DIY gas thread - I'm confused

[boolie]

Agree with that, must have competence but it then doesn't go on to stipulate how competence can be measured - why isn't Joe competent?

I think what @Madrab is saying is that the proof is in the pudding. It's a reactive test - if your installation is on point then your are competent

 

[denso13]

It's a reactive test - if your installation is on point then your are competent

If you don't blow your house up you're competent? Rubbish.

 

[boolie]

By the way what's regulation 3(1) - easy for you to find?

 

[denso13]

By the way what's regulation 3(1) - easy for your to find?

3(1) No person shall carry out any work in relation to a gas fitting or gas storage vessel unless he is competent to do so.

 

[boolie]

I don't think qualifications are the sole measure of competence based on what you posted. That's where they used the word should
Effectively, it says
must be competent
should have qualifications

I'm not so sure about Joe. Maybe he is competent.

 

[denso13]

should have qualifications

So no-one needs any qualifications?

 

[boolie]

So no-one needs any qualifications?

No in your quoted text, it goes on to say that if you make money out of it then you must be qualified

But that falls out of the remit of Joe the diyer

 

[denso13]

it goes on to say that if you make money out of it then you must be qualified

Which bit?

 

[boolie]

The rules for someone who makes money out of it falls under the professional remit... but lets not go off on that tangent just yet. Joe is definitely not a professional and definitely not making money from it - he is a DIY-er

So according to the law - is he competent? if not why not
Do you agree that you don't have to have qualifications to be considered competent? (this is where that word should makes all the difference)

btw, in your quote if it said must have qualifications instead of should have qualifications then I would 100% agree with you - but it doesn't. Believe you me, they think very long and hard about these laws - should was put there with good reason, it's not an oversight

 

[denso13]

ACOP's are guidance, not the law.

"This Code has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive, with the consent of the Secretary of State. It gives practical advice on how to comply with the law. If you follow the advice you will be doing enough to comply with the law in respect of those specific matters on which the Code gives advice. You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law."

If you ignore the training requirements because it says "should", how else will you demonstrate the required knowledge and competence? I don't think, "well I didn't blow the house up m'lud so I must be competent" would be enough.

 

[denso13]

Believe you me, they think very long and hard about these laws - should was put there with good reason, it's not an oversight

It isn't the law. See above.

 

[boolie]

ACOP's are guidance, not the law.

"This Code has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive, with the consent of the Secretary of State. It gives practical advice on how to comply with the law. If you follow the advice you will be doing enough to comply with the law in respect of those specific matters on which the Code gives advice. You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law."

If you ignore the training requirements because it says "should", how else will you demonstrate the required knowledge and competence? I don't think, "well I didn't blow the house up m'lud so I must be competent" would be enough.

I don't want to get into personal opinion, what I think is really irrelevant when it comes to what's legal. If what you're quoting isn't the law then does that mean Joe is legal? if not, then what law is he breaking?

 

[denso13]

I don't want to get into personal opinion, what I think is really irrelevant when it comes to what's legal.

Did you read my quote in your post? How will Joe demonstrate competence if he ignores the training requirements in the ACOP because it says "should"? The law requires you can work on gas appliances only if you are competent.

The ACOP says "You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law". What alternative methods could he use?

 

[boolie]

Did you read my quote in your post? How will Joe demonstrate competence if he ignores the training requirements in the ACOP because it says "should"? The law requires you can work on gas appliances only if you are competent.

The ACOP says "You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law". What alternative methods could he use?

well let me ask you your own question. why do you think they have said should have qualifications instead of must have qualifications?

 

[denso13]

why do you think they have said should have qualifications

Because it is advice on how to comply with the law, I've said this a few times now.

If you do this then you have demonstrated compliance with the law......

Gas work should only be undertaken: (a) by a person who has successfully completed an industry recognised training course followed by assessment of competence. Training that leads to assessment of competence in safe gas work should be recognised by the industry’s standards setting body

But the ACOP says, "You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law".

So what alternative method will Joe use to comply with the need for competence?