Is it a crime for a plumber to lie on a gas safety check certificate?

anselld

GDB2222 said:

BadBehaviour said:

GDB2222 said:

AskAsk said:

BadBehaviour said:

I'm one of the tenants' close friend and there is no section 21 served and no one let the gas engineer in the property.
This is a matter the tenants want to use to do a counterclaim against the landlord for first, refusing to repair the boiler (issue has been present and known since August!) and also for this fraudulent certificate. 
Both tenants were present in the house. There is even CCTV everywhere in the block of flats and cameras that would have recorded the plumber having to buzz the intercom to gain access and having to knock on the door and be let in by the tenant to enter the flat itself. Just that would invalidate his statement on the certificate that no one was present.
I repeat, I know and tenants know no one needs to sign the certificate to make it valid. The lies highlighted are only to prove that he didn't do any checks. If he had, he would have filled the certificate when at the property and had the tenant sign it and gave a copy to her. That's what had always happened before in fact.
The only reason he lied about no one being present is that he knew he hadn't done the checks and my friend was there watching him the whole time so would have of course be perplexed if he had tried to make her sign checks she saw hadn't been done. 
If he had checked for the CO alarm he would have seen it and would have never stated no alarm is installed on the certificate, which he did instead. It's mandatory to have one installed so if he says it isn't present then why has the letting agency, who has a copy as well, not done anything about it? If we had to believe the gas engineer that is. 
This is the issue and it's fraud. A boiler with a fault that causes complete lock down was signed off as safe with no actual safety checks performed and the two plumbers who tried to figure out what fault it has couldn't say exactly what's causing the problem, so they really can't be sure this fault couldn't potentially have serious consequences over time, particularly since the repair is being refused. 
But the point I was making isn't how safe the boiler is. It's that fraud was committed and what steps legally can be taken to address this. 
Establishing the boiler's safety can be remedied with an actual check, but the fraud remains. 

I have now repeated this like 3 times and I still see replies where people just focus on "but there's no need for the tenant to be present". That's not what was being questioned. That's been mentioned to prove how this certificate, where there are at least 2 proven lies, was produced fraudulently. 
He can say he did the checks. His word against that of my friend but surely, if she shows you he lied at least twice on it, whose word would you realistically believe here? 
Also, have you realised that if he says no one was present then it means he trespassed as who would have let him in? Tenants have it in writing they wouldn't allow him to just come in with no one present. 
The matter was completely ignored when my friend tried to question this certificate. Agents just didn't reply. 

i don't understand.  one sentence you seem to say he never visited the property and just issued the gas safety certificate pretending that he did, and then in another sentence, you state that your friend was there and was watching him and did not see him do any checks and that was why he didn't ask her to sign the certificate.

which is it?  did he attend or did he not?

And as proof of this, there’s a mistake over the CO alarm, which apparently proves that no plumber visit took place. But, the op says  the plumber stood in front of the boiler and made two phone calls. 

This is all very confusing, and it will NOT play well in court.  Pointing out minor mistakes in the plumber's report will not undermine it. 

If the boiler has a fault, and the LL disputes that, the obvious course is for the tenants to get their own gas engineer to provide a report. It will cost around £100 probably, but litigation is an expensive process. That’s why people avoid it if they can. 

Just wanted to add that the tenants have it in writing this fault was reported back in August and also that the landlord won't repair the boiler. It's stated in emails in black and white. 
Landlord isn't disputing that an issue exists. The agency has acknowledged the issue and the 2 plumbers they sent to check this fault also acknowledged the fault and all that. One of the plumbers is of course the gas engineer we're discussing. Landlord just refuses to pay for repairs. 

I can't understand why it seems like no one gets that a fraud was carried out here and about something that is about safety really. 
I don't get why you all seem to overlook all this and to me it just seems like you are all mostly just trying to undermine anything I said. 
The landlord is breaching the tenancy agreement by refusing the repairs but no one person has even pointed this out. Is that OK? I think not. 

I still don’t understand what the fraud was? For example, there’s no requirement in England to have a CO monitor fitted. 

I also don’t see the fraud, and even if there is one it is committed by the engineer not the landlord.
However, it *is* a requirement in all rental properties to have a co monitor in any room with a fixed combustion appliance including gas boilers.

