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

Codewords 106: April 2022

The Board viewed a wide range of evidence in relation to the case, including photos and videos of the work, a Television NZ article, and even an episode of the TV show ‘Fair Go’. The hearing was undertaken ‘on the papers’ (ie, entirely on written submissions), and the initial draft decision was issued to the Complainant and Hartnett (the Respondent) seeking further submissions. The Complainants responded with further submissions, Hartnett did not.

The disciplinary offences under consideration

Under section 317 Building Act 2004(external link)

The Board resolved to investigate Hartnett’s conduct in respect of carrying out or supervising building work in a negligent or incompetent manner and conduct likely to bring the regime into disrepute.

There was also an additional issue around the need for a building consent for the work. Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 (work not requiring a building consent) allows for the comparable replacement of a component or assembly. When replacing metal tiles with long run roofing, the fixing and support methods are very different, even though the weight may be similar. This means the question of whether it would be a ‘comparable’ replacement should have been further explored. There was no evidence provided to show that Hartnett had made inquiries about whether building consent was required, nor had he given the Complainant advice that inquiries should be made with the local building consent authority (BCA).

The evidence

Hartnett was engaged to install a replacement roof. The original decramastic tile roof which had been badly damaged in a storm, was to be replaced with long run steel. The work was not carried out under a building consent.

The work was started by Hartnett, but not finished, and the complainants raised workmanship issues regarding the work carried out. They contacted the Roofing Association of New Zealand (RANZ), and CEO, Graham Moor, stated that the work he saw was “well short of good trade practice and that there are compliance issues apparent as well”. 

The remedial roofer also provided a report which noted issues such as:

• excessively scratched and dented roofing
• no transition flashings at the change of pitch
• purlins installed at the bottom row and at the ridge and hips, but not in-between and without valley purlins
• the iron was laid over, and fixed to, the original tile battens and underlay. Some new underlay had been installed
• poorly finished ridging junctions
• appalling sheeting at the chimney, with silicon used to prevent water ingress
• damage to the roof was apparent due to the difference in thickness of the purlins and the tile battens
• incorrect fixings had been used.

The report ended with “This roof has been left unrepairable & requires replacing. In my opinion the contractor engaged to carry out the replacement of roof and gutter has little knowledge of roofing & should discontinue his services”

A health and safety issue was also found in that there were no fall protection measures supplied, such as edge protection or scaffolding, and images supplied to the Board showed Hartnett standing on the roof with no means of protecting him from a fall. The Fair Go video clip also showed him on the edge of the roof with no means of protection or restraint being used.

Submissions to the Interim Draft Report

The complainant brought further matters to the Board’s attention, namely that no contract had been provided for the work, which was over the threshold for disclosure information and provision of a contract. There was also the alleged misappropriation of funds, and misleading information given to the Complainants with regard to the use of the funds provided.

The Board searched the Insolvency Register and found that Hartnett was adjudicated bankrupt in late 2019 and he remains bankrupt, as well as being a sickness beneficiary. Under the Insolvency Act 2006, a bankrupt must inform the Assignee of income and expenses including any funds obtained over $1,300, and that it is an offence to obtain credit of more than $1,000.

The Complainants noted that, when they inquired at the roofing supplier, the flashings had been ordered but would not be made until they were paid for. Hartnett said that all materials were paid for, and he was waiting for them to be made.

Penalty, costs, and publication

As no further submissions were received from Hartnett, the Board confirmed that his licence is cancelled and cannot be re-applied for before the expiry of 6 months, and he was ordered to pay $500 towards the costs, and incidental to, the Board’s inquiry. The Registrar is also to record the Board’s action in the Register of Licensed Building Practitioners, and, in addition, the Board’s action will be publicly notified.

The full report, including photos, can be read on the Complaints and past decisions page.

Hartnett [2021] BPB CB25691 – Finalised Reissued Draft Decision

Quiz

1. Where would you find the grounds for discipline of LBPs?
   1. In the Licensed Building Practitioner Rules
   2. Under clause E2 of the Building Code
   3. Section 317 of the Building Act 2004
   4. On the back of your licence card
2. If a Building Consent was necessary, would this have been restricted building work (RBW)?
   1. No, it was only replacing a ‘like for like’ component or assembly
   2. Yes, if work on the structure or weathertightness envelope is carried out under a building consent, then it is RBW
3. When can Hartnett apply for his licence again?
   1. Six months after it was cancelled
   2. Two years after it was cancelled
   3. 2027
   4. Immediately after it was cancelled