A genuine licence, but no connection to the builder: false supervision case sounds a warning as New Zealand eases building inspections

A genuine building practitioner’s licence appeared in inspection documents for an Auckland residential project. Yet the licence holder had neither taken part in the work nor even known that someone else was using his licence.

According to Stuff, Auckland construction worker Angelo Madut was fined NZ$8000 by the Manukau District Court, and ordered to pay court costs, for carrying out foundation work without the required licence or supervision by a qualified person.

The case comes as the New Zealand Government advances building self-certification reforms intended to reduce some council inspections and give eligible construction businesses and tradespeople greater responsibility. This makes the case particularly relevant: as oversight increasingly relies on practitioners’ qualifications and integrity, how can we confirm that the person signing off the work actually took part in it?

The licence holder had never been involved in the project

Madut had already begun foundation work for an Auckland residential development before obtaining a Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) licence.

Foundation work is Restricted Building Work, which by law must be carried out or supervised by a practitioner licensed in the relevant category.

During an inspection, Madut told inspectors that another licensed practitioner was supervising the work and presented a copy of that person’s licence.

On paper, the work appeared to have qualified oversight. But an MBIE investigation found that the licence holder had never been involved in the project and had not agreed to Madut using his licence.

The court ultimately found that Madut had carried out restricted building work without the appropriate licence or qualified supervision, and had knowingly made false or misleading statements.

What distinguishes this case is that the licence itself was genuine. The real problem was that its holder had no connection to the work being carried out.

Why must foundation work be the responsibility of a licensed practitioner?

Foundations are the starting point for a home’s structural safety, and many aspects of this work are difficult to inspect again once subsequent construction is complete.

Reinforcement placement, foundation dimensions, construction depth and concrete pours may be concealed by backfilling and later work. The legal requirement for this work to be carried out or supervised by someone with the appropriate qualifications is therefore about ensuring professional accountability at critical stages, rather than simply adding another signature.

Even though Madut later obtained the relevant licence, that does not change the fact that he lacked the required qualifications and qualified supervision when the work in question was carried out.

Nor should ‘supervision’ simply mean lending someone a name or signing documents after the event. Licence holders need to understand the work, guide its execution and accept the corresponding responsibility for the work under their charge.

New Zealand is reducing some building inspections

Over the past year or more, the New Zealand Government has been pushing ahead with building self-certification reforms.

The Government’s rationale is that even a structurally simple, single-storey home may require around 12 inspections. During busy periods, builders may have to wait several days for council staff to attend, disrupting construction schedules and adding to owners’ costs.

The Government wants reputable, experienced construction businesses and tradespeople who meet strict criteria to self-certify some simple, low-risk work, while allowing Building Consent Authorities to focus their resources on complex and high-risk projects.

However, the reform is being introduced in stages, rather than implemented in full all at once as some reports in 2025 suggested.

Legislation for the plumbers’ and drainlayers’ self-certification scheme has now been passed, with the relevant amendments taking effect on 30 June 2026. Eligible practitioners are expected to be able to apply for certification status by the end of 2026, allowing them to sign off some routine, low-risk work themselves and reduce council site inspections.

As for reforms allowing eligible residential construction businesses to self-certify the design and construction of entire homes, these had still not formally taken effect as of August 2026, and the Government had not announced a firm start date. MBIE currently says it is still considering how to proceed.

It is therefore too early to say that New Zealand builders can already approve entire homes themselves. But the direction of reform is clear: reducing reliance on council checks at each stage and giving more responsibility to vetted practitioners and construction businesses.

Self-certification does not mean having the final say

Self-certification can create the impression that practitioners may carry out the work, inspect it themselves and then declare it compliant.

In practice, taking the already legislated plumbers’ and drainlayers’ scheme as an example, applicants must meet requirements covering technical competence, liability insurance and business management. Once work is complete, they must also submit documentation such as certificates of compliance, test results, site photographs and as-built drawings.

The relevant certificates will be entered in a public register and may be audited by the regulator. Practitioners who breach the rules may still face investigation, disciplinary action or even legal proceedings.

In other words, the reform does not remove oversight entirely. It replaces some on-site checks before sign-off with practitioner certification, retained evidence and subsequent audits.

The issue is that the system must first be able to confirm that licences and certification credentials have not been misused, that those signing off the work actually participated in its construction, and that a clearly accountable person can be identified if problems arise.

The Madut case exposes a potential gap in precisely this fundamental safeguard.

A council inspection does not mean continuous oversight

Many homeowners believe that if the council has visited the site, or the home ultimately receives a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC), every construction process must have been comprehensively verified.

Council inspections are certainly an important compliance safeguard, but inspectors cannot remain on site throughout construction. Inspections usually focus on particular stages and do not automatically prove that the person whose licence was submitted actually carried out or supervised all the preceding work.

In the Madut case, a genuine licence was used for a time to create the impression that a qualified person was supervising the work. Without MBIE’s further investigation, an ordinary homeowner would have struggled to establish from the documents alone that the licence holder and the person carrying out the work were different people.

As council site inspections are reduced for some low-risk work, construction photographs, test records, public registers, identity verification and random audits will only become more important.

MBIE advises homeowners to check a practitioner’s licence status and category through the LBP Public Register before engaging them for restricted building work.

However, simply confirming that a licence number exists is not enough. Homeowners should also establish who is responsible for carrying out the work, who is supervising on site, and whether the names and scope of work on the Record of Work match what is happening on site.

For important stages such as foundations, structural work and waterproofing, homeowners should also retain contracts, construction photographs, inspection records and communications between the parties. Where necessary, they can consider engaging an independent professional to inspect the work.

Observations and reflections

New Zealand’s building reforms need to balance efficiency and quality. Giving reputable practitioners more responsibility for certification can reduce waiting times and allow councils to focus oversight on high-risk projects. But with fewer inspections, the system will depend more heavily on practitioners’ integrity and effective accountability.

Madut was fined NZ$8000. Whether that is a sufficient deterrent compared with the value of a home is worth discussing. However, without the full judgment, it would also be wrong to simply conclude that the penalty was too lenient.

Self-certification can speed up housebuilding, but it must not weaken accountability. The Government must make things easier for practitioners who follow the rules while promptly detecting licence misuse and false claims of supervision. Approval processes can be simplified, but housing quality and homeowners’ rights must not suffer as a result.