Two LBPs have licences cancelled

Two Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) can expect to have their names added to Santa Claus’ naughty list after the Building Practitioners Board found them guilty of serious offences in separate cases

A Christchurch-based LBP (Builder 1) had his licence cancelled after constructing habitable structures that contravened several parts of the Building Code on a vacant section he owned.

The buildings he erected did not meet the Building Code in terms of structural integrity, amenity or sanitation. In its decision, the Board referred to a High Court decision and stated:

“The Board considers the Court was envisaging that those who are in an integral positon as regards to building work, such as a Licensed Building Practitioner, have a duty to ensure a building consent is obtained (if required). It follows that failing to do so can fall below the standards of care expected of a LBP.

“The LBP has been found to have committed three offences, all of which are very serious. Moreover, there was a continuing pattern of conduct and a flagrant disregard for the requirements of the Building Act, and contempt for the Council and the Court’s processes when they took action.”

He was ordered to pay costs of $1,500 for what the Board considered a cavalier attitude toward Building Code compliance.

Big city blues

An Auckland LBP (Builder 2) also had his licence cancelled and was ordered to pay $2,000 for making a number of building-related errors disproportionate to what would be expected of someone holding his licence class.

The Board found that his errors demonstrated a general lack of understanding and knowledge of the regulatory system, the Building Code and applicable technical standards.

The complainant, Auckland Council, noted that the work subject to the complaint failed multiple building inspections. The building consent allowed 12 inspections to be undertaken over the course of the consent; however, 28 were booked.

Most of the failed inspections related to the weathertightness of the building’s external envelope. In relation to the compliance of the work undertaken by Builder 2, the Board stated:

‘The evidence provided to the Board showed clear instances of building work that had been carried out in a negligent manner, and the failings were sufficiently serious enough to warrant a disciplinary outcome. The failure to deal with weather tightness in the correct manner was particularly concerning to the Board.

“Ensuring weathertightness in buildings was one of the reasons why the LBP regime was brought into being.”

LBPs should not treat the building consent authority as their quality assurer, compliance verifier or overseer.

Regularly failing inspections is not a good look and LBPs might have to explain why the work they undertook or supervised did not pass a building consent authority’s inspection process.

Key points to take from these decisions

The above cases demonstrate that the Board will hold LBPs to account where they fail to meet the standards expected of them. They also highlight that a reasonable level of care, attention to detail and respect for the rules are required when carrying out building work, to ensure a quality finished product.

Consistently undertaking building work in a non-compliant manner is not a responsible, lawful, or acceptable position to take.

Knowingly undertaking building work that requires a building consent without obtaining one is viewed as a serious offence.