Recent BPB decisions – August 2026

Cases 1 to 8

The Board has issued 8 decisions relating to failures to provide records of work. This article examines cases 1 to 5, which are representative of the Board's approach. In each case, the Board has found that the Respondent had committed a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(da)(ii) of the Building Act 2004 (the Act).

What happened

In each case the Respondent did not provide a record of work to either the territorial authority or the homeowner on completion of restricted building work or soon thereafter.

Case 1

In Case 1, the Respondent stated that he did not provide a record of work because he needed to return to the site for a final quality assurance check before doing so and it was his understanding that there was no timeframe within which a record of work must be issued.

The Board stated that drafting and issuing a record of work does not require a compliance check; it is a statement of who did or supervised what restricted building work.

Further, section 88 of the Act states that a record of work is to be provided on completion. While the Board does allow for a reasonable period of time thereafter, it has determined, in previous cases, that a record of work should be provided within weeks of completion.

Case 2

In Case 2, the Respondent submitted that he did not know who the owner was and that he had been contacted by someone requesting records of work but that he did not know their connection to the owner.

The Board stated that the requirement is on the Licensed Building Practitioner to provide a record of work, not on the owner or Territorial Authority to demand one. It would have been easy for him to ascertain the owner’s details from the building consent documentation or to have provided a record of work to the Territorial Authority as per section 88(1) of the Act.

The Board noted that there was an ongoing payment dispute and reiterated that a Record of Work is a statutory requirement, not a negotiable term of a contract.

Case 3

In Case 3, the Respondent’s company was contracted to carry out the building work. None of the people who carried out the restricted building work were LBPs. The Respondent, as the only LBP involved in the project, was by default, the supervising LBP.

The Respondent submitted that he was under the impression that one of his staff members was an LBP and responsible for provision of the record of work.

The Board stated that as the employer and main contractor, the Respondent had a duty to ensure that persons he engaged to complete the restricted building work were licensed. Further, the licensing records are publicly available so there was no impediment to ascertaining whether the staff were or were not licensed.

Case 4

In Case 4, the Respondent did not respond to emails outlining the allegation made against him and the process for him to submit his response or phone calls made to him at the contact details provided by him on the Register of LBPs.

The Board considered that the required notifications under the Regulations had been provided to the Respondent and proceeded to consider the matter without engagement by the Respondent.

Case 5

In Case 5, the Respondent stated that he was a labourer, the subcontractor, and that he would normally be contacted for a record of work.

The Board stated that if the main contractor does not pass a record of work on to the final recipients, it is the author of the record of work that will be held accountable by the Board, not the person or entity that they entrusted to fulfil their statutory obligation.

Outcome

The Board ordered each Respondent to pay a fine between $1,000 and $1,500, depending on surrounding factors, and costs of $700 and $1,100.

Case 9

The Board found that the Respondent had committed a disciplinary offence under section 317(1)(g) of the Building Act 2004 (the Act).

What happened

The Respondent was found to have breached clause 10 of the Code of Ethics (comply with the law) for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs).

The complaint related to renovation work including alteration of structural elements, that required a building consent and for which a Certificate of Acceptance had been applied for. The Respondent was not the main contractor and had been assured by the main contractor that an exemption had been granted for the work; it had not been. The Respondent also took assurance from the fact that an engineer was involved.

The Act requires that all building work be carried out under a building consent unless an exemption is available under the Act. The Board noted that the burden is on the person carrying out the work to establish that an exemption applies and that the Respondent falls into the category of a person who was in a position to ensure unconsented work did not occur.

The Board noted that the Respondent had a hand-drawn sketch and that what was provided to the Council when the unconsented work was discovered did not include engineering calculations. The Board noted that the extent of the work shown in the hand-drawn sketch was such that it was unlikely that an exemption would have been granted for it, and that an LBP should have known that.

The Board stated that an LBP is expected to know what is required for a clause 2 exemption including the level of documentation and would expect them to verify for themselves that an exemption had been granted, especially in circumstances where the documentation provided was not developed by a design professional. The Board stated that it was not a case of mere inadvertence, error or oversight but of the Respondent blindly going along with what he was told.

Having found that the Respondent had not verified that an exemption had been granted, the Board considered that the Respondent’s conduct had fallen below that expected of an LBP, and he had breached clause 10 of the Code of Ethics.

The fact that others were also involved in the failure to obtain a consent was taken into consideration as a mitigating factor in consideration of penalty.

Outcome

The Board ordered the Respondent to pay costs of $700.

Case 10

The Board found that the Respondent had committed a disciplinary offence under sections 317(1)(g) of the Building Act 2004 (the Act).

What happened

The Board found that the Respondent had breached clause 10 of the Code of Ethics for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs), which requires that LBPs comply with the Act and the Building (Residential Consumer Rights and Remedies) Regulations 2014.

The Respondent carried out building work, building a residential dwelling inside an existing Pole Shed, in contravention of a building consent. The Board found that the Respondent therefore failed to comply with section 40(1) of the Act, which prescribes a person must not carry out any building work except in accordance with a building consent.

In terms of penalty, aggravating factors included the Respondent’s denial of existence of the residential dwelling inside the shed and the number of Notice to Fixes that the Council sent to the Respondent.

Mitigating factors included that there was no evidence of negligent or incompetent building work, the late Certificate of Acceptance application and that the work was for family.

Outcome

The Board ordered the Respondent to pay a fine of $2,500 and costs of $700.

Case 11

The Board found that the Respondent had committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b), (d) and (da)(ii) of the Building Act 2004 (the Act).

What happened

The Respondent carried out or supervised restricted building work under a building consent. During the construction, changes were made to the bracing system that had been developed by an engineer and in relation to an internal membrane and the roof and cladding. These changes were made without an acceptable change process to the building consent.

The Board found that the Respondent had carried out or supervised building work in a negligent manner and in a manner contrary to the consent issued, because he had failed to ensure either minor variations or amendments to the building consent for the charges had been processed and approved before the related building work was completed. Additionally, the Board found that the Respondent had failed to provide a record of work on completion of the building work.

The Board noted that the Respondent, as the responsible Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP), had a duty, if the building work could not be carried out in accordance with the consented plans, to consult with the designer and/or the building consent authority to establish if any proposed changes would still meet building code compliance requirements before the related work was carried out. The Board considered that failure to do so departed from an acceptable standard of conduct by an LBP and was therefore negligent.

Outcome

The Board ordered the Respondent to pay a fine of $2,500 and costs of $700.