Cantabrians Urged to Use Licensed Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers for Home Repairs Following Earthquake

The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) today warned Cantabrians to only use licensed plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers when repairing homes following the region’s earthquake.

The PGDB, the statutory body tasked with regulating the three trades, has received a number of enquiries about unqualified people undertaking restricted work.

It’s calling on homeowners to be aware of people claiming they are plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers when they’re called in to repair damaged equipment or pipes in their properties.

“The message is simple,” says Kern U’ren, deputy registrar at the PGDB. “Ask a plumber, gasfitter or drainlayer for their licence and if they can’t produce one, then don’t let them do the work.

He added: “Plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers are highly-trained and at the core of their training is protecting consumer health and safety. Significant issues can arise when unqualified people undertaken restricted work including potential poisoning, fire or disease.

“Other issues can be just as problematic. Damage to properties can result due to poor workmanship by unlicensed tradespeople and this can have a significant impact on a property’s value and resultant insurance claim.”

Consumers can check if a plumber, gasfitter or drainlayer is authorised to carry out their work by logging onto the PGDB’s website at www.pgdb.co.nz, or calling the PGDB on 0800 743 262.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>