Decision of the Building Practitioners Board in Respect of the Conduct of a Licensed Building Practitioner

Codewords 104: December 2021

Decision of the Building Practitioners Board in Respect of the Conduct of a Licensed Building Practitioner

Ronald Van der Plas’ licence was cancelled, and he was ordered to pay $3,500 (GST included) towards the costs of the inquiry of the Board. He may not apply to be relicensed for a period of six months

The Board has chosen to publish these details due to in a manner that was contrary to a building consent, for failing to provide a record of work, and for bringing the regime into disrepute.

Under section 318(5) of the Building Act, the Board is able to notify the public of any disciplinary action it takes, which it does so to uphold the integrity of the profession. The focus is not punishment, but the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence and the enforcement of high standards of propriety and professional conduct.

The evidence

Van der Plas was the Licensed Building Practitioner engaged to carry out or supervise an alteration and addition to a dwelling under a building consent – work which included restricted building work.

The relationship between the client and builder deteriorated to such an extent that Van der Plas left the site and would not return unless a new contract was signed. This came about due to Van der Plas putting his company into liquidation one month after the build started but continuing to invoice as if his company was still operating. These invoices contained the bank account details of another entity, indicating that a deliberate deception was being perpetrated.

The client refused to sign and terminated their agreement.

Another builder was contracted to complete the works. This builder carried out a close inspection and found the following serious construction issues:

• The garage slab was laid to the incorrect level, and the location of the new building in relation to the existing house was incorrect.
• The window rebates in the slab were incorrectly positioned.
• Beams incorrectly installed and fixed.
• Trusses not landing on their support, and others cut to suit the walls which were up to 25mm out of plumb and square.
• Truss fixing hardware not installed, or was modified to suit.
• Trusses installed to uneven height, and folded plastic DPC was used to pack the purlins to height – sometimes up to 25mm.
• Ceiling battens installed before the roof – the battens had to be replaced due to damage caused by exposure to the weather.

A summary of the observations made by the Engineer for the build was also provided to the Board. This highlighted at least three of the seven site visits in relation to the footings and slab had failed inspection over a 12 week period.

None of the construction staff were licensed, and Van der Plas only visited site three times during the work, and did not attend any BCA or Engineer inspections. Of note is that Van der Plas lived about 450km from the site.

In addition, Van der Plas had not provided a record of work to the client or building consent authority covering the restricted building work carried out to date.

The Board’s conclusion

The Board found that Van der Plas supervised building work in a negligent or incompetent manner and which was also contrary to the building consent, and that he failed to provide a record of work (ROW)

The Board also found that Van der Plas conducted himself in a manner that brings, or is likely to bring, the regime into disrepute through managing his financial affairs in an unethical manner. He failed to account for the client’s deposit, and continued to operate as though his company was still operating after its liquidation.