Tony S: Reads to me as if using the NICEIC logo was the main issue. Shoddy and dangerous workmanship, what’s that got to do with the case?
Would the case have even got to court if the evidence had relied solely on the poor workmanship? I very much doubt it.
Who knows - that would have been up to the enforcement agency.
One issue was the false claim to be NICEIC registered; the other was apparently professional diligence, which does mean that workmanship must be to a reasonable standard. Due diligence does not exclude mistakes, but it seems that this installation was simply dangerous - the article mentions a fire and what sounds like a C1 - so I imagine that the threshold for prosecution in terms of skill and workmanship is a high one.
Tony S: Reads to me as if using the NICEIC logo was the main issue. Shoddy and dangerous workmanship, what’s that got to do with the case?
Would the case have even got to court if the evidence had relied solely on the poor workmanship? I very much doubt it.
Who knows - that would have been up to the enforcement agency.
One issue was the false claim to be NICEIC registered; the other was apparently professional diligence, which does mean that workmanship must be to a reasonable standard. Due diligence does not exclude mistakes, but it seems that this installation was simply dangerous - the article mentions a fire and what sounds like a C1 - so I imagine that the threshold for prosecution in terms of skill and workmanship is a high one.
