Before anyone gets too carried away or disheartened by the recent failure of the APHC to overturn GWN, look closely at available facts; This is APHC anti-GWN (in its present form), not APHC anti-CORGI.

Having spent the best part of this year studying [media] law, amongst other things, I can say with certainty that nothing is certain. Case law cited during the year has delivered seemingly unerring judgements. Then before too long judgements are turned on their head by further unerring judgements from a higher court. And so on.

One such case is the now boring Douglas v Hello [Magazine] which is back in the legal arena following what was described as “a thorough and clear judgment handed down”. That was not the first.

Judges pride themselves on looking only at the facts before them, which was all they could do in APHC [Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors] v GWN [Gas Work Notification]. As I have said here previously, I have no knowledge of the facts relied on by the APHC but I have always feared everyone is banging the wrong drum.

GWN is entirely a Corgi thing. It was not endorsed by the HSE who are Corgi’s master. Corgi is a private company with a mandate from the HSE and is the currently approved body. Allegedly the Gas Safety Watchdog.

It seems to me that judgement hinged on whether or not GWN was lawful. Clearly it is lawful. To be more precise [and more important], it is not unlawful and that is what the judgement will have considered.

The judgement also considered the issue of GWN placing Registered Gas Installers [RGI] at a trading disadvantage. That was not agreed either. Theoretically you can only undertake gas work if you are registered and all RGI are bound by the same rules, therefore no disadvantage.

Yes we know there are hordes of people moonlighting but the courts are not concerned with that, in this particular case, and were not asked to be. They know well that is a matter for the system however incompetent that system may be. To be fair, that is not Corgi’s fault.

Interestingly Corgi were not awarded costs and yet they won the case. PHAM News cited the costs of each at around £60 000 or slightly more than £40 for each APHC member.

We can only guess but the court may have wondered why a highly respected APHC and CEO were so driven to take action. No smoke without fire ? It could not have been an easy decision and Gas-News still supports the intrepid APHC in their quest for justice.

Please note the £60 000 price tag which in legal terms is pennies. Consider also the high-octane counsel retained by the APHC. The APHC perhaps could not afford what was really needed but they still felt compelled to try, knowing that GWN was and still is thoroughly unjust.

Corgi introduced GWN on the back of a patent lie. A bold, sweeping and outrageous porkie that went unchallenged because there is no one to challenge. Actually there is but no one did what was needed when it was needed.

The judgement did not accept that there had been no consultation. All trade and professional associations were curiously and vociferously unanimous on that point however. No doubt it was felt that if there was no consultation then the various bodies could and should have acted more firmly at that time, to force consultation. I have to agree.

The trade and professional associations have been too busy observing niceties when dealing with people who are in my view ruthlessly exploiting their position. The time for niceties has long since gone.

GWN is not an annual one-off imposition. It demands some of our time and money whenever any gas appliance is installed. It also demands caution. Disclosing customer information to Corgi without prior consent could lead to a Breach-of-Confidence claim as in Douglas v Hello. People have a prima-facie right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

There is not a judge in our green and pleasant land who would deny the right to charge for our time in support of GWN. Corgi charge for their time and so must we. That is our prima-facie right which no one can deny. Bear in mind any time spent for most independents will eat into unsocial hours, we must all charge accordingly.

The simply answer to address all these issues is to hand the customer a letter when work is completed and paid for:

Dear Customer

Registered Gas Installers are required under CORGI rules to notify CORGI of all gas appliance installations. However, for legal reasons we cannot disclose your details to CORGI without prior consent.

The process is called Gas Work Notification [GWN]. CORGI is a private company with a mandate from the Health and Safety Executive [HSE] as their currently approved body. CORGI do not receive any money from the HSE and charge for Gas Work Notification. We must also charge for our time in the process.

If you are willing to disclose your details to CORGI you should contact them on their dedicated line XXXX XXX XXXX and complete the notification process yourself, paying their fee. You will need our registration details to hand and have those already. You will also need details of the appliance installed.

Alternatively we will complete the process for you at a cost of £ XX.00p. On receipt of payment, GWN will be carried out for you. CORGI will then confirm our notification with a letter to you.

Yours faithfully

The letter supports GWN. It also supports our right to charge for time and money spent in favour of a customer. It affords privacy protection where preferred. The customer knows it is not our charge or our doing. Meanwhile the APHC can try to negotiate a more equitable regime.