IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: "Electrician" falsely claims to belong to a trade association
Topic Summary: Trading Standards, NAPIT and Trust Mark
Created On: 12 July 2010 06:50 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 12 July 2010 06:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4625
Joined: 07 April 2004

Do you know this man? Yet another rascal, the term electrician is obviously not applicable. It's trading standards who took up the cudgel, perhaps the trade association should have also prosecuted.
"His business was no longer operating as he was in full-time employment working on his employers' site" - Let's hope it's making the tea!

ELECTRICIAN DAVID PEARCE FINED AFTER AFTER FALSELY CLAIMING TO BELONG TO TRADE ASSOCIATION

An electrician faces a court bill of nearly £2,000 after he falsely claimed to belong to a trade association that protects consumers from rogue tradesmen.

In one York house that David Pearce rewired, other workmen claimed they received an electric shock from the walls.

The owner had been so dissatisfied with the standard of his work she had not paid him all the agreed fee, Matt Boxall of York trading standards, told the city's magistrates.

In a second York house, months after Pearce finished working there, the owner discovered he had not installed the right fusebox.

Julian Tanikal, for Pearce, denied that his work was inadequate. He said the electrician was fully qualified to be a member of the trade association. There was no risk to anyone in the first house from Pearce's work and he was not the only tradesman working in it.

Pearce had wanted to deal with the householder's complaints but had been refused entry into the property.

In the second house, Pearce had been commissioned to install lighting in the bathroom and bedrooms with some power sockets, and had told the owner the electrics were so old the entire house needed rewiring. In particular, the existing electrical installations meant he could not install the correct fusebox.

When she said she could not afford the rewiring work, he had installed an older form of fusebox that could be fitted with the existing wiring.

Pearce, 45, of Keble Drive, Bishopthorpe, pleaded guilty to four charges of displaying a trade association logo he was not entitled to and one of displaying a "trust mark" he was not entitled to, and was fined £1,000 with £250 compensation to the second owner, £670 prosecution costs and a standard £15 victim surcharge.

Mr Boxall said Pearce's firm used quotation forms bearing the logo of the National Association Of Professional Inspectors And Testers and used a trust mark linked to the same organisation.

He also displayed the logo on his firm's website. But he was not, and never had been, a member.

Both householders employed him because of his alleged membership.

Mr Tanikal said Pearce had never set up a business before and sought help.

Another person in the same occupation had given him quotation and invoice forms he had copied. He had not realised that the website could be accessed by the public. His business was no longer operating as he was in full-time employment working on his employers' site.


Regards

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/new..._to_trade_association/
 12 July 2010 09:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5933
Joined: 18 January 2003

If you wrote out a test certificate of a Ethos branded pad, but then put a sticker about Periodic Testing on it with the NICEIC logo on it when you are not a member, would that be an offence?

The certificate is worthless anyway as the boxes are ticked for RCD's, in fact none are fitted despite being an new installation with a TT supply, a second hand ELCB has been re-installed which does not work anyway.

However Building Control have accepted the certificates and signed it off, so softly, softly.

Andy
 12 July 2010 09:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5933
Joined: 18 January 2003

Can you explain you, Jaymack, explain why you think NAPIT and/or Trustmark should be prosecuted, I find this a strange idea.

Andy
 12 July 2010 10:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4625
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: sparkingchip

Can you explain you, Jaymack, explain why you think NAPIT and/or Trustmark should be prosecuted, I find this a strange idea.

"perhaps the trade association should have also prosecuted"

Strange? How do you interpret this?

Regards
 12 July 2010 10:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5933
Joined: 18 January 2003

"Another person in the same occupation had given him quotation and invoice forms he had copied. "

So?

Andy
 12 July 2010 10:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4625
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: sparkingchip
If you wrote out a test certificate of a Ethos branded pad, but then put a sticker about Periodic Testing on it with the NICEIC logo on it when you are not a member, would that be an offence?

Of course it would, it's an attempt to defraud. (Something is not right in the state of Denmark).

The certificate is worthless anyway as the boxes are ticked for RCD's, in fact none are fitted despite being an new installation with a TT supply, a second hand ELCB has been re-installed which does not work anyway.

You seem to have more knowledge on this, can you divulge?

However Building Control have accepted the certificates and signed it off, so softly, softly.


Why?

Regards
 12 July 2010 10:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4625
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: sparkingchip
"Another person in the same occupation had given him quotation and invoice forms he had copied. "

So?

He has fraudulently used the documentation of an organisation, whether or not he copied these without the knowledge of the "other person" is irrelevant.

Regards
 12 July 2010 10:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5933
Joined: 18 January 2003

I was asked to quote the job, at the time I was too busy so they employed someone else, now I have been asked to go back and have a look at the finished job as they suspect things are not right.

They are not my problems, so I just offered some advice, if things get stirred up the customer could just end up with a Building Control Enforcement Notice which would make the situation they are in no better than it is now.

Andy
 12 July 2010 10:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5933
Joined: 18 January 2003

"He has fraudulently used the documentation of an organisation, whether or not he copied these without the knowledge of the "other person" is irrelevant. "

Not NAPIT or Trustmarks fault though is it?

Andy
 12 July 2010 11:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4625
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: sparkingchip
"He has fraudulently used the documentation of an organisation, whether or not he copied these without the knowledge of the "other person" is irrelevant. "
Not NAPIT or Trustmarks fault though is it?

Is it a Monday morning thing? You have misinterpreted my statement, of course it's not their fault! They should have considered legal action, in addition to trading standards!

Regards
 12 July 2010 11:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkingchip.
sparkingchip

Posts: 5933
Joined: 18 January 2003

Oh,yes! Silly boy that I am!


Andy
 12 July 2010 07:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



nickgood

Posts: 37
Joined: 09 March 2006

At least they prosecuted him !
The rogue trader down our way who had fraudulently claimed NICEIC membership for over three years and had never notified any part P projects was let off as long as he removed the logo`s. The NICEIC and NAPIT wanted nothing to do with the rogue after he was caught but ELECSA very keen and quick to sign him up. This is despite the fact that they were pre warned ....
The thread containing all of the info on our case was withdrawn by the moderators probably to save ELECSA further embarrassment !
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.