Complaint Decisions – August 2025
The Board looked at complaints about building consents, records of work, and accepting payment and not doing the work.
John Adair
John Adair carried out and supervised building work on new homes. Council inspections showed that the work didn’t follow the approved building consent and had serious problems.
The Board found that John Adair did the work carelessly and didn’t follow the proper process for making changes to the consent. They also found that John Adair didn’t provide a record of work after finishing restricted building work.
Because of the serious issues, the Board cancelled John Adair’s licence and said he cannot apply for a new one for 6 months. He was also ordered to pay $4,150 in costs. The decision will be published, and the disciplinary action will be listed on the Public Register for 3 years.
Read the full decisions:
Colby Kelly-Nash
Colby Kelly-Nash took money from the Complainant for building work and didn’t do the work or return the money.
The Board found that Colby Kelly-Nash acted in a way that harmed the reputation of the building profession, which goes against section 317(1)(i) of the Building Act.The Board decided to suspend Colby Kelly-Nash’s licence for 6 months and ordered him to pay $700 in costs. The disciplinary action will be listed on the Public Register for 3 years.
The Board also suspended Colby Kelly-Nash licence because it saw a pattern of taking money and not finishing the work. The Board believed this was necessary to protect other customers from similar behaviour.
Read the full decision:
Colby Kelly-Nash [2025] BPB CB26626 – Finalised Draft Decision
Benjamin Jones
A complaint was made against Benjamin Jones who accepted a substantial payment but failed to carry out any building work.
The Board found that Benjamin Jones accepted payments without delivering the agreed work. This conduct was deemed unethical and damaging to the reputation of the Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) regime.
As Benjamin Jones no longer holds a current licence, the Board’s disciplinary options were limited. They imposed a fine of $3,500 and ordered the builder to pay $700 in costs. This disciplinary action will be recorded on the public register for 3 years.
Read the full decisions:
Case 4
The Respondent changed how flashings were installed without first getting approval for the change to the Building Consent. Because of this, the Board found that the work didn’t match the approved consent and that the Respondent broke section 317(1)(d) of the Act.
The Board fined the Respondent $1,500 and ordered him to pay $700 in costs. This disciplinary action will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years.
Failure to Provide Record of Work
In 2 cases, the Respondents failed to provide a record of work after completing restricted building work, as required under section 88(1) of the Building Act.
- Case 5: The Respondent was fined $1,500 and ordered to pay $700 in costs. If the record of work is provided to both the owner and the council before the deadline, the fine will be reduced to $1,000.
- Case 6: The Respondent was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $700 in costs.
Both disciplinary actions will be recorded on the Public Register for 3 years.
Case 6
The Respondent began a building project but failed to complete it. Over a 2-year period, he repeatedly assured the Complainant that the work would be finished, yet no progress was made.
The Board found that the Respondent breached clause 20 of the Code of Ethics, which requires building practitioners to act in good faith during disputes.
As a result, the Board imposed a fine of $1,500 and ordered the Respondent to pay $700 in costs. This disciplinary action will be listed on the Public Register for 3 years.