A cautionary tale

lemontart

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2012/rnn-sco-00612.htm

Please do not cut corners, be safe use properly qualified engineers - after all what price your life and health.

Terrylw1

I notice that the court heard that the homeowner authorised the job on the cheap after he knew he was not registered.

So, unless the homeowner disputes that point, why are they not being charged with something? They are both at fault.

lemontart

Do not know what the situation is re the home owners in this case but given they were injured as well as damage to property I do not think they will take that risk again - also if they did know not registered and let him carry on regardless any house insurance would be invalidated and not pay out either so hit again so to say.

Pincher

lemontart wrote: »

but given they were injured as well as damage to property I do not think they will take that risk again - also if they did know not registered and let him carry on regardless any house insurance would be invalidated and not pay out either so hit again so to say.

Have you got any work done recently?

They don't even speak English now.

I had some subsidence work done three years ago.

Aviva appointed the loss adjuster.
Loss adjuster apointed Goodyer the builders.
Goodyer took the money and subcontracted a Romanian gang master for peanuts. The gang master left three workers who didn't speak English, so I had to arrange everything. Toilet, where to get take out food. We don't do this, no one told us to do that. Ended up with lumps on the wall, because they just want to filler and not do a proper job. For the money the Romanians were getting, replastering would indeed be a big ask, but that's only because Goodyer pocketed the real budget.

Slum landlords like to dig down to create living space.
I won't be surprised if buildings start collapsing and burying pefectly good tenants.

jalexa

"...after removing the kitchen unit and worktop, Mr Irvine cut a copper pipe to remove an old gas hob, cleaned the end of the cut piece and attached a flexible, rubber hose..."

I'm confused, partly at whether or not the HSE author is that competent (or has that function been off-shored and lost in translation).

Is the author saying a rubber hose was attached or that a bayonet attachment was attached? There does not seem to be be any claim that the craft skill in the attachment was at fault, only the positioning relative to the cooker.

jalexa

lemontart wrote: »

- also if they did know not registered and let him carry on regardless any house insurance would be invalidated and not pay out

Can you quote typical policy wording which has that effect. I searched my policy wording and failed to find "diy" or "d-i-y". If the exclusion is "competence" based are you asserting that "incompetent" work by an approved tradesman is OK?

lemontart

Pincher wrote: »

Have you got any work done recently?

They don't even speak English now.

I had some subsidence work done three years ago.

Aviva appointed the loss adjuster.
Loss adjuster apointed Goodyer the builders.
Goodyer took the money and subcontracted a Romanian gang master for peanuts. The gang master left three workers who didn't speak English, so I had to arrange everything. Toilet, where to get take out food. We don't do this, no one told us to do that. Ended up with lumps on the wall, because they just want to filler and not do a proper job. For the money the Romanians were getting, replastering would indeed be a big ask, but that's only because Goodyer pocketed the real budget.

Slum landlords like to dig down to create living space.
I won't be surprised if buildings start collapsing and burying pefectly good tenants.

Yes I have had work done and have used properly registered and qualified engineers. Thank you for asking.

I cannot possibly comment about your plastering etc - I work for the gas emergency service and hear all too often of cases where in an effort to save money or other reasons there have been problems to the point of fatalities - even before I did I ensured I used qualified engineers having had a gas cooker with flames coming out around the controls and burning my face when I was 18 living in a rented flat - long before gas safety certificates - and way back then the h&s people condemned it - the landlord had apparently picked it up from a scrap yard and installed it himself, - when I moved to the town I am in now years ago the previous owner just cut through the gas inlet to the cooker rather than get an engineer out to disconnect (did not have a bayonet fitting) - so I am intimately aware of the risks.

lemontart

jalexa wrote: »

Can you quote typical policy wording which has that effect. I searched my policy wording and failed to find "diy" or "d-i-y". If the exclusion is "competence" based are you asserting that "incompetent" work by an approved tradesman is OK?

The onus is on the policy holder to ensure such if they do not then the insurance will argue the case and decline payment - check this with your own insurers - all insurance companies do their best not to pay out and this is a pretty good reason

jalexa

lemontart wrote: »

The onus is on the policy holder

that you backpedaling from your earlier "would be invalidated"? Whatever the insurer would need to cite a relevant clause.

lemontart

jalexa wrote: »

that you backpedaling from your earlier "would be invalidated"? Whatever the insurer would need to cite a relevant clause.

How is it back pedaling - they would use such as a get out - I am sure there will be legal talk in your insurance documents that state if you do not take appropriate precautions the fault lays with you and they will there fore not pay out. I am not familiar with the exact wording in all insurance documents.

Terrylw1

lemontart wrote: »

Do not know what the situation is re the home owners in this case but given they were injured as well as damage to property I do not think they will take that risk again - also if they did know not registered and let him carry on regardless any house insurance would be invalidated and not pay out either so hit again so to say.

It does state that the court heard that the homeowner agreed the work after being informed the guy wasn't registered. So, perhaps it hasn't been considered because the case is only against the tradesman?

Regardless of their injuries and insurance issues, I wouldn't care since they caused damage to neighbours properties that had to be demolished. I would expect to see the homeowners in court for that!

I'm guessing its because the HSE have taken it to court so the homeowner is "not in our remit".