AskAsk

BadBehaviour said:

GDB2222 said:

AskAsk said:

BadBehaviour said:

I'm one of the tenants' close friend and there is no section 21 served and no one let the gas engineer in the property.
This is a matter the tenants want to use to do a counterclaim against the landlord for first, refusing to repair the boiler (issue has been present and known since August!) and also for this fraudulent certificate. 
Both tenants were present in the house. There is even CCTV everywhere in the block of flats and cameras that would have recorded the plumber having to buzz the intercom to gain access and having to knock on the door and be let in by the tenant to enter the flat itself. Just that would invalidate his statement on the certificate that no one was present.
I repeat, I know and tenants know no one needs to sign the certificate to make it valid. The lies highlighted are only to prove that he didn't do any checks. If he had, he would have filled the certificate when at the property and had the tenant sign it and gave a copy to her. That's what had always happened before in fact.
The only reason he lied about no one being present is that he knew he hadn't done the checks and my friend was there watching him the whole time so would have of course be perplexed if he had tried to make her sign checks she saw hadn't been done. 
If he had checked for the CO alarm he would have seen it and would have never stated no alarm is installed on the certificate, which he did instead. It's mandatory to have one installed so if he says it isn't present then why has the letting agency, who has a copy as well, not done anything about it? If we had to believe the gas engineer that is. 
This is the issue and it's fraud. A boiler with a fault that causes complete lock down was signed off as safe with no actual safety checks performed and the two plumbers who tried to figure out what fault it has couldn't say exactly what's causing the problem, so they really can't be sure this fault couldn't potentially have serious consequences over time, particularly since the repair is being refused. 
But the point I was making isn't how safe the boiler is. It's that fraud was committed and what steps legally can be taken to address this. 
Establishing the boiler's safety can be remedied with an actual check, but the fraud remains. 

I have now repeated this like 3 times and I still see replies where people just focus on "but there's no need for the tenant to be present". That's not what was being questioned. That's been mentioned to prove how this certificate, where there are at least 2 proven lies, was produced fraudulently. 
He can say he did the checks. His word against that of my friend but surely, if she shows you he lied at least twice on it, whose word would you realistically believe here? 
Also, have you realised that if he says no one was present then it means he trespassed as who would have let him in? Tenants have it in writing they wouldn't allow him to just come in with no one present. 
The matter was completely ignored when my friend tried to question this certificate. Agents just didn't reply. 

i don't understand.  one sentence you seem to say he never visited the property and just issued the gas safety certificate pretending that he did, and then in another sentence, you state that your friend was there and was watching him and did not see him do any checks and that was why he didn't ask her to sign the certificate.

which is it?  did he attend or did he not?

And as proof of this, there’s a mistake over the CO alarm, which apparently proves that no plumber visit took place. But, the op says  the plumber stood in front of the boiler and made two phone calls. 

This is all very confusing, and it will NOT play well in court.  Pointing out minor mistakes in the plumber's report will not undermine it. 

If the boiler has a fault, and the LL disputes that, the obvious course is for the tenants to get their own gas engineer to provide a report. It will cost around £100 probably, but litigation is an expensive process. That’s why people avoid it if they can. 

AskAsk said:

BadBehaviour said:

I'm one of the tenants' close friend and there is no section 21 served and no one let the gas engineer in the property.
This is a matter the tenants want to use to do a counterclaim against the landlord for first, refusing to repair the boiler (issue has been present and known since August!) and also for this fraudulent certificate. 
Both tenants were present in the house. There is even CCTV everywhere in the block of flats and cameras that would have recorded the plumber having to buzz the intercom to gain access and having to knock on the door and be let in by the tenant to enter the flat itself. Just that would invalidate his statement on the certificate that no one was present.
I repeat, I know and tenants know no one needs to sign the certificate to make it valid. The lies highlighted are only to prove that he didn't do any checks. If he had, he would have filled the certificate when at the property and had the tenant sign it and gave a copy to her. That's what had always happened before in fact.
The only reason he lied about no one being present is that he knew he hadn't done the checks and my friend was there watching him the whole time so would have of course be perplexed if he had tried to make her sign checks she saw hadn't been done. 
If he had checked for the CO alarm he would have seen it and would have never stated no alarm is installed on the certificate, which he did instead. It's mandatory to have one installed so if he says it isn't present then why has the letting agency, who has a copy as well, not done anything about it? If we had to believe the gas engineer that is. 
This is the issue and it's fraud. A boiler with a fault that causes complete lock down was signed off as safe with no actual safety checks performed and the two plumbers who tried to figure out what fault it has couldn't say exactly what's causing the problem, so they really can't be sure this fault couldn't potentially have serious consequences over time, particularly since the repair is being refused. 
But the point I was making isn't how safe the boiler is. It's that fraud was committed and what steps legally can be taken to address this. 
Establishing the boiler's safety can be remedied with an actual check, but the fraud remains. 

