Complaint decisions – June 2025

Michal Konik

A complaint was made about Michal Konik’s design work by the Building Consent Authority. The complaint covered 5 separate building consent applications that encompassed a high number of Requests for Information (RFIs). The Board decided that the Respondent had carried out design work in an incompetent manner and that he had supervised RFIs in a negligent manner.

The Board decided to fine the Respondent $2,500 and order he pay total costs of $2,150. The Board had considered the suspension of the Respondent’s licence or the imposition of a training order but accepted that there were mitigating factors, including that the Respondent’s design work had improved over time.

A record of the disciplinary decision will be recorded on the public Register for a period of 3 years.

Anik Kumar – 4 decisions

The Board issued 4 penalty decisions against the Anik Kumar. In all cases, the Board found that the Respondent had carried out, and supervised, building work in a negligent and incompetent manner. This manner was contrary to the building consent issued. The Board also found there had been a pattern of non-compliance over multiple properties.

The Board noted that the disciplinary offending was serious, and it decided it would cancel the Respondent’s licence and order that he not be able to reapply to be licensed for a period of 6 months.

The Board also ordered that the Respondent pay costs of $10,900 and that the Board’s decisions be published. A record of the offending will also be recorded on the public Register for a period of 3 years.

The Respondent submitted, in response to the indicative penalty order, that his licence should not be cancelled. The Board did not accept that submission. It confirmed the penalty, costs and publication orders.

Benjamin Jones

A complaint was made about the failure to undertake building work after a substantial deposit had been paid. The evidence established that the Respondent obtained the deposit without a genuine intention to carry out the work. The Board decided that he had obtained an unethical gain and that he had brought the licensing regime into disrepute.

The Respondent does not hold a practicing licence so the Board was limited in its penalty options to a fine. It decided a fine of $3,500 was appropriate, and the Respondent would be ordered to pay costs of $3,100.

Case 4

The Respondent failed to provide a record of work on completion of restricted building work. He is fined $1,000 and ordered to pay costs of $700.