Section two: Increasing inspection capacity through the use of Accredited Organisations (Building)
On this page
This section seeks general feedback on increasing the use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections.
Many building consent authorities already use private organisations to undertake consent processing on their behalf, including organisations that have gained accreditation under the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006[1]. Some building consent authorities also contract private organisations to carry out inspections, including remote inspections.
Some submitters on the Review of the Building Consent System suggested private companies should be more easily enabled to process consents or conduct inspections, provided they are qualified and have insurance. There is scope for building consent authorities to make more use of Accredited Organisations (Building) to carry out inspections on their behalf.
Alternatively, the Building Act could be amended to effectively enable owners (for example, developers) to directly engage Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections.
Currently, when applying for a building consent, the owner or their agent may propose some checks of the building work to be carried out by specialists engaged directly by the owner, such as chartered professional engineers. However, it is not current practice for an owner to directly engage third party specialists to carry out scheduled inspections that would usually be done by a building consent authority[2].
Accredited Organisations (Building) are already required to meet the same criteria and standards as a building consent authority and are subject to regular audits. However, there are a number of issues that would need to be addressed to effectively enable owners to engage them directly. These issues and potential mitigations are set out below.
Potential mitigations to enable owners to contract Accredited Organisations (Building) to carry out inspections
- Issue: Building consent authorities may not be confident to issue code compliance certificates on the basis of third-party inspections.
Mitigation: Building consent authorities would need to be able to rely on the inspection reports provided by Accredited Organisations (Building). The form and content of these reports would likely need to be prescribed.
- Issue: Building consent authorities may be concerned about being held liable due to the negligence of another party.
Mitigation: The building consent authority could be protected from liability if it relied on third party inspection reports in good faith.
Accredited Organisations (Building) would need to pass an adequate means assessment to ensure they can cover any civil liabilities that arise in relation to inspections undertaken. This requirement would likely increase costs to the Accredited Organisation (Building), which would likely be passed on to the consumer.
- Issue: Third-party inspectors may not report on issues that are not directly relevant to the scheduled inspection.
Mitigation: Mandatory disclosure requirements could be placed on Accredited Organisations (Building) to inform building consent authorities of any concerns or compliance issues they notice during an inspection.
- Issue: Oversight of the build may be reduced if inspections are carried out by multiple entities.
Mitigation: Limits could be placed on the number of inspectors or Accredited Organisations (Building) that can be engaged during a project to ensure continuity and consistency across the inspection schedule.
Question 22: What are the benefits, costs, and risks of building consent authorities contracting more Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections?
Question 23: What are the main barriers to building consent authorities contracting Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections? How could these be addressed?
Question 24: Do you think that owners should be able to directly engage Accredited Organisations (Building) to undertake inspections? Please explain, commenting on the benefits, costs, and risks.
Question 25: Do you agree with the potential mitigations? Are there any other issues or mitigations we should consider?
Question 26: Do you have any other general comments you wish to make?
Footnote
[1] Private organisations can be accredited under the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 and can process building consent applications on behalf of building consent authorities. However, if they have chosen not to register as a building consent authority, they cannot grant building consents – the final decision remains the responsibility of the registered building consent authority to which the building consent application was made. These private organisations are often referred to as Accredited Organisations (Building), or AO(B)s.
[2] Such as drainage, pre-wrap, pre-clad, pre-line, post-line, pre-roof.