of the business was not a licensed person.

I still don't quite understand how any certifier is not responsible for their work (providing proof is available to show the certifier did do the work).  Makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Offline newguy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: Who is responsible?
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2011, 08:56:51 PM »
It sure does, I asked the same question and unfortunately that's how it is. The owner does not have to be a CP but must employ a CP to inspect the work the subcontracted CP does. Funny ain't it?? The board also explained that its the owners responsibility to ensure that the CP employed to do the job also does it, for example if I told the CP to go to job2 instead of job1 for inspection and something happens then again the owner is responsible. So if you employ a LP every job must be inspected by a CP and if something happens then the owners head rolls not the CP or LP. This is my understanding from the board.

Your scenario is very interesting, in that case the owner would have to insist on a PS3 to prove the sub contracted CP is taking responsibility. Maybe I should get the guys to sign a disclaimer for every job they do  . Im not sure how you guys inspect all the jobs or if you do at all, isnt that why a LP went to school for 3 years? Dont you think that someone qualified should take responsibilty for the work they do? Including a CP?

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Who is responsible?
« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2011, 09:19:18 PM »
I agree - we have several certifiers, but I was interested in the scenario of a business person owning the company and employing certifiers and then subcontracting another certifier.  For instance we have certifiers of all disciplines, but from time to time we subcontract to another certifying drainlayer.  The PS3 thing is interesting, some councils require a tradesperson to sign the PS3, others are happy for the "owner of the business" which could be an accountant, manager etc to sign.  Very interesting and a lesson to learn all around. 

Offline TS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +18/-99
Re: Who is responsible?
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2011, 10:04:11 PM »
Write to the board with this as your defence:

Provide a copy of the CP's timesheet showing his time on the job and secondly provide yours showing you did not work there. Assuming they don't accept that, this will work:

You were not guilty of a breach of a current enactment as they say. G12/AS1 is a non mandatory document that can be used to show compliance but is not the law. They have sighted this document as the 'enactment' you are in breach of.

Clause G12.3.8, which is mandatory, basically requires the HWC to be able to relieve excessive pressure(part a of G12.3.8) and limit temperatures to avoid flash steam production(G12.3.8 part b).
 
All there is to prove is that when the TPR was opened that the relief drain at its lesser grade allowed for the water to drain away faster than the KW rating of the heater could heat at. If it backed up and could not relieve the water fast enough then it does not comply with G12. If it works they have absolutely no case.

As an aside the work you've done to remedy the situation is more of an issue. PVC is not suitable for a relief drain and it should be to a readily visible location, not to a downpipe. Here's a blurb the DBH did following a few faults:

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-10-article-4

A bit on the non mandatory status of G12/AS1:

http://www.dbh.govt.nz/building-about-compliance

Taken from that:

The Compliance Documents are not mandatory, but they are important because they are published and endorsed by the Department of Building and Housing

If you need a hand writing a letter I'd be happy to help, I love helping out the wrongfully accused.

If you used the above you couldn't be found guilty. I'd be well and truly appealing this one! They are wrong!


Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via twitter
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)