Complaint Decisions – April 2025

Utiku Tyson

The Respondent carried out and supervised building work on a kitset dwelling in a negligent way that went against the building consent that was issued. He also failed to provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work.  

The Board decided to cancel his licence for 3 months and ordered him to pay costs of $2,950.  

The licence was cancelled because the negligence was at the higher end of the scale and the Respondent had not engaged in the process.  

The disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register for a period of 3 years. 

Case 2

The Respondent was contracted to do building work for the Complainant. They did not, prior to building work being undertaken, provide prescribed disclosure information or a prescribed checklist. They also did not provide a written contract as per the requirements in Part 4A of the Building Act and the Building (Residential Consumer Rights and Remedies) Regulations 2014.  

The Board found that the Respondent had breached clause 10 of the Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs), which requires that LBPs comply with the Building Act and the Building (Residential Consumer Rights and Remedies) Regulations 2014. The Respondent was fined $1,500 and ordered to pay costs of $1,500.  

Case 3

The Respondent quoted for building work and took funds from the Complainant for that work, but did not carry it out or repay the funds.  

The Board found that the Respondent had conducted themself in a disreputable way that went against section 317(1)(i) of the Act. The Board decided it would fine the Respondent $1500 and ordered that he pay costs of $700.

If the respondent repaid the Complainant, the penalty would be reduced to a censure.  

A record of the disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years.

The disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years. 

Case 4

The Respondent was contracted to undertake building work for the Complainant. He did not, prior to building work being undertaken, provide prescribed disclosure information or a prescribed checklist, nor a written contract as per the requirements in Part 4A of the Building Act and the Building (Residential Consumer Rights and Remedies) Regulations 2014.

The Board found that the Respondent had breached clause 10 of the Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs), which requires that LBPs comply with the Building Act and the Building (Residential Consumer Rights and Remedies) Regulations 2014.  

The Respondent was fined $1,500 and ordered to pay costs of $700.  

The disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years. 

Case 5

The Respondent was found to have carried out, or supervised, building work in a negligent manner. They also carried out building work that does not comply with a building consent, and failed to provide a Record of Work as required under the Act.  

The charges mainly related to defective installation of cladding and exterior joinery, which resulted in multiple failed inspections and ultimately compromised the weathertightness of the building.

Concerns were raised about health and safety practices, particularly regarding working at height methodology. The Board found the evidence did not meet the threshold required to establish a breach of the Code of Ethics, especially given competing evidence from Council inspections indicating compliance with safety requirements.  

The Respondent was fined $4,000 and ordered to pay costs of $2,950.  

The disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years.  

Case 6  

The Respondent was hired as a subcontractor to carry out carpentry work, which included alterations to sub-floor framing and internal framing and the installation of new linings.  

Following concerns about the quality of work, an inspection found significant defects affecting weathertightness and structural integrity.  

The Respondent, through his counsel, acknowledged the defects existed but maintained they were not serious enough to warrant disciplinary action.  

The Board found the Respondent did commit a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(b) of the Act.  

The Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs of $2,150.  

The disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register 3 years.  

Case 6

The Respondent was hired as a subcontractor to carry out carpentry work, which included alterations to sub-floor framing and internal framing and the installation of new linings.

Following concerns about the quality of work, an inspection found significant defects affecting weathertightness and structural integrity.

The Respondent, through his counsel, acknowledged the defects existed but maintained they were not serious enough to warrant disciplinary action.

 The Board found the Respondent did commit a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(b) of the Act.

The Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs of $2,150. The disciplinary offending will be recorded on the Public Register 3 years.