Ranjay Singh (CB25168)

Mr Singh was found to have:

• carried out or supervised building work or building inspection work in a negligent or incompetent manner;
• carried out or supervised building work or building inspection work that did not comply with a building consent;
• failed, without good reason, to provide a record of work, on completion of restricted building work.

In making its’ decision, the Board found Mr Singh had departed from what the Board considered to be an acceptable standard of conduct. Further, he had failed to display the skills of a licensed building practitioner.

While on-site, Mr Singh was ignorant of the building consent failures that were occurring.

The on-site issues would have been patently obvious to an LBP and immediate action should have been taken, as some matters posed an immediate risk to the health and safety of others. In failing to take any action to remedy the issues, Mr Singh allowed the build to continue and issues to accumulate and compound.

Council inspection records noted that there was an accumulation of matters that required minor variations. Additionally, and more importantly from the perspective of Mr Singh’s conduct, the Council inspections records indicate that there was extensive building work that had been completed under his supervision, which did not comply with the building consent.

The Board commented in its’ decision that the offending was aggravated by Mr Singh’s claim that the work was incomplete or that it would be remediated. The issues noted should have either not arisen in the first place or have been dealt with as and when they arose.

Mr Singh was also reminded by the Board that the onus is on the licensed building practitioner to provide a record of work, not on the owner or territorial authority to demand one.

Mr Singh failed to understand that as a Licensed Building Practitioner, he is responsible for his work as well as the work of those under his supervision. He has shown little if any understanding of the licensing regime under which he carried out restricted building work.

The Board found that Mr Singh’s conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary outcome.

On 20 August 2020, Mr Singh’s licence was cancelled by the Board for a period of three months.

In making their decision to impose penalties, the Board considered submissions from Mr Singh. Specifically, that Mr Singh had taken actions to review ongoing work and would learn from the outcome of the disciplinary hearings. The Board also acknowledged that Mr Singh is taking action to improve his knowledge and skills, specifically that he has made arrangements to be mentored and to be assisted by another licensed building practitioner and an engineer.

The Board considered that cancellation of Mr Singh’s licence was still warranted, and that his competency to carry out restricted building work must be assessed before he could carry out or supervise restricted building work.

The period of cancellation was reduced from an initial determined period of six months to a period of three months.

Mr Singh was not prohibited from continuing to undertake unrestricted building work, or undertaking restricted work under supervision.

Mr Singh was also required to pay $3,500 towards the costs of the inquiry.

What we can learn from these decisions

Understanding your regulatory obligations is essential and has been highlighted by this complaint. The Board’s decision shows that a failure to meet the required skill and knowledge of an LBP is considered to be a serious matter. An LBP is responsible for not just their work, but for the work of those under their supervision. For Mr Singh, the level of his incompetence was deemed to be serious enough to result in the cancellation of his licence.

These decisions and other past decisions can be read in full on the LBP website