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

2. Background

Up one level

2.1 The Appellant’s application for a Design 3 Licence was received by the Registrar on 20 May 2008. The application was treated as complete on 16 June 2008 and the application proceeded to assessment (under Rule 11).

2.2 The assessment was completed by the Assessor on 24 July 2008. In his report to the Registrar the Assessor stated:

“(The Appellant’s) documentation is very thorough, extensive and comprehensive. He is working in the field as a Weathertightness Assessor and seems to take on jobs that no one else is prepared to do.”

The Assessor noted that the Appellant had not submitted evidence of his work in relation to design of a Category 3 building. The Assessor noted that, in respect of Competency 4 “Develop, design and produce construction drawings and documentation”, that the Appellant “was unable to provide any construction drawings that met the requirements for Design 3.”

The Assessor noted that the Appellant met the other four competencies “very well”.

2.3 The assessment was peer reviewed on 24 July 2008, and the Peer Reviewer had categorised the Appellant’s submitted Category 3 project as Category 2 because the work “only consisted of a remediation report without detailing the solution of the repair work . . . he didn’t do any of the original design work for a project from scratch i.e. concept drawings, working drawings and full specification.”

The Peer Reviewer went on to state:

“I don’t doubt [the Appellant’s] capability to do Design 3 work, as he is well qualified to do it, it’s just that he didn’t present any Design 3 projects”.

2.4 The Assessor recommended to the Registrar that there was insufficient evidence for the Appellant to be licensed at Design 3, and to offer the Appellant the Design 2 licensing class (under Rule 11).

After taking into account the recommendation of the Assessor, the Registrar decided to offer the Appellant the opportunity to be licensed in the Design 2 class.

2.5 On 30 July 2008, the Appellant was formally notified of the Registrar’s decision that the evidence provided was not sufficient to demonstrate competence in the Design 3 licensing class. The Registrar noted that the Appellant did demonstrate the competencies for the Design 2 licensing class and offered him the opportunity to be licensed in the Design 2 licensing class.

2.6 In a letter dated 5 August 2008 to the Registrar, the Appellant expressed disappointment that his application for Design 3 class licence was declined. He also noted some concerns about the assessment process.

2.7 On 21 August 2008, the Manager, Building Practiioner Licensing responded to the Appellant explaining that the Assessor had noted that the project records provided to the Assessor were all category 2 buildings, which did not meet the requirements for assessment at Design 3.

2.8 On 27 August 2008, the Appellant wrote to the Manager, Building Practitioner Licensing. He argued that his project records were category 3 buildings and suggested that his broader body of work (which did not form part of the project records listed in his application) related to category 3 buildings. He also argued in favour of a broader approach to assessment, and requested that the Registrar’s decision regarding his application be reviewed.

2.9 On 2 September 2008, the Manager, Building Practitioner Licensing responded to the Appellant by fax. He stated that all licensing applications are assessed in accordance with carefully established criteria, and noted that the points made in the Appellant’s letter of August 27 did not alter the Assessor’s assessment. The Manager encouraged the Appellant to give careful consideration to the offer of the Design 2 licensing class before the offer expired.

2.10 On 3 September 2008 the Appellant responded to the Manager, Building Practitioner Licensing by fax accepting the offer of the Design 2 licensing class.

2.11 On 18 September 2008, the Registrar formally notified the Appellant he was licensed in the Design 2 class.

2.12 On 15 September 2008, the Appellant wrote to the Manager, Building Practitioner Licensing. The Appellant again expressed concerns with the assessment process and requested that these concerns be taken to the Board for its consideration. The Appellant also discussed the progression to a higher class of licensing and training for LBPs as well as a range of non-licensing related matters.

2.13 On 1 October 2008, the Manager, Building Practitioner Licensing replied by noting that it would not be appropriate to put an individual assessment before the Board outside of the appeal process. Information and comment was also provided on progression to a higher class of licensing and training for LBPs.

2.14 On 28 October 2008, the Appellant appealed to the Board against the Registrar’s decision not to offer the Design 3 licensing class.

Last updated 11 May 2015