First LBP licence cancellation

The Building Practitioner’s Board cancels LBP’s licence for ‘carrying out building work in an incompetent manner’.

Nearly six years after the Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) scheme was created, and almost two years after Restricted Building Work (RBW) came into effect, an LBP has gone through the complaints process and had both his licences cancelled as a result.

The respondent, whose name cannot be published, is the first practitioner to have his licence cancelled. While a number of LBPs have had their licences suspended – mostly voluntarily or due to not renewing them in time – this is the first instance where a complaint has been upheld and resulted in a licence cancellation.

The LBP in question (who we will refer to as Mr X) was contracted to build a deck of approximately 24 m2. Construction, which commenced on 7 September 2011, continued until about 30 October 2011. However, Mr X only acquired his Site (Area of Practice 1) licence on 26 September 2011, and his Design (area of Practice 2) licence on 18 October of the same year.On 22 November 2011, the person who contracted Mr X to carry out the deck work (who we will call Ms Y) lodged a complaint with the Building Practitioners’ Board (the Board). At this time the deck was still incomplete.

“While a number of LBPs have had their licenses suspended, this is the first instance where a complaint has been up held and resulted in a license cancellation

Ms Y complained about three issues – using second-hand and old timber when the builder quoted new timber, not carrying out work in accordance with his quotation and substandard quality of work. The first two complaints are contractual matters and therefore not relevant ground for the Board to consider a complaint.

However, the third issue – substandard quality of work completed by an LBP – was relevant and, after being reviewed by the Registrar, was passed onto the Board for review.

The report was carried out by William Hursthouse, the special investigator for the Board.

The investigator looked into the following concerns regarding the quality of the building work:

1)    The stringer or ribbon board was fixed directly to the house cladding and not packed off the recommended 12mm to provide free drainage, which could result in premature deterioration of the cladding.

2)   Parts of the structure wereinadequate:

• Bolts were rusting.
• Structural members were not in contact with each other at joints to provide load transfer.
• Inadequate-sized round washers had been used causing crushing of timber.
• Bearers were not bolted to posts.

3)   There were significant gaps between bearers and joists, which would result in sagging because the joists were not adequately supported.

4)    Posts were not in line or parallel to the edge of the deck.

5)    The spans of some beams were beyond the maximums recommended in NZS 3604:2011.

6)   Some foundations did not appear to have been dug to solid ground.

Complaint’s response:

When the Board questioned Mr X about these issues, he said he was planning to remedy some of the issues when he returned to complete the work, but also admitted that he was quite unaware of several Building Code requirements and that he relied heavily on the building consent authority’s review of his designs to ensure they were compliant.

Given building a deck is considered low-risk work, and therefore does not require a building consent, no one reviewed his design and he said he was unaware of the compliance requirements when building work did not require a building consent.

The building work was carried out by Mr X with the assistance of others. While Mr X does not, and did not, hold a Carpentry licence, he does not need to as building a deck is not Restricted Building Work. Nonetheless, as the holder of a Site licence, the LBP Rules state that he had a responsibility to oversee the work and “apply technical knowledge of construction methods and practice”, as well as to “supervise personnel at the worksite”. He was also required to “supervise the installation of all structural elements”.

After considering the submissions by Mr X, Ms Y, the Registrar and the special investigator’s report, the Board found the following:

“Given the poor quality of the construction work identified by the evidence, failure to meet the requirements of E2/AS1 and NZS 3604:2011, and failure to ensure adequate structural connection between members to achieve load transfer, Mr X demonstrated a lack of ability and the skills reasonably expected of a Licensed Building Practitioner to carry out the work. Hence the charge that he “has carried out or supervised building in an incompetent manner” has been proved to the Board’s satisfaction.”

As a result, the Board reserved the right make a decision regarding Mr X’s disciplinary penalty. In this case, the Board decided that given the fact he built a deck despite being unaware of both basic and critical requirements for such work, it was necessary to cancel both his licences. He was also fined $1,500 to go towards the costs of, and incidental to, the inquiry of the Board. However, considering the work was carried out almost two years prior, and his likely gains in experience and competence since, he was allowed to reapply within a relatively short time period.

Important points

• This decision serves as a reminder that all building work must comply with the Building Code even if a consent is not required.
• Any building or building inspection work you carry out can be subject to a complaint to the Building Practitioners Board – even something as simple as a low deck.
• The Building Practioner’s Board did not address the complainant’s other concerns – using second-hand and old timber when he quoted new timber and not carrying out work in accordance with his quotation – which refer to contractual matters and are not relevant grounds for the Board to consider a complaint.