Jump to content

Gas fix


MrBoater2021

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Thanks for that.   In the 1980's,when I was working in Central London and had access to a local library's law books and collection of Statutes, I did notice the reference to "competent", but could find no definition in the Act or Rules that defined what it meant. 

 

There is nothing, it is for the court to decide if you were competent if hauled before it. 

 

Point is, if you are competent, there will be no reason for you to appear before the court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

There is nothing, it is for the court to decide if you were competent if hauled before it. 

 

Point is, if you are competent, there will be no reason for you to appear before the court. 

 

This of course is an over simplification of the actuality .

 

Even competent people can make a genuine mistake. Of course that one mistake could result in one being hauled before a court, but a genuine mistake not bourne out of ignorance is different from plain and simple incompetence.

 

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

 In the 1980's, when I was working in Central London and had access to a local library's law books and collection of Statutes, I did notice the reference to "competent", but could find nothing in the Act or Rules that defined what it meant. Nor did I find anything in case law.

I suspect competence is a useful concept that can be varied according to need. At one time I was competent to perform electrical installation work. My qualifications are now 20 years out of date and I would likely be liable to prosecution if I did more than minor works to an existing installation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

There is nothing, it is for the court to decide if you were competent if hauled before it. 

 

Point is, if you are competent, there will be no reason for you to appear before the court. 

 

8 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

This of course is an over simplification of the actuality .

 

Even competent people can make a genuine mistake. Of course that one mistake could result in one being hauled before a court, but a genuine mistake not bourne out of ignorance is different from plain and simple incompetence.

 

 

If hauled before it due to an incident, the Court would have to decide whether you were incompetent or negligent.  Should you get it badly wrong, there will be few places to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

I suspect competence is a useful concept that can be varied according to need. At one time I was competent to perform electrical installation work. My qualifications are now 20 years out of date and I would likely be liable to prosecution if I did more than minor works to an existing installation.

 

Under what law?

 

I'm more inclined to suggest your work would simply need to be inspected and signed off by a currently qualified electrician, as you are unqualified to self-certify your work. Self certification is available to qualified people to certify their work complies with the various installation regs, and in particular the Building Regulations. Broadly speaking. 

Edited by MtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtually every bloke who has done engineering work on my boat, from gas fitting to mucking about with the gearbox, however competent and experienced they may have been, have left me something to either tighten, replace or redo after they've gone.   One occasion nearly sank the boat, another could have wrecked the engine. One didn't bother to replace half the nuts on the coupling after replacing the gearbox, and forgot to tighten the rest so they fell off the moment I started the engine.  That one ultimately cost me an extra grand to put right, another was impossible to correct.  I've given up expecting competence and now assume that every job I get done will take two different engineers, and the result will at least work for a time before I have to get another one in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Virtually every bloke who has done engineering work on my boat, from gas fitting to mucking about with the gearbox, however competent and experienced they may have been, have left me something to either tighten, replace or redo after they've gone.   One occasion nearly sank the boat, another could have wrecked the engine. One didn't bother to replace half the nuts on the coupling after replacing the gearbox, and forgot to tighten the rest so they fell off the moment I started the engine.  That one ultimately cost me an extra grand to put right, another was impossible to correct.  I've given up expecting competence and now assume that every job I get done will take two different engineers, and the result will at least work for a time before I have to get another one in.

 

 

There ARE competent engineers out there, but they are few and far between IME. 

 

There are no controls on who can present themselves as 'marine engineers' so lot more time spent researching in advance who you let loose on your boat might fix this problem you describe. Quite often though, there is no-one really good so you have to employ a muppet, or DIY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Define 'competent'.

 

I would wager a court would tend to err on the side of somebody properly trained and registered.

 

As long as somebody understands if they DIY it they may have to work harder to prove their competence in a court when something does go wrong that stance is fine.

 

 

If its all OK the person that did it was competent, if it goes tits up they weren't regardless of who they were registered with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

If its all OK the person that did it was competent, if it goes tits up they weren't regardless of who they were registered with.

 

It would depend on the exact set of circumstances and exactly what went wrong I would suggest.

 

I contend you would have a better chance of defence if trained and registered than if you were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

It would depend on the exact set of circumstances and exactly what went wrong I would suggest.

 

I contend you would have a better chance of defence if trained and registered than if you were not.

 

I recall a couple of cases recently where the judge took the opposite view.  If you've been trained how to do it correctly you have no excuse for bodged work and the comments were reflected in sentencing ...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

 

I recall a couple of cases recently where the judge took the opposite view.  If you've been trained how to do it correctly you have no excuse for bodged work and the comments were reflected in sentencing ...

 

I can understand that, yes if something has actually been 'bodged'. As I indicated it would depend on the exact nature of what has gone wrong and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.