kerry davies Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Jail awaitsAs a matter of interest for those on outdoor events. Check the certifier as well as the certificate and do not sign anything off unless you have the required expertise, knowledge or licence to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Jail awaits...and do not sign anything off unless you have the required expertise, knowledge or licence to do so.And haven't been served with a Prohibition Notice, nor ordered to stop by a Judge, nor breached bail conditions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The judge told him NOT to do any more inspections and he carried on. The strange thing is lots of the people he did work for are quite large concerns, who obviously don't read the local papers, oe even notice he kept changing his name! He was also 70odd so surely they should have carried out at least basic research before raising the work order? They selected a cowboy, and didn't check his work? Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilary Watts Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The strange thing is lots of the people he did work for are quite large concerns, who obviously don't read the local papers, or even notice he kept changing his name! He was also 70odd so surely they should have carried out at least basic research before raising the work order? They selected a cowboy, and didn't check his work? Wow! I don't really feel this is surprising. Unless he was obviously doddery or incompetent or the customer had received a tip-off then how can the customer assess his ability to do the job or the true worth of any certificates he issues? Unfortunately, in the nature of things, having got the necessary certificate or had the repair done the customer wants to get back to generating profit and won't generally stop to ask whether the 'expert' they have instructed is up to the job. In this case he apparently lived in Cheshire but carried out his inspections over a fairly wide area so that even if his activities were reported in the Cheshire paper it is unlikely that others further afield would know anything about them. If you are not competent to carry out the tests yourself then generally you have to rely on the expertise and integrity of the contractor you employ to do the job for you. 'Cowboy PAT testers' feature frequently on this forum and elsewhere you can read of 'rogue gas fitters'; this case is hardly any different. After all, if he was incompetent, or had been issued with a Prohibition notice, or been ordered to stop by a judge then he wouldn't still be signing certificates...would he? And surely it's far better to have an older person to do the job, with his years of experience, rather than some youngster who has been on a couple of training courses but has little practical know-how? We don't know all the facts of the individual inspections and repairs but I have some sympathy for the customers who were duped. Unfortunately most cowboys, in whatever trade, don't wear a 10 gallon hat to enable you to recognise them in advance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior8 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 The strange thing is lots of the people he did work for are quite large concerns, who obviously don't read the local papers, oe even notice he kept changing his name! He was also 70odd so surely they should have carried out at least basic research before raising the work order? They selected a cowboy, and didn't check his work? Wow! Well it's not just the customers who don't check it's the regulators too. In a similar field some years ago an inspector, Kerry will remember who it was, was jailed for two years for issuing tickets on dangerous equipment. I covered the story for the trade press and found that this one-man band was carrying out full tests on about a quarter of all this equipment traveling in this country 1450 items, a prodigious market share for one small firm when the rest was shared between about thirty. Being generous, and using the 14 month window, 1450 tests equaled 103 examinations a month, 5 every working day all year - no holidays. Yet no one filing the tickets away seemed to think that his work-rate was suspicious and there was no sampling of his work either, until disaster happened. For inflatables the approved scheme is run by PIPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.