Three strikes in less than three years for Auckland LBP  

A licensed building practitioner holding a carpentry licence has had his LBP licence cancelled after being found guilty of several disciplinary offences on three separate occasions over the past two years  

Three separate Building Practitioners Board decisions involving Auckland carpenter Craig O’Brien have resulted in fines, costs and the cancellation of his licence following findings of negligent building work and non-compliance with a building consent. 

The most recent decision – released in January 2026 – resulted in O’Brien’s licence being cancelled following findings that he carried out building work in a negligent manner and contrary to a building consent on a residential dwelling after he changed the design for a pile foundation by adding additional piles, without following any consent process. 

In its penalty decision, the Board ordered that O’Brien’s licence be cancelled and that he not be able to apply for relicensing for three months. He was also ordered to pay $2,350 in costs associated with the proceeding. 

The Board stated that the offending related to work that did not meet acceptable construction standards and did not comply with the approved consent documentation. 

Earlier decision – negligent and non-compliant building work 

One of the earlier decisions, issued in October 2025, related to work carried out on a residential dwelling. 

The Board investigated allegations that O’Brien had carried out or supervised restricted building work in a negligent or incompetent manner and had undertaken work that did not comply with the building consent. 

After reviewing engineering evidence, council documentation and other material, the Board found O’Brien had committed disciplinary offences under sections 317(1)(b) and 317(1)(d) of the Building Act 2004. 

In its written decision, the Board said the work did not meet required standards. 

“The failings were serious,” wrote Presiding LBP Board Member Mr. Orange.  

“The manner in which the foundation poles were installed had repercussions on the rest of the build. As a result of the Respondent’s (O’Brien) negligent work on the poles, the floor levels were out of tolerance, and remedial work was required.  

“Remedial work was also required on the poles themselves, with lateral braces having to be installed to ensure the building structure load would be transferred to the ground. Missing subfloor fixings compromised the integrity of the building, which had progressed well beyond the subfloor. One pole was not installed with a foundation posthole depth in accordance with the approved building consent. The building as a whole was structurally compromised because of the Respondent’s failings.  

“The reality of the situation is that the Respondent should have rectified the issues with the poles before proceeding with any further building work. He did not, and the issues created compounded.” 

The Board imposed a fine of $4,500 and ordered O’Brien to pay $7,850 in costs. It also directed that a record of the disciplinary offending be recorded on the Public Register for three years. 

The Board did not uphold allegations that O’Brien failed to provide a Record of Work or breached the Licensed Building Practitioners Code of Ethics. 

First complaint – separate disciplinary finding 

An earlier complaint relating to O’Brien was also considered by the Board in a separate decision during 2024. 

That case examined allegations that O’Brien breached the LBP Code of Ethics after O’Brien entered a fixed-price contract to build a new residential dwelling. The build took longer than agreed, and O’Brien claimed cost fluctuations without substantiating the amounts sought or following the contractual process. 

“There was no evidence that the specified process had been used, and notwithstanding, the Respondent sought payment for cost fluctuations. When challenged about those fluctuations, he failed to provide any evidence to substantiate them,” said the Board. 

Furthermore, O’Brien entered into an agreement to repay $131,000 that he’d been paid, but which he had not spent on the build. At the time of the Board decision, he had not complied with the agreement.

The Board found that O’Brien’s conduct was serious. “There was a pattern… of disingenuous conduct in relation to financial matters. The Respondent claimed cost fluctuations without substantiating them and potentially used funds he was not entitled to for his own benefit. 

“He also agreed to repay funds he was not entitled to but did not make payments. Cumulatively, the conduct was serious.” 

After considering the circumstances of the complaint, the Board determined that a formal censure and costs order were appropriate. 

As a consequence, the Board found O’Brien had breached the Code of Ethics and was ordered to pay costs of $1,700 towards the costs of the Board inquiry.