| BS-U 20459 |
29/11/2024 |
|
Multiple sites |
Disciplinary action takenThe ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
Disciplinary action takenThe practitioner’s registration is immediately suspended on a partial basis. The period of immediate suspension is operative from 6.51 pm on 3 December 2024 until midnight on 31 October 2027, unless subject to any earlier revocation. The practitioner registration is suspended in all respects other than— - the performance of all functions related to any appointments accepted for the purposes of Division 1 of Part 6 of the Building Act on or before 2 December 2024 (however, all inspections required under sections 34 or 35 of the Building Act must be carried out by an appropriately registered building practitioner other than Mr Rontogiannis, with a certificate given under section 238 of the Building Act being required for any such inspections); and
- the performance of functions under or incidental to Divisions 1A and 2 of Part 6 of the Building Act (to enable transfers of existing appointments to other building surveyors).
As Mr Rontogiannis is the sole nominee director of Absolute Permits Pty Ltd, that body corporate’s registration CBS-U 54455 is subject to the same restrictions imposed upon Mr Rontogiannis’ registration. |
| BS-U 20459 |
22/07/2022 |
Cancellation of BS-U registration, ... |
Preston West, Diamond Creek, Dandenong, Reservoir, Mickleham, Woolert |
The practitioner contravened ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
Cancellation of BS-U registration, disqualification from being registered as a building surveyor in any class for 3 years or until successful completion of Graduate Diploma or Masters in Building Surveying from Western Sydney University, reprimands, and penalties totalling 90 penalty units (but capped at $5000, having regard to the financial impact of cancellation). This decision is subject to VCAT review.
The practitioner contravened section 24(1)(a) and section 44 of the Act in relation to two sites, and failed to perform work as an RBS in a competent manner and to a professional standard, and/or engaged in unprofessional conduct in relation to 8 sites. The contraventions included (but were not limited to) failures to ensure that building permit documentation demonstrated compliance with the BCA and a failure to take appropriate steps as RBS to prevent the continuation of building work without a valid building permit. The practitioner’s conduct represented a significant compliance risk and he has an extensive disciplinary history. The practitioner’s response did not provide any assurance that he has made changes to his practice such that the community might be confident he fully understands his statutory responsibilities as an RBS and has the requisite level of knowledge and skill to practise as a building surveyor in an unlimited capacity.
|
| BS-U 20459 |
22/11/2021 |
The Authority imposed 60 hours ... |
Preston, Thomastown, Coburg North |
In relation to the Preston ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
The Authority imposed 60 hours of AIBS training, directed the practitioner to provide specified documents to the relevant council and imposed a partial suspension of the practitioner’s registration BS-U-20459 for a period of 90 calendar days (suspending his functions to accept new appointments or issue new building permits). Reprimands (6) and penalties of $1,500.00 were also imposed. In relation to the Preston site, the practitioner was found to have acted in contravention of section 24(1), sub-sections (b) and (c) of the Building Act 1993 (the Act), in that he issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the consent of the reporting authority had been obtained and when he could not have been satisfied a planning permit had been obtained. In relation to the Thomastown site, the practitioner was found to have acted in contravention of: - section 30(1) of the Act, in that he failed to provide copies of the approved drawings to the relevant council within 7 days of issuing the stage 1 permit;
- section 30(1) of the Act, in that he failed to provide copies of the approved drawings to the relevant council within 7 days of issuing the stage 2 permit;
- regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (as they were at the time), for failing to carry out his work in competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he issued building permits for the works which listed a substantially lower cost of works than was specified in the application for building permit;
- section 24(1)(a) of the Act, in that he issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied the permit would comply r.313(3)(a) and r.315 of the Building Regulations 2006 (as they were at the time);
- regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (as they were at the time), for failing to carry out his work in competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he failed to take enforcement action in a timely manner.
