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

4. The Board's Consideration

Up one level

4.1 The Board has considered The Appellant's submissions and examined the additional documentation that he has provided.

4.2 The Board notes the difficulty that both an Assessor and the Registrar face when an applicant's submitted documentation does not contain some form of independent verification of his/her involvement with a project, particularly in relation to Design and/or Site Licences for Categories 2 and 3 buildings. The Board considers that it is proper for the Assessor and/or the Registrar to seek verification of an applicant's scope of involvement and the specifics of that. Such information is required for the Assessor and Registrar to be satisfied that the competency requirements of the Rules have been met. For Design and Site Licences for Areas of Practice 2 or 3, the Board considers that Assessors and the Registrar need to adopt a conservative approach and that it is essential that some suitable form of verification is provided by an applicant given the design risks associated with these more complex categories of buildings,

The burden of proof of his/her scope of involvement with submitted projects lies with an Appellant (refer 3.11.18 of the Board's Appeals Procedure) and in this case the Appellant has not met that requirement to the Board's satisfaction.

4.3 It would be a matter of concern if The Appellant was representing himself as a "Registered Architect". There is, however, insufficient evidence to confirm that this has occurred.

4.4 The Assessor had recommended to the Registrar that The Appellant be offered Design/Area of Practice 1 in respect of one competency and Area of Practice 2 in respect of another competency. The Rules require that the requirements of all competencies be met for the issue of any licence. Consequently, the Board endorses the approach taken by the Registrar that in such circumstances the lower of the alternative Areas of Practice may only be offered as being the Area of Practice where all competency requirements have been demonstrated.

4.5 The Appellant's assertion that he lacks any formal qualification "is only partly true" is not accepted by the Board. A person is either formally qualified or they are not. Until the NZ Qualifications Authority has awarded a qualification to a person they are not qualified. Progress towards a qualification or partial completion of the qualification requirements does not mean that the qualification will ultimately be conferred.

4.6 The Appellant was not a member of ADNZ4 when applied for a Licence and had not applied to be a member. The requirements of ADNZ for admission as a Professional Member are:

" 1. Must be a Licensed Building Practitioner who holds a Design Licence or Registered Architect.

2. Must maintain CPD requirements (including skills maintenance points and ADNZ meeting attendance).

3. Must have Professional Indemnity Insurance in place to a minimum value as set by the ADNZ Board.

4 Must sign a declaration that they will abide by the Architectural Designers New Zealand Inc Constitution and the Society's Code of Ethics."

The Appellant is not currently listed as an ADNZ Professional Member, notwithstanding that he is a Licensed Building Practitioner - Design/Area of Practice 1 and is, therefore, eligible for membership subject to him meeting the other requirements for ADNZ admission.

4.7 The Registrar concluded that The Appellant did not meet the requirements of Competencies 2 and 4 {refer 2.4). The Board has examined the additional documentation provided by The Appellant, but has not carried out a detailed reassessment of this against the performance indicators for these competencies as set out in the Rules. The Board has concluded that, subject to verification of the work submitted, it is possible that The Appellant may meet the competency requirements of Design/Area of Practice 2, but not Area of Practice 3.

The Board has, therefore, decided to require the Registrar to arrange for a re-assessment of The Appellant's application against the requirements of Area of Practice 2.

 

Footnotes:

4 Architectural Design New Zealand Inc

Last updated 11 May 2015