Complaint decisions – December 2025
The Building Practitioners Board has recently issued a number of disciplinary decisions involving Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs). These decisions highlight the importance of compliance with the Building Act 2004 and the Code of Ethics. They act as reminders for practitioners to maintain high standards of professionalism and accountability.
Gaganjeet Dhillon
The Board decided that the Gaganjeet Dhillon committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b), (d), (da)(ii) and (g) of the Building Act 2004.
What happened
Gaganjeet Dhillon supervised building work in a negligent manner, allowed work that did not comply with the building consent, did not provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work, and breached the Code of Ethics by not ensuring compliance with health and safety requirements.
He was supervising a multi-unit residential project and was responsible for foundations, framing, trusses, cavity battens and Gib Weatherline installation.
The Board identified numerous quality and compliance issues, including:
- incorrect slab installation
- framing out of tolerance
- missing structural fixings, and
- inadequate health and safety measures.
These issues highlighted significant shortcomings in Gaganjeet Dhillon’s supervision and overall compliance with statutory obligations.
Outcome of the decision
The Board ordered Gaganjeet Dhillon to successfully complete the Level 4 New Zealand Certificate in Construction Related Trades (Supervisor) within 2 years and to pay costs of $2,950.
Case 2
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(da)(ii) and 317(1)(g) of the Building Act 2004.
What happened
The respondent failed to provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work and breached the Code of Ethics by not complying with statutory requirements.
He was contracted to do building work on a relocated residential dwelling. Before starting, he did not provide the prescribed disclosure information, checklist, or a written contract as required under the Building Act and associated regulations.
After completing foundation work, he did not provide a record of work to the owner and the territorial authority.
Outcome of the decision
The Board ordered the respondent to pay a fine of $2,500 and costs of $2,750.
Case 3
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b) and (g) of the Building Act 2004.
What happened
The respondent carried out design work in a negligent manner and breached the Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners.
He was hired to prepare plans and apply for a building consent for alterations and additions to a dwelling. The Board found many problems with the design. These included failures to meet structural, fire safety, weathertightness, and insulation rules. There were also conflicting details and poor coordination with engineering input.
He advised that building work could start without a building consent or insurance. His dealings with the Building Consent Authority were unprofessional.
These issues demonstrated a lack of care and attention and a failure to meet professional and statutory obligations.
Outcome of the decision
The Board ordered the respondent to pay a fine of $2,800 and costs of $2,950.
Case 4
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b) and (d) of the Building Act 2004.
What happened
The respondent carried out building work in a negligent manner and in a way that was contrary to the building consent.
He admitted some mistakes but argued his actions were not highly negligent. The Board found major departures from the Building Code and the consent because of his decisions and actions.
One issue involved a rebate detail. He said he relied on advice from an engineer, but there was no evidence to support this.
Outcome of the decision
The Board ordered the respondent to pay a fine of $4,500 and costs of $2,425.
Cases 5-13
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 $2,000, depending on the surrounding factors, and costs of $700.