Producer statements are among the most widely used documents in New Zealand construction and among the least well understood. They are relied on daily by building consent authorities, issued routinely by engineers, and their legal status is more limited than most parties assume.
They are not a statutory instrument
This is the point that surprises people. Producer statements are not created by the Building Act. They are an industry convention — a professional opinion given by a suitably qualified person that particular work will comply, or has complied, with the Building Code.
A building consent authority may accept a producer statement as part of the reasonable grounds on which it is satisfied that work will comply. It is not obliged to. Councils can and do decline producer statements, ask for additional information, or require a different form of evidence.
Because they are conventional rather than statutory, the forms vary. The commonly used templates are published by industry bodies, and some councils have their own requirements about who may issue them and what supporting information must accompany them.
The main types
- PS1 — Design. The designer’s statement that the design complies with the Building Code. Issued at consent stage.
- PS2 — Design Review. An independent review of someone else’s design, sometimes required for complex or high-risk work.
- PS3 — Construction. Issued by the contractor, confirming work was constructed in accordance with the approved documents.
- PS4 — Construction Review. Issued by the designer or a reviewing engineer, confirming that construction monitoring was carried out and the work is in accordance with the design.
PS1 and PS4 are the pair that most commonly involve engineers, and the relationship between them matters: a PS4 generally cannot be issued by someone who was not engaged to monitor the construction.
What issuing one commits you to
A producer statement is a professional opinion, and it carries professional liability. The person signing is stating that they hold the relevant competence, that they have done the work described, and that the opinion has a proper basis.
Several practical consequences follow:
- You must have done the work. Issuing a PS4 without having actually carried out the construction monitoring described is the fact pattern behind a number of disciplinary findings.
- The scope must be accurate. Producer statements have a defined scope, and issuing one that appears broader than the work you did creates exposure well beyond your fee.
- Professional indemnity matters. Most engineers issuing producer statements carry PI insurance, and many councils require evidence of it. Check that your cover responds to the statements you are issuing, including after you retire or leave the firm — run-off cover is frequently overlooked.
- Limitation periods apply. The Building Act contains a long-stop limitation period for civil proceedings relating to building work, but that period is long, and a producer statement issued today can be examined many years later.
Where things go wrong
The recurring problems are structural rather than technical. An engineer is engaged for design only, then asked at the end of the job to issue a PS4 for construction they never monitored. Or the monitoring engagement is scoped and priced down by a client under budget pressure, and the engineer issues a statement based on less observation than the work warranted.
Both situations put the professional in a position where the honest answer is to decline. Declining is uncomfortable and it is considerably better than the alternative.
The related problem is scope creep at consent stage — a council asking for a producer statement covering elements outside what the engineer was engaged for. The response is to clarify scope in writing, not to sign a broader statement to keep the project moving.
Practical guidance
- Agree at engagement whether producer statements are within scope, which ones, and what monitoring they require. Put it in the fee proposal.
- Confirm the council’s requirements early, since they vary and some councils restrict who may issue statements for particular work.
- Keep the monitoring records that support any PS4 you issue. The statement is the conclusion; the file is the evidence.
- Do not issue a statement covering work you did not observe, however commercially awkward the conversation.
Engineering New Zealand publishes producer statement templates and practice guidance for members, and individual councils publish their own acceptance criteria. MBIE guidance on the consenting system is available free at building.govt.nz.
General information only, not legal advice.
