Recent BPB decisions — April 2026
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.
Craig O' Brien
The Board decided that Craig O’Brien committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b) and 317(1)(d) of the Building Act 2004. He carried out and supervised building work in a negligent manner and in a manner that did not comply with the building consent.
What happened
Mr O’Brien was engaged to carry out and/or supervise building work on a new residential dwelling under a building consent. His work concerned the primary structure and the external moisture management system of a residential dwelling
Mr O’Brien carried out and supervised the installation of structural foundation poles. The manner in which he did so failed to meet an acceptable standard as did the failure to install required subfloor fixings and the splicing of a cantilevered bearer. Due to Mr O’Brien’s work on the poles, remedial work was required. The floor levels were out of tolerance and lateral braces had to be installed to ensure the building structure load would be transferred to the ground. Missing subfloor fixings compromised the integrity of the building. The work did not comply with the structural provisions in the Building Code or the approved building consent and the building was structurally compromised due to Mr O’Brien’s failings.
Mr O’Brien did not attend the hearing despite a second hearing being scheduled in consultation with him.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $4,500 and costs of $7,850 were imposed in relation to this decision.
In a subsequent decision (published in a previous edition of the LBP newsletter) the Board cancelled Mr O’Brien’s licence, prevented him for reapplying for 3 months and ordered him to pay costs of $2,350.
Case 2
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b), 317(1)(d) and 317(da)(ii) of the Building Act 2004. He carried out building work in an incompetent manner, carried out building work that did not comply with the building consent and failed to provide a record of work on the completion of the building work.
What happened
The respondent, by way of his company, was contracted to install the roof and wall cladding on a new residential build under a building consent. The building work involved installation of a wall cladding product that the respondent was not familiar with, for which he did not have specifications or design details for its installation and for which he did not carry out any research or consult persons who could have provided him with guidance or assistance. He reverted to standard methodologies, which were inadequate and resulted in a noncompliant installation.
The building consent did not provide for the type of wall cladding product that was installed, and the way the flashings were installed was not consistent with the building consent. The respondent therefore carried out work that was contrary to the building consent.
Outcome of the decision
A fine of $2,750 and costs of $2,950 were imposed.
Case 3
The Board decided that the respondent committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b) and 317(1)(d) of the Building Act 2004. He supervised building work in a negligent manner and in a manner that did not comply with the building consent.
What happened
The respondent’s company was contracted to install a roof on a new residential dwelling. The work was restricted building work that required supervision by an LBP. The roof installation was carried out by the respondent’s staff, none of whom were licensed. The respondent, as the supervising LBP, did not attend the site to check the quality and compliance of the building work during or after its completion. Given that the building work was not completed to an acceptable standard, the respondent’s supervision was inadequate. The building work was also contrary to the building consent.
Outcome of the decision
Costs of $2,950 and an order to undertake training (Related Trades On Site Supervision strand/elective US33042, part of NZ Construction Trades Supervision Level 5 course).
Cases 4–5
In each case, the Board decided that the respondent committed a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(g) of the Building Act 2004. Each respondent breached the code of ethics.
What happened
In each case, the respondent breached clause 10 of the code of ethics which required LBPs to comply with the Building Act and the Building (Residential Consumer Rights and Remedies) Regulations 2014. Each respondent did not, prior to building work being undertaken, provide prescribed disclosure information or a prescribed checklist, or a written contract as per legal and regulatory requirements.
Outcome of the decision
The Board ordered each respondent to pay a fine of $1,500 and costs of $700.
Cases 6–9
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 between $1,000 and $1,500, depending on surrounding factors, and costs of $700.