Penalties given to LBPs

The Building Practitioners Board has handed down more sanctions in the face of negligent and incompetent work. Four Carpentry LBPs have now been penalised after displaying a lack of care and compliance in their work. The Board has publicised details of these matters due to their seriousness and the possible learnings for other LBPs

A matter of liability

Peter Van Der Sluis (C2-01572) was found to have carried out building work in an incompetent manner, as well as failing to comply with building consents and provide a Record of Work. His building work on an addition to a residential dwelling under building consent failed a number of building consent authority inspections.

Concrete foundations were poured incorrectly under his supervision, which led to a height difference in the foundations. The plasterboard installation was also executed incorrectly under his supervision.

Submissions in defence of Mr Van Der Sluis highlighted that he was hired on a labour-only basis, and that the Complainant was in charge of “site-issues” under the contract, making them liable for subcontractor work. The Board responded saying that an LBP is not absolved of their responsibilities when operating under a labour-only contract.

Mr Van Der Sluis was ordered to pay a fine of $2,500 and further $2,500 towards the costs of the Board’s inquiry.

Failure to follow correct process

Andrew Musson (C2—1749) was found to have carried out work in an incompetent manner that did not comply with a building consent. He also failed to provide a Record of Work and was judged to have brought the LBP scheme into disrepute.

Mr Musson was responsible for the poor installation of a rigid air barrier. Foundations designed by an engineer were altered when three structural piles were removed and a product substitution was made – all without consultation with the Building Consent Authority (BCA) – and without following the correct amendment process.

The Board censured Mr Musson and ordered him to pay $2,000 towards the cost of the Board’s inquiry on top of a $4,000 fine.

Absence of supervision

Ashok Maharaj (C2-01621) was found to have carried out building work in a negligent manner and failed to comply with a building consent. As a supervisor, he did not ensure that trusses were installed correctly, and failed to supervise the remediation.

Because the truss defect was not identified before the roof was installed, major work will be required to fix it.

The board noted that errors like this can occur during building operations and it does not always mean an LBP has been negligent. However, the effect of the deficient truss installation was serious enough to warrant disciplinary action in light of Mr Maharaj’s poor supervision.

Mr Maharaj’s licence has been suspended for six months and he has been ordered to pay $3,000 in costs towards the inquiry.

Licence abused

Rizvan Saheb (C2-01698) was found to have carried out his work incompetently and failed to provide a Record of Work on the completion of Restricted Building Work. He also acted in such a way as to bring the LBP scheme into disrepute.

The Board discovered Mr Saheb was supervising the work of an unlicensed person and the building work had several identifiable defects. There was no evidence Mr Saheb carried out any of the required supervisory activities that could have prevented such mistakes.

It was noted that Mr Saheb effectively allowed his licence to be used by others to carry out restricted work without supervising them. This was viewed by the Board as bringing the regime into disrepute.

His licence has been cancelled and he cannot reapply for 12 months. A $3,000 fine for costs has also been ordered.

Learning points

The mistakes of these LBPs offer an insight into appropriate ways to operate in the face of construction issues, as well as the responsibilities of supervisors:

• A disciplinary outcome is likely when a failing is significant or where the LBP is aware of an issue and does not take remedial action.
• When entering arrangements such as labour-only contracts, an LBP could still face disciplinary action for supervising others who carry out substandard work.
• Supervising should not involve “renting” out your LBP number. Supervising is a responsibility that should be taken seriously, because the LBP is accountable for making sure those doing the work have the support to do it correctly.
• Although defects can happen during the construction process, they should be noted and fixed as part of onsite quality insurance.
• Relying on the building consent authority to catch issues is not the right way of making sure building work is completed properly
• Supervision resources are easy to access. MBIE produced a Supervision practice note to read if you are unfamiliar with supervising. The practice note is available to read here on the MBIE website.