Board conduct decision — David Jaquiery

Find out about the Board's decision following a complaint against licensed building practitioner (LBP) David Jaquiery.

Codewords 110: December 2022

Article is relevant to LBP licence classes: All

Earlier this year the Building Practitioners Board held a hearing following a complaint against licensed building practitioner (LBP) David Jaquiery.

Following a complaint, the Board decided to investigate:

  • whether the LBP had carried out or inspected work negligently
  • whether the work did not comply with a building consent.

Both of these are grounds for discipline under s317 of the Building Act.

The Board gave notice that they would also investigate:

  • whether the LBP carried out work before a building consent was issued
  • an alleged failure to have building inspections carried out.

The Board also looked at:

  • non-compliance issues set out in Site Notices and Reports
  • Notices to Fix and Stop Work that were issued
  • any further issues raised by the Special Advisor to the Board.


David Jaquiery is licensed in 4 licence classes:

  • Carpentry
  • Site AOP 2
  • Design AOP 3
  • areas of practice within the roofing class (including the Roof Membrane, Torch-on Roof Membrane, Liquid Membrane, Shingle or Slate, and the Profiled Metal Roof and/or Wall Cladding areas of practice).


Jaquiery was engaged by the body corporate of a 5-storey multi-unit building to prepare a proposal for, and then carry out, remedial works.

This work included:

  • the waterproofing of the existing membrane flat roofs
  • concrete nib walls
  • exterior plastered cavity wall systems
  • deck membranes with new balustrades
  • replacing most of the exterior joinery

He applied for building consent early in January 2020. After several requests for more information, a consent was granted on 1 July 2020. There were 9 required council inspections listed in the consent.


The Special Advisor found that restricted building work (RBW) was carried out before the building consent was issued.

Jaquiery did not agree with the extent of that work listed in the Advisor’s report but did state:

“The work progress on the 13th of July was about 50% of the contract works was done."

Jaquiery put forward 5 justifications for starting work before the building consent was issued. The Board did not accept any of these.

The first council inspection was carried out on 13 July 2020. It was found that none of the required inspections up to that time had been carried out. Jaquiery stated that these requirements “made him laugh” as many of them were not needed.

Three more site notices were issued, each noting that:

  • no council inspections had taken place
  • no further work was to be carried out.

A Notice to Fix was issued in late September 2020. Work continued to be carried out during that time.

The Special Advisor found 4 instances of work not completed in accordance with the consented drawings:

  • membrane from the deck had been taken up over the cladding preventing moisture in the cavity from escape
  • upstands to joinery were insufficient
  • the gap between the cladding and deck was insufficient
  • scupper sizes did not comply with E2.

A further issue of ponding on the decks which suggested they did not have the minimum falls required by the Building Code was not able to be proven from the photographic and documented evidence used for his report.

Jaquiery’s responses to all the issues raised was consistent  the job was not yet complete, or what he had done was acceptable unless the council required more, in which case he would do what they required.

The Board noted that Jaquiery’s prevailing attitude was that he could undertake the work and then concern himself with compliance issues only if the council picked it up during their inspections. This 'mop up' approach is unacceptable and contrary to the statutory process and purpose of the Act.

The Board's conclusion

The Board decided that Jaquiery has carried out or supervised building work:

  • in a negligent manner
  • that does not comply with the building consent.

Jaquiery was ordered to pay both:

  • a fine of $4,500
  • costs of $8,000

It was also decided that the Board’s action was to be recorded on the Register of Licensed Building Practitioners as well as being publicly notified.

More information

Read the full board decision at Jaquiery [2022] BPB CB25632 – Substantive Decision

Read the effects of a disciplinary decision like this by searching for Jacquiery's listing on the LBP public register.