In relation to the Coburg North site, the practitioner was found to have acted in contravention of regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 (as they were at the time), for failing to carry out his work in competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he failed to take enforcement action with respect to non-compliant works. |
| BS-U 20459 |
22/11/2021 |
The Authority directed the ... |
Campbellfield, Craigieburn |
In relation to the Campbellfield ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
The Authority directed the practitioner to take specified steps relating to making of an ESM determination, the lodgement of documents with relevant councils and the issue of a certificate of final inspection. The Authority also imposed a partial suspension of the practitioner’s registration BS-U-20459 for a period of 180 calendar days (suspending his functions to accept new appointments or issue new building permits), 5 reprimands and penalties totalling $5,000.00. In relation to the Campbellfield site, the practitioner was found to have acted in contravention of: - section 80 of the Building Act 1993 (the Act), in that he failed to notify the relevant council of his appointment as RBS within 7 days of accepting that appointment;
- section 24(1)(a) of the Act, in that he issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Act and the building regulations;
- section 30(1) of the Act, in that he failed to provide copies of the building permit and approved documents to the relevant council within 7 days of issuing the building permit;
- regulation 1204 of the Building Regulations 2006 (as they were at the time), for failing to determine the maintenance requirements of the essential safety measures (ESMs) and failing to provide a written determination as to those ESMs, as was required by r.1204(1) and r.1204(2);
- regulation 1012 of the Building Regulations 2006 (as they were at the time), for failing to provide a copy of the certificate of final inspection and inspection approval dates to the relevant council within 7 days of issuing the certificate of final inspection
In relation to the Craigieburn site, the practitioner was found to have acted in contravention of section 38(1) of the Act, in that he failed to take all steps reasonable and necessary to have enabled the issue of a certificate of final inspection after having conducted the final inspection. |
| BS-U 20459 |
19/12/2016 |
Reprimand, Fine $16,012.38, ... |
Craigieburn, Northcote, Ivanhoe, Doreen & Kilmore |
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
Reprimand, Fine $16,012.38, Costs $3,352.50 & Undertaking
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 4 allegations - in relation to sites in Ivanhoe East and Doreen, 3 allegations in relation to a site in Northcote, and two allegations in relation to sites in Craigieburn and Kilmore. With regard to the Ivanhoe East site, the practitioner failed to carry out work in a competent manner and to a professional standard as he failed to have the required protection work for the building work in place. He was also found to breach reg 1502 (a) of the Building Regulations (Vic) 2006 in that he issued a condition to a building permit which could not be complied with given the nature of the proposed work. Regarding the site in Doreen, he was found to breach s 44 of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued an occupancy permit for a building not suitable for occupation. He also issued a building notice to the relevant builder rather than the owner of the site, contrary to section 106 of the Building Act. In relation to the Northcote site - the practitioner was found to breach s 179 (1) (b) in that he issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work and the building permit would comply with the Act and the Building Regulations 2006. The practitioner was found to have also failed to carry out work as a building practitioner in a competent manner and to a professional standard, in that he failed to respond to the adjoining owner of the site in a timely manner or at all and that he failed to comply with reg 1502 (a) in that he directed the owner builder at the site to carry out building work without a building permit. In relation to the Craigieburn site, the practitioner was found to breach section 179 (1) (b) in that he failed to comply with section 24 (1)(a) of the Building Act 1993 in that he issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with reg 409 (2) of the Building Regulations 2006. For the Kilmore site, the practitioner was also found guilty of failing to carry our work in a competent manner and to a professional standard in that he issued a Certificate of Final Inspection in circumstances where the building work was not constructed in accordance with the Building Permit and the Regulations, namely in the construction of a veranda.
|
| BS-U 20459 |
17/06/2014 |
Reprimand, Fine $14,436.00 ... |
Various Sites |
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
Reprimand, Fine $14,436.00 (Max Amount) $ Costs $6792
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building Practititioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 18 allegations in relation to various sites. The findings included that he: Issued Building Permits in circumstances where works were complete, where he should not have been satisfied that the relevant planning permit had been obtained and when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the regulations (contravening s24(1)(a) Building Act 1993); failed to comply with regulation 1502(a) of the Building Regulations 2006 in that he did not ensure relevant parties signed the protection notices or that they were served accordingly; failed to take required action under Part 8 Building Act 1993; failed to adequately monitor progress of building works, ensure works were complete and that final inspections were carried out; issued a number of Occupancy Permits for building works without seeing copies relevant Compliance Certificates; failed to respond to requests from the Building Commission (at the time) to provide details of building permits issued in relation to various sites; failed to provide the Building Commission details of the Certificates of Final Inspection and Occupancy Permits issued in relation to a number of sites; failed to pay into the Building Administration Fund building permit levies for building permits issued within the relevant timeframe and he failed to provide the Building Commission/Victorian Building Authority with the required permit and levy information within the relevant timeframe.
|
| BS-U 20459 |
29/08/2012 |
Reprimand, Fine $7000 & Ordered ... |
Reservoir |
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building ... |
Read Summary
Peter Rontogiannis
Reprimand, Fine $7000 & Ordered to Pay $1677 for Costs Incidental to Inquiry
Peter Rontogiannis - The Building Practitioners Board found the practitioner guilty of 7 allegations in relation to 1 site in Reservoir. The findings included that he had: failed to comply with specifications in the building order in that he did not refer the matter to the Building Commission within 14 days after the final date; failed to identify that the building work did not comply with 416(1) of the Regulations, and the approved plans forming part of the building permit for the building work; failed to provide a copy of an occupancy permit issued by him to the relevant council within 7 days of issuing that permit; issued an occupancy permit when the dwelling was not suitable for occupation; failed to ensure that the owner of the site carried out protection work on the site; and issued a building permit when he could not have been satisfied that the building work would comply with the Building Regulations 2006.
|
