business.govt.nz"
Search this website
| Options Options
Search Type
Document Actions
 

2. Background

Up one level

2.1 On 8 November 2007, The Appellant submitted his application to the Registrar to be licensed as a Design-Class 1 Building Practitioner under s.288(2) of the Act. The application was incomplete and the Registrar twice requested further information from The Appellant (under Rule 8). In particular, the Appellant was requested, but did not provide, details of a second referee who could attest to his work record (under Rule 7(1)(k)).

2.2 Despite the incomplete information, the application was accepted for assessment on 23 January 2008, and the application proceeded to a desktop and face-to-face assessment (under Rule 11). The assessment was completed by the Assessor on 14 February, and a peer review was completed on 25 February.

2.3 The Assessor recommended to the Registrar that the Appellant’s application should be declined because of “insufficient evidence” (under Rule 11). The Assessment Report noted that Competencies 2 and 3 were demonstrated, but that Competencies 1 and 4 were “only marginally met”.

2.4 After taking into account the recommendation of the Assessor and the requirements of s. 286 of the Act, the Registrar decided to decline the application (under Rule 12). The Registrar based his decision solely on the Assessor’s recommendations to decline the application. The Registrar did not consider that there was sufficient reason or concern to overrule the Assessor’s recommendation.

2.5 On 1 April 2008, The Appellant was formally notified of the Registrar’s decision to decline the application, and of his right to appeal the decision within 20 working days (under Rule 13(3)).

2.6 On 14 April 2008, The Appellant appealed to the Board against the Registrar’s decision and set out his grounds of appeal. Upon request, a further summary of these grounds of appeal was provided by the Appellant to the Board on
15 May 2008.

Last updated 11 May 2015