To stick my head above the parapet, I think the problem is that there are too many RGIs (by which, to be clear, I don't mean a majority) whose work ethic is not significantly better than someone less qualified. This probably includes the person who would knowingly sign off someone else's work. The effect is that when an RGI turns up, there is not always the obvious difference there should be.
In an ideal world, every RGI would show up and be an obviously highly dedicated and trained professional with excellent communication skills whose work would be beyond criticism and would look good and hence impress even those whose knowledge stops them being able to appreciate the finer points. In practice, as with every trade, some do sloppy (not necessarily dangerous) work or are generally hamfisted.
But because it costs so much money to be an RGI (and here is the crux of my complaint), RGIs cost a lot more. It's not that RGIs are raking it in, but they have to pay a lot of fees and possibly these are excessive, and I suspect someone in the training/regulatory industry IS raking it in.
You will understand my point of view if you think that when I did my IPAF MEWPs training, I sat a practice multiple choice exam which I passed, then we did an hour's study and then took the _exact same_ exam again and I don't really think I learnt a lot. A couple of hours of practical and I had my certificate. Of course, because I requested familiarisation of the machinery before I used it (an IPAF requirement), I was never actually employed as a MEWP driver and thus I never got any return on my £180. Education or jobs for the boys?
So, to the untrained, an RGI is not always seen as better, (s)he just costs more.
I can well understand why someone with a good work ethic and pride would refuse to put his/her name to work carried out by others, but sadly qualifications are not the gold standard they should be and often genuine RGIs are probably strapped for cash (and trying to be nice) and take the attitude that if the install looks perfect, probably it is.
After all, I've run gas pipe under observation of a gas fitter, but obviously he wasn't looking over my shoulder at every stage of every joint on the pipe run. If he had been there would have been little point in using my labour instead of his own - there had to be an element of trust that I would to continue to work exactly as instructed and shown and not, say, switch from Everflux to LaCo half way through the job. So the difference between this situation and signing off someone else's work can, slowly and incrementally, become one of degrees.
However, as Croppie has pointed out, it seems from reading this thread that the law is pretty clear - it isn't legal to sign off someone else's work. Would I be right to assume that the reason SteveWannaDoGas is able to find this a debatable point is that a person signing off someone else's work would probably not have been pulled up on it if the work had been safe, although this does not change the law.