I have now repeated this like 3 times and I still see replies where people just focus on "but there's no need for the tenant to be present". That's not what was being questioned. That's been mentioned to prove how this certificate, where there are at least 2 proven lies, was produced fraudulently. 
He can say he did the checks. His word against that of my friend but surely, if she shows you he lied at least twice on it, whose word would you realistically believe here? 
Also, have you realised that if he says no one was present then it means he trespassed as who would have let him in? Tenants have it in writing they wouldn't allow him to just come in with no one present. 
The matter was completely ignored when my friend tried to question this certificate. Agents just didn't reply. 

i don't understand.  one sentence you seem to say he never visited the property and just issued the gas safety certificate pretending that he did, and then in another sentence, you state that your friend was there and was watching him and did not see him do any checks and that was why he didn't ask her to sign the certificate.

which is it?  did he attend or did he not?

I was as clear as possible when explaining everything.
The gas engineer did come into the property. He was watched by my friend.
On the certificate he stated no one was present at the property, meaning no one apart from him of course. I think this is where you 2 got confused. The presence of the gas engineer in the flat wasn't being questioned. It's lying on the certificate and stating that the tenant was not in the flat whilst the gas engineer was visiting that was the issue. 
Where did I say the gas engineer wasn't at the property? I understand it certainly can get confusing anyway.

I hope any confusion about that has been clarified.

They're not minor mistakes. They're lies and they were pointed out to prove the checks haven't been done because otherwise there would have been 0 reason to lie about those things. Also, stating no CO alarm is installed is not minor. For a start it is mandatory to have one fitted and working so if he says there isn't one then why hasn't the letting agent, who have a copy of this certificate, done anything about it? If we have to pretend this statement is correct. 

If he says its not present then he is also implicitly stating he checked its presence. The alarm is right there where the boiler is and cannot be missed if you look for it. 
We are questioning that he's checked this as there is no way he would put no alarm if he had actually checked. It's not a mistake and anyway, if that was a mistake, like you say, why hasn't the agency questioned it with the plumber? Tenants could argue the agency has not complied with the law and produce the certificate to back this up then. How can it be ok to make mistakes like that, as you say? He even wrote the property's address wrong, but that's an actual minor mistake! In fact, I didn't even bother mentioning it at all before. 
Stuff regarding the boiler's actual checks aren't minor things. 


Stating no one apart from him was present comes with the issue of how did he then gain entry? Trespass then? Because there's written proof tenants weren't OK with him entering the flat with his own keys or if no tenant was present as well. 
Trespass could be then claimed and backed up by his statement on the certificate. Minor mistakes? They were deliberate lies with the purpose of issuing the certificate even if there was no safety check performed. 

We even went to check the gas certificate of the previous year and it was the same gas engineer and guess what? He says the CO alarm was present, because that time he actually checked! The agency also has a pic to prove they did install it and it's all documented in writing. The alarm being present can be proven without a doubt. 

"I think this is where you 2 got confused." - everyone is confused in this thread and not just us two!

this is because you are very poor at explaining clearly what the issue is and you seem to contradict yourself in the same paragraph over and over again!  you don't seem to want to listen to the responses that what you believe to be a "criminal offence" because of some of the entries on the certificate are not accurate, and in fact they aren't even important in the context of the boiler being passed as safe.

if you want to dispute the certificate and believe that the engineer signed off the boiler as safe when it is not because he is a mate with the landlord or the landlord paid him to sign it off, then you can get an engineer round to do the gas safety test and see if that fails.  if it also passes then you have no claim, if it fails then you can dispute the other engineer making a false assessment.

however, as a gas safe engineer, their career is at stake.  they wouldn't sign off a dangerous boiler as the risk of something bad happens to the tenants and the gas engineer had given it flying colours when it was in fact dangerous, could mean he would end up losing his gas safe certificate and his career, if not being put in prison, so he wouldn't sign off a boiler as being safe if he knew it was dangerous.