At the request of the previous Minister for Building and Construction, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) conducted an inquiry into the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board in 2008/2009. In the course of its inquiry, the OAG spoke to a number of tradespeople who were unhappy about the previous Board’s decisions or actions under the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976. The OAG therefore recommended that the Board:

“establish an immediate and short-term process for considering and resolving grievances arising from previous Board decisions that may have wrongly disadvantaged a tradesperson.” (Recommendation 15, Inquiry report, OAG, July 2010)

The Board accepts the recommendation of the OAG in relation to past grievances, and agrees that a historical complaints process was needed to deal openly and fairly with people who have historical complaints about the Board.

This was an interim process for tradespeople who consider that they have been wrongly disadvantaged by an action, order or decision made by the Board under the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976. In most cases, this involved an action, order or decision made by the Board prior to 1 April 2010 when new legislation covering the industry came into full effect.

For the purposes of determining coverage under this process, the term ‘Board’ refered to all current and former Board members and Secretariat staff.

This process did not cover:

• complaints about an action, order or decision of the Board under Part IV of the 1976 Act (relating to discipline);
• general complaints about the Board’s policies and processes under the 1976 Act;
• complaints about a Board action, order or decision made under the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 (the 2006 Act); 
• complaints about the workmanship or competency of a particular tradesperson. If you would like make a complaint about such persons, you should follow the complaints process 'making a complaint about a tradesperson'

Complaints were also not considered under this process if they were trivial, vexatious or frivolous.

The OAG recommended that the Board establish a ‘short-term process’ for considering and resolving grievances arising from previous Board decisions. The Board considers that a six-month period was a reasonable amount of time for such complaints to be submitted.

• poor or unlawful decision-making
• lack of consistency
• inefficiency/ineffectiveness
• poor communication
• lack of accountability.

Click here to view a diagram setting out the Historical Complaints Resolution process

The Complaints Resolution Officer (CRO) is a member of the Board’s legal team. The CRO’s role is to be the primary point of contact for the complainant throughout the process, and to undertake an initial assessment of the complaint to determine whether it falls within the scope of the policy and that it is not trivial, frivolous or vexatious.

Complaints that fall within the scope of the policy will be considered by an independent person (called the ‘External Assessor’) appointed by the Board. The Board has appointed Helen Cull QC, to be the External Assessor of complaints made under this policy. Helen has conducted inquiries into a broad range of topics and the Board is fortunate to have been able to obtain someone with her extensive experience for this role.

The External Assessor’s role is to assess the complaint and determine whether a person has been wrongfully disadvantaged by an action, order or decision of the Board under the 1976 Act, and to provide recommendations to the final decision-maker (if appropriate).

The External Assessor’s role is:

• to consider and determine any recommendations from the CRO about whether the complaint falls within the scope of the policy or whether the complaint is trivial, vexatious or frivolous;
• to determine whether the person has been wrongfully disadvantaged by an action, order or decision of the Board;
• to record his or her conclusions; and
• if appropriate, to recommend a resolution, having regard to the nature of the Board’s actions, the consequences of those actions and the availability of a remedy under the 2006 Act.

Read more about the External Assessor...

Helen Cull QC has had considerable trial and public law experience. She is currently Deputy Chief Commissioner of TAlC and a Cease and Desist Commissioner for the Commerce Commission. Helen led the Scampi inquiry on behalf of the State Services Commission and has conducted numerous inquiries across a range of sectors. She chaired the Counsellors Approval Committee and is the Senior Advisory District Inspector of Mental Health, both roles involving oversight and implementation of complaint procedures. Helen has held a number of governance roles including a Directorship of Solid Energy and New Zealand Greyhound Association and served as a Board member on a number of professional boards.

The final decision-maker in relation to complaints under this process is either the Board or the Registrar, depending on who has statutory authority under current legislation to make that decision. The Board and/or Registrar consider the External Assessor’s report and recommendations (if any) in coming to a final decision on the complaint.

If appropriate, the External Assessor may make recommendations to the Board and/or Registrar about a resolution to each complaint. The recommendations in relation to each complaint will depend on the particular facts of that case. In recommending resolutions the External Assessor is required to have regard to the nature of the Board’s actions, the consequences of those actions and the availability of a remedy under the 2006 Act.

Every effort is made to progess complaints to a final decision as soon as possible. However, timeframes will be dependent on the nature and complexity of each complaint. The CRO keeps complainants informed about likely timeframes throughout the process.

In general, complaints under this process will be considered in the order in which they are received. However, there may be good reasons why certain complaints may be given precedence. Examples of situations where a complaint would take precedence include a situation where a person’s livelihood is at issue, or where there are a number of complaints that fall within the same type or category such that they should be considered together.