Case D · Nationwide pattern · March 2026
Two inspection reports on one house
A NZ residential property had a pre-purchase inspection carried out by a Licensed Building Practitioner and NZIBI member in 2024. In 2026, as the vendor prepared to sell, the agency arranged a pre-sale inspection with a different inspector. The 2026 report — 45 pages versus the 2024 report's 20 pages — presented a materially more negative picture. No material deterioration had occurred. The pattern, the credential gap, and what NZS 4306:2005 actually requires.
Pattern
Two inspectors, one property
The 2024 pre-purchase inspection was commissioned by a prospective buyer. The inspector held LBP status and NZIBI membership. The report ran 20 pages, followed the NZS 4306:2005 scope, and identified specific maintenance items typical of a 1910s NZ residence.
The 2026 pre-sale inspection was commissioned by the agency on the vendor's behalf with a different inspector. The inspector described themselves as "a qualified builder with 27+ years' experience" but did not appear on the public LBP register and was not a NZIBI member. The report ran 45 pages.
Between the two inspections, no material deterioration occurred. A new hot water cylinder had been installed. No flooding, fire, or significant event.
What the 2026 report contained
The 2026 report identified fewer genuine building-code-relevant defects than the 2024 report, but ran 25 pages longer. The additional pages consisted of:
- Cosmetic items presented as defects. Interior decorating commentary; "prep and decorating required" repeated across most rooms. Interior decoration is outside the NZS 4306 scope.
- Conclusions about inaccessible areas. The inspector noted that subfloor access was limited; the report then concluded "no underfloor insulation" without access. Under NZS 4306, a conclusion about an inaccessible area is not a valid finding.
- Replacement recommendations for cosmetic items. Hairline bath cracks triggered a "replace" recommendation (typical remediation is resurface at a fraction of the cost).
- Misrepresentation of safety systems. A residual current device (RCD) tripping on test was described as a fault. RCDs are designed to trip on test; that is their function.
- Photographs with no inspection purpose. Images of a minor child's bedroom, personal clothing, household moving boxes. None documented a building defect.
- Era-generic statements as property-specific findings. Generic statements about construction era (asbestos possibility, common to pre-1970s NZ homes) presented without specific finding.
The effect
A purchaser reading the 2026 report would form the impression of a property needing $50,000–$80,000 in remediation. Properly categorised — separating defects from cosmetic items, era-generic statements, and inaccessible-area speculation — the genuine remediation is a fraction of that figure. A vendor-commissioned pre-sale report that overstates the property's issues is counter-productive to its stated purpose (demonstrating condition, building buyer confidence).
Legal basis for the vendor's position
- Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 s.28 — A service must be carried out with reasonable care and skill. A report that materially departs from NZS 4306:2005 fails this guarantee.
- Fair Trading Act 1986 s.9 — No misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. Presenting normal RCD operation as a fault, and stating "no insulation" without access, are likely to mislead a reasonable reader.
- Privacy Act 2020 — IPPs 1, 4, and 11. Photographs of private living spaces (including minors' bedrooms) that do not document defects engage the Act. The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 adds additional protection specifically for minors.
- NZS 4306:2005 — The voluntary standard that defines a competent NZ residential inspection. Reports that materially depart from the standard can be challenged under CGA s.28 and FTA s.9.
Response template
The vendor's effective response is to reject the report formally, commission a replacement from a credentialled inspector, and preserve the option to pursue CGA / FTA / Privacy Act remedies.
I am writing to formally reject the building inspection report prepared by [inspector] dated [date]. My concerns are:
1. The report makes definitive conclusions about areas the inspector explicitly recorded as inaccessible (e.g., "no underfloor insulation" where subfloor access was noted as limited).
2. The report includes photographs of private living spaces and personal belongings that serve no inspection purpose, engaging IPPs 1, 4, and 11 of the Privacy Act 2020.
3. The report materially departs from NZS 4306:2005 scope: interior decorating commentary, era-generic statements presented as property-specific findings, and replacement recommendations for items that are cosmetic maintenance.
4. The report misrepresents basic safety systems (RCD operation described as a fault).
I do not accept this report. I do not authorise its distribution to prospective purchasers. I request a full refund of the inspection fee and confirmation in writing that the report will not be distributed.
See also Inspector Credentials Check (planned) for pre-engagement credential verification and Building Report Sanity Check (planned) for automated report analysis.
Lessons for vendors and buyers
- Verify credentials before engaging. LBP status and NZIBI membership are public registers. Check before paying.
- Specify NZS 4306 compliance contractually. When engaging an inspector, state that the report must comply with NZS 4306:2005. This converts compliance into a contract term.
- Read the report against the 12 red flags. See The building inspection report: what NZS 4306 requires.
- Vendor-commissioned reports are not automatically vendor-friendly. Inspector incentive structures (referral networks, risk-management-driven reporting) may produce reports that damage the vendor's sale position. Self-engaging an inspector (not agency-referred) preserves independence.
- Photographs of minors are a specific issue. Privacy Act 2020 IPP 4 (unreasonable intrusion) and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 both engage. Complaint pathways: Office of the Privacy Commissioner (free) and Netsafe (the HDCA approved agency).