Recent BPB decisions – June 2026

Case 1

The Board found that the Respondent has committed disciplinary offences under section 317(1)(g) and (i) 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 LBPs and brought the licensing regime into disrepute.

The Respondent signed record of works (ROWs) for a company in New Zealand while he was overseas.

The Respondent allowed his licence to be used by a company for the purposes of satisfying the requirement in section 84 of the Act, that restricted building work must be carried out or supervised by an LBP, when he was living overseas and was not providing adequate or effective supervision of the jobs to which his name was ascribed as the supervising LBP on ROWs.

Cases 2 – 4

In each case, the Board has found that the Respondent has 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 ROW to either the territorial authority or the homeowner on completion of restricted building work or soon thereafter.

In two cases (CB26980, CB26979), the Board found that providing the ROW to the main contractor does not satisfy section 88(1) of the Act. The Board also stated in CB26980, that it is the responsibility of the LBP to provide a ROW, not the owner or the territorial authority to request one, and the LBP could have made enquiries to ascertain the owner’s details as to provide the ROW to the owner.

Outcome

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

Case 5

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

What happened

The Respondent failed to provide a record of work for three separate properties.

Outcome

The Board noted previous disciplinary decisions in which the Respondent was found to have failed to provide a record of work. The Board took those prior disciplinary findings into account as an aggravating factor in relation to penalty.

The Board ordered the Respondent to pay a fine of $3,000 and costs of $700.

Case 6

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

What happened

The Respondent was found to have carried out and supervised building work in a negligent manner. He had made changes during the build to the engineer-design that would, most likely, compromise the shed's durability and structural integrity.
Given the departures from the Building Code, specifically, clauses B1(structure) and B2 (durability), and from acceptable standards, the Board considered that the Respondent has been negligent in his supervision of the building work.

Outcome

The Board ordered the Respondent to pay a fine of $2,000 and costs of $700.

Case 7

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

What happened

The Respondent was found to have conducted himself in a manner that has brought the licensing scheme into disrepute when he acted dishonestly in relation to deposits paid for two building projects.

The Board referred to a High Court judgment relating to the Respondent on which the investigations were based. In that judgment, the High Court found that the Respondent, a director of a construction company (the company), had breached his director duties and that the plaintiffs had incurred loss due to the Respondent continuing to trade while the company was insolvent and entering contracts at a time when the company had no real prospect of being able to meet its obligations under the contracts.

Of concern to the Board was the use by the Respondent of funds paid by the plaintiffs in that case to meet other debt obligations and the finding that there was “real dishonesty.” Significant losses were incurred by two plaintiffs as a result of the Respondent’s deliberate, dishonest conduct and reckless trading. The Board also found that the Respondent had not taken responsibility for his conduct and for the harm he caused.

Outcome

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

Case 8

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

What happened

The Board found that the Respondent carried out and supervised building work negligently and contrary to the building consent issued.

Outcome

The Board ordered the Respondent to pay a fine of $2,000 and costs of $2,150.

Case 9

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

What happened

The Board found that the Respondent had carried out building work (design work) in a negligent and incompetent manner.

Outcome

Having considered the submission received, the Board ordered that the Respondent’s licence be reduced from Design Area of Practice 2 to Design Area of Practice 1 until such time that the Respondent satisfies the Registrar that he meets the requirements to hold a Design Area of Practice 2 Licence. The Respondent was also ordered to pay costs of $4,150.