- Complaint number: CB26038
- LBP number: BP114313
- Region: Auckland
-
Licence class:
Brick and Blocklaying
- Decision date: 5 April 2023
-
Penalty:
318(1)f Pay fine
318(4) Pay costs
-
Disciplinary grounds:
317(1) b Negligent or incompetent work
317(1) d Work not compliant with building consent
317(1) da Failed to supply certificate / record of work
-
Summary:
The homeowners made a complaint about the workmanship on their new 2-storey dwelling. A Council site inspection report set out the instances of unsatisfactory building work and building work which was not in accordance with the building consent.
After determining the Respondent’s role on this project, the question for the Board was whether the Respondent’s supervision of the building work was negligent or incompetent. This required a determination of 2 issues – had the Respondent departed from an acceptable standard, and, if so, was that departure serious enough to warrant a disciplinary finding.
The further issue before the Board was whether the work the Respondent supervised had been carried out in a manner contrary to the building consent. To determine this issue, the Board has only to find that building work departed from the building consent and does not have to consider if that departure was deliberate or negligent. However, the seriousness of the conduct under investigation does have to be taken into account.
In addition, the Respondent did not provide a record of work to the Complainant or the Territorial Authority. He provided it to the main contractor instead. The question for the Board was whether the Respondent had failed to provide a record of work on the completion of restricted building work. There were 2 issues that had to be determined. Firstly, was the Respondent’s restricted building work complete and, secondly, if it was, did the provision of the record of work to the main contractor constitute a good reason not to provide the record of work.
The Board investigated the issues and decided that the Respondent had been negligent in his supervision of the building work and that the building work was not in accordance with the building consent. The Board also found that the Respondent’s restricted building work was complete and that provision of the record of work to the main contractor did not fulfil his statutory obligations and therefore was not a good reason to withhold the record of work.
The Board decided that the Respondent would be fined $2,500 and ordered to pay costs of $1,500.
Download full report
PDF (320 KB)
