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

4. The Appellant's Submissions

Up one level

4.1 The Appellant made two submissions to the Board setting grounds for appeal.

The first submission dated 14 March 2011 asserted that he had over 30 years in the construction sector he had been associated with projects valued in excess of $30 million and he was required to "produce construction, tender, consent drawings and documentation" and that he had been "closely involved with the site supervision". He referred his work during 2006-2008 with [company redacted] for two [project redacted] ([locations redacted]) which his application suggested were Category 3 buildings3 (although they appeared from the 7 sheets of drawings to be 2-storey construction and therefore not Category 3). There was no verification of The Appellant's extent of involvement in any of the documentation provided, either with his application or submission, except to the extent referred to below.

4.2 The Appellant submitted 6 sheets of drawings for 2 other projects undertaken by [company redacted], which noted that they were drawn by "[name redacted]".

One project, [project redacted] ([location redacted]) was an extensive fitout of a [project redacted] . The annotation noted that it was drawn by "[name redacted]" on 18 March 2009, but that developed design was carried out in 2007 (before The Appellant apparently joined the firm).

The second project, [project redacted] ([location redacted]) also involved an extensive fitout of an existing building and drawn by "[name redacted]" on 18 March 2009 which is coincidentally, the same date as the other project (above).

These drawings demonstrate a good standard of draftsmanship but contained only layout plans with no detailing.

While it might be reasonably assumed that these have been drawn by The Appellant, there is no verification that the extent of his involvement encompasses what asserted in his application, viz "responsible for documentation (architectural) needs . . .".

4.3 The Appellant's second submission to the Board is dated 13 April 2011 which refers to:

(a) Conflict of interest4. (No information of relevance was provided to support this).

(b) Reason for not supplying further documentation (Presumably cost).

(c) Structural Design. (Whether details should be contained in the architectural or engineering drawings).

(d) Construction detailing. (Asserted that he had provided sufficient information).

(e) Specifications. (Reference to his sources, i.e. Masterspec).

(f) Notice of meeting. (Reason for not producing documents).

(g) Recognition of projects. (Point is unclear).

(h) Project Files. (Assessor had access).

(i) Category 3 Projects. (Claimed the [company redacted] and [project redacted] were Category 3).

(j) ADNZ involvement. (Claim of bias by Assessor).

Overall, all the Appellant’s submission was challenging the manner of the assessment conducted.

The appeal process provides the opportunity of a re-hearing of The Appellant's application so there can be no prejudice to him.

 

Footnotes:

3 Category 3 buildings are defined by Part 3 of the Schedule to the Building (Designation ofBuilding Work Licence Classes) Order 2007.

4 It is assumed that this refers to the Assessor
 

Last updated 11 May 2015