Recent BPB decisions – February 2026

Craig O'Brien

The Board decided that Craig O’Brien committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(d), (da)(ii), (g) and (h) of the Building Act 2004. 

What happened

Mr O’Brien was contracted to build a new residential dwelling. During construction, he made substantial changes to the pile foundation system without following the building consent process. This included installing extra piles that were not shown on the approved plans and altering pile depths. Council inspectors later found multiple issues with the subfloor, including incorrect pile layout, missing damp‑proof course, incorrect bracing, and several items not built to the consented plans. The Board also found that Mr O’Brien did not to install a counterfort drain that was required under the building consent, despite being reminded by the geotechnical engineer. 

Mr O’Brien told the homeowners that the Council and engineer had required the extra piles, but neither had done so. There was also no evidence that he sought engineering advice before making the changes. The Board concluded he made significant structural decisions on his own, outside of his competence as a carpenter, and without giving his clients the information needed to understand the risks or make informed decisions. 

In addition, the Board found that Mr O’Brien did not provide did not provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work. He also breached several provisions of the Code of Ethics by not explaining risks, not informing the clients of delays, and not keeping them properly updated. 

Mr O’Brien did not attend the hearing and did not respond when the Board asked him to explain his absence.  

Outcome of the decision

The Board cancelled Mr O’Brien’s licence and prevented him for reapplying for three months. He is ordered to pay costs of $2,350. 

Cases 2-3

The Board decided, in two separate decisions, that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under section 317(1)(i) of the Building Act 2004. 

What happened

The respondent was the subject of two complaints relating to roofing work. In both complaints, he accepted a deposit for roofing work but did not carry it out. He did not refund the deposit and ceased communication with the complainant.  

The Board found that the respondent conducted himself in a disreputable manner in that he obtained an unethical financial gain. 

Outcome of the decision

For each complaint, the Board ordered the respondent to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs of $700. 

Cases 4-5

The Board decided, in a consolidated hearing, that each respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b), (d) and (da)(ii) of the Building Act 2004. 

What happened

The consolidated complaints related to a residential dwelling where council inspections identified several serious areas of non‑compliant building work.  
 
For both respondents, the Board found that parts of the work they carried out did not meet the requirements of the building consent. The failed items included incorrect or missing flashings, inadequate packers, cladding installed in ways that did not meet approved details, and other work that did not match the approved plans. Some structural elements, such as the installation of portal frames and their fixings, were also not completed in line with the consented design. 
 
The Board found that each respondent was responsible for the building work they personally undertook. The failings identified were not minor and were not mere inadvertence or oversight.  
 
Both respondents also did not provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work. 

Outcome of the decision

The Board ordered each respondent to pay costs of $1,075. One respondent was fined $3,500, while the other who was less culpable, was fined $2,000.  

Case 6

The Board decided that the respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(b) of the Act. 

What happened

The respondent carried out renovation work that included replacing an acrylic shower with a tiled shower and altering some internal structural framing.

This type of work requires a building consent, but the respondent went ahead without making sure that a consent had been issued.

Although the respondent believed it was the homeowner’s job to organise the consent, the Board found he still had a responsibility as an LBP to check what was required before starting any work. 

Outcome of the decision

The Board censured the respondent and ordered him to pay costs of $700. 

Cases 7-15

In each case, the Board decided that the respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(da)(ii) of the Building Act 2004. 

What happened

In each case, the respondent did not provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work. 

Outcome of the decision

The Board ordered each respondent to pay a fine of between $1,000 and $1,500, depending on the surrounding factors, and costs of $700.