james.wilson Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Arf. Lets move to arfur land for a mo, and ill join ya lets assume you have been claiming complaince on your specs with en50131 and ill go as so far to say you have been claiming -1 cos you know these things. You then also claim that you are working to NSI Gold guidelines. No the first can be proved. And yes there is a bit of interpretation but ultimatly the regulatory body (in this case nsi) would give a ruling on how to interpret. We get these from time to time after angus has found a 'loophole' (his words not mine lol) So if you claim EN50131 -1 and a relevant year, and it doesnt then that is fraud, plain and simple. You have documented that you have complied when it can be seen that you have not etc etc. No then 3rd party regulation, ie NSI We say we operate to the requirements of NSI and NSI inpect us and award us a badge based on iso etc. The whole point of this inspection is to ensure that we are actually doing what we say we do. The unregulated world only get inspected AFTER something has happned not every 6 months. Who knows how many systems a rouge could install before first. Now how can anyone claim to be installing to a std that doesnt really exist, when the main reason for inspection is to ensure you are doing what you say your doing. Its like me having a 'Redbull Gas' meastro Van with 'Working towards Corgi' on it. Meaningless and deliberatly misleading. HOw long can i 'work towards' paying my mortgage? etc etc. Dont wash and is wrong. If you report stuff liek this to NSI or any of the self regulation bodies they cannot act on the non regulated industry as they only have control and 'power' over regulated companies. But I know they do report it to the OFT and Trading STandards and prosecutions do result. I have found a few myself that is how i know. James (working towards COrgi, SSAIB, Fensa, BSc, Eng, Blue peter badge) securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anguscanplay Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 if someone claims to be working towards either or both the inspectorates standards and we all know that it's EN they inspect to so that is what is implied. "they inspect to EN regs..........." PMSL a truthfull advert would say "working to the same regs as an approved firm has been assesed to be working too but without any proof and no back up either ............" but thats exactly what ISNT implied, your old enough to know that the inspectorate is there to INSPECT the company thats applying the regs not the regs themselves. The advert is saying "hey i`m as good as an approved firm......" when its doubtful they actually know the criteria for approval never mind the criteria directly related to been approved, - OMG......... where was the O/P based again? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 PS i have now left Arfur land and am back in the real world lol securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anguscanplay Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 No the first can be proved. And yes there is a bit of interpretation but ultimatly the regulatory body (in this case nsi) would give a ruling on how to interpret. We get these from time to time after angus has found a 'loophole' (his words not mine lol) LOL, I prefer the term - " workable solution....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 lol you would securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luggsey Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 I completely see your POV Luggsey but I believe the new trading laws make it the other way round.i.e. - If you make a claim you have to back it up. It's no longer innocent till proven guilty on that front nor up to others to prove you wrong. Rodger posted about it a short while back - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7416809.stm Chris. Yes I see your point, however has'nt that always been the case? If you make a claim that a third party belives to be false, then if it goes to court you have to prove your claim? Even if the OFT is the one that asks you to prove your claim it still goes to court if the two parties disagree. I think the law is to stop those that claim "wrongly" they meet regulations they do not, but as I said that has to be proved first? Could SSAIB/NACOSS catch this sort of behaviour by saying a registered trade mark is being used, ie. their name without their permission? Anyhow I'm working towards my lunch! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, some bugger always gets the nice ones! My Amateur Radio Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Yes I see your point, however has'nt that always been the case? If you make a claim that a third party belives to be false, then if it goes to court you have to prove your claim? Even if the OFT is the one that asks you to prove your claim it still goes to court if the two parties disagree. I think the law is to stop those that claim "wrongly" they meet regulations they do not, but as I said that has to be proved first? Could SSAIB/NACOSS catch this sort of behaviour by saying a registered trade mark is being used, ie. their name without their permission? Anyhow I'm working towards my lunch! logos are an easy one at the logo owner (nsi, ssaid etc) don't give permission until you join/comply. claiming with no means of proving it that you or are working towards accreditation is a grey area probably best left to the courts. enjoy lunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSS Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 A firm local to where I used to live had applied for nacoss expecting to get it and placed their order with yellow pages for their ads... They didn't achieve nacoss standard as was before the ads hit the street... I couldn't comment but they didn't get approval for a couple of years after that.... The NSI do take action, there was a sparks who displayed the NSI gold logo on his website, who was politely insisted on to remove it by the NSI TSS Communication is "A question asked, and an Opinion given." I offer mine to help you with yours. Statements I make are my personal views only at the time they are posted, if I offend you sorry, must be taken in context and do not neccesarily represent those of my employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfur mo Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 arfur I think "working towards" implies a timescale and you could not state "working towards" meaning infinity.A timescale is implied and should be stuck too. Chris. i'm no criminal lawyer (hey, perhaps i missed my calling ), unless the company states they will comply and apply within a time scale, "working towards" has no time limit. it would be up to a court to decide how long a 'reasonable time taken' is. the point you miss here is at the time a client engage that firm, they know they are not Inspected in any way, so have accepted their openly (and they would say totally honestly) claimed direction. so the time scale what ever that may be they have., literally at that point in time their unpublished time table. sailing close to the wind maybe, but the oft will have to ban it to make it illegal, like i say their are lies damn lies amd morals. regs alan If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfur mo Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 I'am sure 50131 does not state what insurance the firm should hold? working towards would leave a trail of modest improvements? which in turn would leave a paper trail to porve so "shady security" could well be asked to prove they had been "working towards" to prove there claim? the problem is the client by the time they realise there is no working towards will be well down the road, and very unlikely to have the knowledge to persue what is a very tentative case. i'm not supporting this style of advertising in any way or fighting the cowboys corner, as i also detest it as misleading, but i like you am in the trade, the potential clients are not, so just exploring what in real life will likely happen. regs alan If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.