Complaint Decision – September 2024
A complaint was made against DAVID DRIVER who is licensed in the veneer and structural masonry areas of practice in the Brick and Blocklaying licence class. The complaint was in relation to a deck and retaining wall that he built.
David Driver
The complaint was that he carried out work incompetently and had breached s314B of the Building Act, which requires a licensed building practitioner to only carry out or supervise building work within his or her competence. The Board also investigated the quality and compliance of the deck, whether a building consent was required for the deck and the retaining wall.
Mr. Driver responded to the complaint initially saying that the work was not restricted building work (RBW) although he did not elaborate on the relevance of this submission. When he did not respond to an invitation to a pre-hearing conference, it was found that he had left the country and not returned at that time.
The investigation found several issues with the deck Mr Driver had built, including the use of 50x50mm and 75x25mm landscaping pegs and 100x75mm fence posts in place of 125x125mm H5 treated piles, undersized bearers with unsupported joins, a completely unsupported corner of the deck relying on a 100x50 joist cantilevering 720mm which is already sagging and at risk of collapse, sub-floor framing supported by the underlying ground itself in places, the Kwila decking timber was installed tight rather than the recommended 4 to 6mm ventilation gaps, along with a number of other structural and workmanship issues.
The 1.7m high timber retaining wall appeared to have no drainage behind it, which could lead to collapse due to water build-up. The wall was also supporting the neighbour’s concrete wall. Given the height of the wall and the surcharge, the wall should have been specifically designed and have a building consent for its construction.
The Board found that Mr Driver has been both negligent and incompetent in his carpentry work, and he carried out building work that was outside of his competence. He is ordered to pay a fine of $3500 and costs of $1750, will have this decision recorded on the public Register for a period of three years, and is to be named in this summary.
The full board decision can be seen on our website under the keyword CB26363.