PART TWO
Before we drive a bus through the flip side of that ‘Topsy and Tim go Plumbing’ document, let us deal with the sexist aspects of such material. There are now female installers, so why not refer also to cowgirls as well as cowboys. Perhaps cowpersons might be more appropriate. I admit I do not know any cowgirl gas installers but I do know of two cowgirl decorators, currently plying their trade and wreaking havoc in Manchester post code areas.
The said document helpfully gives clues to what Gas-News has said before about the deliberately obscured truth in all this.
Before we proceed let us consider the Building Regulations (changes) motif. That is of crucial significance. The changes are NOT in any way to impose control over registered gas installers, rather the unregistered gas installers, including DIY. That is the naive theory anyway.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister make it abundantly clear that registered gas installers are considered to present less of a risk to the general population. That is what is written for all to read. Registered Gas Installers can currently self-certify using Benchmark log-books. Short lived that idea was.
To quote from the said CORGI document under the heading ‘Self-Certification Scheme’, it is written “From April 2005, it will be a legal requirement for installers that are not members of a Building Regulation Scheme to notify the Local Building Control of any relevant gas work. This means more hassle for you. Bad news”.
But will it be hassle and bad news or is that just another CORGI exaggeration ? I would suggest it is and perhaps worthy of another complaint to the ASA.
The said document goes on to say “Good News. CORGI has set up a self-certification scheme. This scheme allows you to self-certify your own work, eliminating the need for the customer to get a costly and time-consuming Building Control call-out. We’ll contact Building Control, and your customer on your behalf to make life easier all round”.
Please note relevant gas work does not mean all gas work. What they mean by costly and time-consuming I do not know. If as I suspect Building Control adopt the ‘Building Notice’ system then there will not be any cost and it will certainly not be time-consuming by any stretch of the imagination.
Building Control will not have the resources to become involved in more than a few cases. Indeed that is why they want self-certification and they have said so, in writing. Therefore I expect a single sheet ‘Building Notice’, seven days prior to commencement and probably nil cost. Any registered gas installer could therefore adopt such a route and have nothing to fear. We will in due course publish the whole truth.
Under the Building Regulations changes there will be no need whatsoever for CORGI to contact Building Control. That is the whole point of self-certification. No need either for them to contact your customer as implied. We do not want CORGI lobbying our customers with self-aggrandising propaganda and ultimately pointing to their other business activities. We are determined to stamp on that dangerous precedent by any and all means.
As we all know, unregistered gas installers and DIY will simply circumvent the system, therefore in practice little will change except the bureaucracy affecting you and your customers.
CORGI are also pleased to announce that “This scheme is FREE to registered installers or installers joining CORGI on or before April 2005”. This presumably hints that those who follow may have to pay CORGI. Such people will probably find there are more satisfactory alternatives but we’ll monitor that and report accordingly.
The CORGI CEO (Mike Thompson) has said in h&v news (October 2004) that the annual CORGI fee should disappear when Gas Work Notification charges are introduced. We (Installers) should have been told more about that earlier, before it hit the media. Again Installers are being side-stepped and ignored.
PART THREE
Under the banner “In the long term:” CORGI have listed several ambitions which appear to suggest all gas appliance sales, including customer details, will be logged by CORGI and followed up if a related installation certificate does not appear also in their system. I assume this includes (gas) white goods as well.
I’ll believe that when I see it but do not commit yourself to anything which relies on this happening. The way CORGI have written it implies we can expect that to happen soon. It is presented as an imminent truth when it is no such thing. Peter Thorn, Chairman of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes Heating Strategy Group, paints a much more honest and accurate picture in h&v news October 2004. Read that instead.
In short the idea is being mooted but hurdles involved will be enormous, not least the powerful DIY sheds lobby group that will no doubt emerge, together with their hugely successful suppliers such as Ravenheat, Biasi and Halstead etc.
Anyone who has read trade media in recent times will know there is what could be described as a loose cartel of big players waiting to stifle the cheap and cheerful heat-producing-appliance market, which operates out of the DIY sheds and independent merchants. The DTI and/or OFT may wish to examine that ?
If this is imminent then why bother amending the Building Regulations in 2005 ? Seems weird that. Theoretically there would be no need to. Except perhaps for second hand appliances which have not yet been mentioned in all this.
PART FOUR
The CORGI document also refers to the Government’s Home Information Pack Scheme to be introduced in 2006.
The notion is a stand-alone scheme and will not be influenced by any of the above matters directly. Therefore keep your eye firmly on the ball people. Do not be distracted from the real dangers that lurk.
I could only afford a short time at PHEX this year. When I approached CORGI, it was for the purpose of discussing some outdated CORGI literature found at a University advice centre.
Aside from an affable mate, one of my former CORGI Inspectors, I discovered an assembled team of trouble-shooters from Basingstoke, including TGI Deputy, their new Press Officer and the CSI team Communications Officer.
I should point out that the Press Officer is new to CORGI and the CSI Communications Officer new to that difficult and challenging role.
An unexpected and lengthy meeting ensued with the CSI Communications Officer in the relative calm of the lounge. It would be churlish of me to suggest the meeting was anything less than positive.
However, CORGI are clearly suffering for their own communication sins. That much is clear. I was told that the whole CS initiative was primarily driven by the proposed Building Regulation changes. There are two distinct aspects to all this and that is shortly to be clarified in TGI, with a lengthy article on the subject.
I suspect the Building Regulation changes generated ambitions which were too hurriedly transformed into cash-cow opportunities, thus we have the current awful mess.
An invitation was extended to Gas-News readers “as many people as possible” to contact CORGI on the CSI debate using the following email address: notification@corgi-group.com. That mailing address will reach the CSI Communications Officer (CO). Given our respect for individual privacy we do not name employees without expressed consent.
What do I mean by cash-cow opportunities and is that fair ?
CORGI that we know and love is a private company but a not-for-profit company. However, other CORGI businesses are set apart from that. It was suggested to me (not by the CO) that CORGI profit is ploughed back into CORGI but is that true as presented.
I recall from the past, CORGI stating some cash is injected into the installer network scheme from their extra-curricular activities. Some note. Is that a sprat to catch a mackerel ? CORGI extra-curricular activities have also funded other projects if I’m being honest. That said, CORGI extra-curricular activities should be kept entirely separate and be seen to be entirely separate.
At the current time CORGI advertise extra-curricular activities on the main CORGI public face and that is unsafe in my view. It is something I will be addressing with the DTI in due course. I will be asking for an investigation to see if CORGI is ‘using’ their privileged Gas-Safety-Watchdog role to gain an unfair advantage in the market place. I believe they are.
PART FIVE
A final word of advice for some CORGI employees. Obtain several years of TGI issues and read them before commenting further.
I heard one telling an Installer that the HSE “prosecute wherever possible”. Not true. I have letters from the HSE and CORGI confirming they adopt a “carrot rather than stick approach to unregistered installers, when they are discovered”. I will not discuss that issue here but such disinformation is not conducive to mutual trust.
Everyone needs to learn the history of CORGI communication. I still recall well hearing comments like “we’re not here to answer your questions” and stuff like that. Questions not answered or an answer given to a question that was not asked, simply because the question asked is a difficult one to answer (hence the reason for the question).
CORGI have knowingly allowed us to be seriously misled on the Flue Gas Analysis debate for years now, when they should have objectively presented the truth. How can we trust people who do things like that.
CORGI have a lot to learn and I am not convinced they ever will on current evidence. I repeat, time for a change ?
|
