He’s now been fined $2000 for what had been described as substandard work on an Auckland demolition and build project, and ordered to pay $3500 towards the cost of the board’s inquiry.
The Auckland-based draftsman was engaged to develop plans and obtain building consent for the demolition of a house and the construction of a two-storey duplex building in its place.
When questioned about his design practice, Khan said that when he completed the building consent application, he was also working as a cleaner and that the design was completed in his spare time.
Khan told NZME it was a difficult time in his life, soon after the Covid lockdowns ended and when the construction sector was struggling. He also had a young family and was working three jobs to keep his head above water.
“I’ve been in the industry a long time and this is the first time something like this has happened. I’ve never had any complaints before,” Khan said.
He said he had taken responsibility for what happened, had paid the fine and now wanted to move on.
The failures came to light after the complainant queried the number of Requests for Information issued after the building consent had been submitted to the council, and Khan’s failure to deal with the requests promptly.
Some required Khan to amend his design which contained inconsistencies and design errors which meant aspects of it would not have met the Building Code requirements, and would not have been sufficient for a competent builder to follow.
Problems included incorrectly drawn roof plane braces, an unusable ceiling access hatch, laundries that did not include provisions for safeguarding the neighbouring unit from flooding, there was carpet in the kitchens when flooring should have been impervious and readily cleanable, and floor waste gullies within the en-suites were not located centrally to the appliances.
Khan also drew three different sizes of floor joists for the second floor, which meant the floor levels would not have aligned, and his cross-section drawings showed joists running in different directions.
Special advisor John Rennie, who was appointed to the inquiry, found gaps in Khan’s drawings between the architectural plans and structural engineering plans, and specifications for materials that did not match the plans such as incorrect roofing material.
He said the lack of care and attention resulted in additional time and costs for the project owner.
Khan accepted that what he had submitted was incorrect and would have created confusion for those engaged in building the design, but he disagreed with Rennie’s findings and focused instead on the steps he had taken after the Requests For Information had been issued.
He also maintained that he had prepared the building consent application with due care and diligence.
Khan told the board that he’d been impacted by other stressors, including Covid-induced lockdowns, the arrival of a newborn baby, and software issues with the system he used to produce his design.
The board said the conduct was serious, and that the divergence from acceptable standards was not mere oversight or carelessness.
It said if Khan had been careful and diligent, most of the problems would have been identified.
“They were not, and it was disconcerting that, at the hearing, the Respondent was not fully aware of the issues or their seriousness and was of the view, until the Board pointed out his errors and failings, that he had done a good job.”
Khan, who was an employee at the time and now runs his own practice, has a design practitioner to peer review his work and who has better software skills.
Khan said the process had taken its toll on his mental health and he had only just recently managed to get back on his feet.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
