Background

It has been suggested the information stolen from Registered Gas Installers (RGI) by CORGI, is technically in the public domain, and the Information Commissioner's decision will hinge on that. We can tell you now that is not the case. We know it may be one day in the future, but it manifestly is not the case now.

In August 2004 CORGI wrote to RGI announcing the introduction of (GWN) Gas Work Notification (April 2005). It was wrapped up in fancy packaging called CSI or the Complete Safety Initiative. It was not complete by any stretch of the imagination, clearly had little if anything to do with safety and was certainly not an initiative, as both claims (plus others) were simply not true.

The letter said RGI would have to notify CORGI of all boiler installations, as history showed they were the highest risk area amongst gas appliances. That principal claim was in fact wholly fallacious, as is well known to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of gas safety.

It was fortunately confirmed empirically recently by an academic, officially sponsored to undertake research on related issues. Open flue gas fires are potentially the most dangerous by a wide margin. CORGI must have known that or ought to have known that, so why did they lie; The pursuit of self-interest.

CORGI, a private company, undertakes some administrative functions on behalf of the HSE. Essentially they maintain a register of competent businesses. CORGI introduced GWN with a view to undertaking random checks on work carried out by RGI. An entirely laudable concept in principle.

As widely publicised at the time, the trade and professional associations were not consulted. Indeed theoretically CORGI could insist all RGI make a pilgrimage to Basingstoke at least once every five years. There is no process whatsoever for democracy. That will have to change or there will be another winter of discontent.

At about the same time the Government decided to introduce self-certification schemes, which would require all sorts of work to be notified to Building Control. Self-certification itself was not new, but related notification was. That by the way is mandatory and was always intended to provide the foundation for Home Condition Reports, as part of Home Information Packs, being introduced in June 2007.

Inevitably (and appropriately) CORGI were sourced as the gas self-certification body. CORGI then saw an opportunity to expand GWN unchallenged, to include all appliances subject to self-certification notification. In the space of weeks they jumped from boilers to everything. Given the complete absence of democracy, there was nothing to stop them and the public are paying a real cost for that lack of democracy.

Confusion

Many RGI still seem unable to separate GWN from Building Regulations self-certification notification. That has worked to CORGI's advantage.

RGI notifying CORGI of gas appliance installations under GWN, are asked whether or not they agree to CORGI notifying Building Control on their behalf. There must be a good reason as CORGI are not wont to ask permission for anything, as history shows.

We were led to believe by a senior boffin at what was then the ODPM (now Communities) that CORGI has specialist software for notifying local authorities. Indeed they do but that is not to say the data received by local authorities exists in a useful and accessible format.

We now know it is not and that was confirmed to Gas-News this week. Few local authorities, if any, have compatible systems.  The long term aim is for all local authorities to be equipped to make the data available usefully. What that means we'll explore again.

Those RGI who do not agree to allow CORGI to notify local authority Building Control (LABC), are still required to GWN. And here lies an important point. GWN information not transmitted to LABC cannot possibly be held to be in the public domain. There can be no further discussion  on that. Exploiting that information held on customers must therefore be theft in our view.

Suspicions

We were notified recently of a letter written to PHAM News in January where a RGI who fitted a boiler for a customer alleges the customer received a mail-shot from British Gas. BG allegedly said they were aware of the new boiler installation and were offering their maintenance services.

That is a serious allegation indeed (and it is surprising the letter was published), so we wrote to the Editor asking him to pass on our interest to the correspondent.  We had to try of course so we can say we have tried. If you know that RGI or hear of another allegation, please let us know and we will follow it up.

At this point in time it remains simply an allegation. We need facts.

Building Control

Most people seem to be aware that planning information is wholly in the public domain and always has been. It has to be for consultation purposes. Building Control is a different matter. Some extensions for example may be built under what is known as permitted-development. No planning required (always check first).

Many years ago the notion of Approved Inspectors was introduced. Essentially privatised Building Control, under strict controls. Hence the reason VAT is charged on Building Control. That said, there is an obvious need for LABC to be aware of work carried out by Approved Inspectors, not least so LABC can check consents have been obtained. Ultimately the information is required for HIP.

Limited information under that heading may technically appear in the public domain. That is revealed in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill (see opposite under SandSBB). But that only applies to limited works. It seems unlikely that work which can be self-certified, would be routinely managed by Approved Inspectors, if at all.

Consultation

Also of particular interest is a current consultation document published by the Department for Communities on Building Control (Proposal to require Local Authorities to keep Registers of Building Control Information). Note well the word proposal.

That document is accompanied by a letter and both are available here under the labels Consultation and Consult letter, opposite.

All three documents referred to are bundled together with the Housing Act 2004 which contains Home Information Pack information, and is a zipped file of 1.5MB under the label Set of Four.

The consultation process is still active at the time of writing, if your trade or professional association want to contribute. The letter includes the words  'the level of information which can be disclosed' as a discussion point. Note discussion, it is not yet law in any way; The letter must be read as that succinctly buttons everything up.

I therefore conclude that work notified to Building Control is not in any way in the public domain, at the present time. The whole matter is clearly still being considered.

Future

If it ever is held that work referred to LABC (not GWN) is in the public domain, then it necessarily follows that the information should be made available equally to all commercial sources.

It should also provide a clear opt-out opportunity for both RGI and their customers, so commercial parasites like CORGI cannot exploit their unique role on behalf of the HSE, as they are currently doing, in such an extraordinarily blatant manner.

They have to be stopped and one certain way to stop CORGI sending details of your competitors, their cronies, to your customers, is to suspend GWN. We believe you have a right to do so until the database is removed from CORGI, to an independent and ethical third party.

Advertisers

We recommend you check all claims made by CORGI when promoting their advertising.