Engineering concerns
You can raise concerns and complaints regarding Chartered Professional Engineers (CPEng) by following the process outlined on this page. Our process is designed to hold CPEng registrants to account, censure where appropriate, and give the public confidence and trust in the profession. 
There are differences between the concerns and complaints processes for CPEng registrants and members of Engineering New Zealand. The following is focused on concerns and complaints regarding CPEng registrants. For information on raising a concern about Engineering New Zealand members, please see the Engineering New Zealand website.
​
If you have concerns about an engineer who is both a CPEng registrant and a member of Engineering New Zealand, you will need to decide which complaints process you wish to pursue. In such cases, it may be worthwhile to contact us directly before submitting your concerns, so we can answer any questions you may have about the differences between the two processes.
Raising a concern
For the public
You can contact us if you have concerns about a CPEng. We only deal with concerns about individual engineers, not about firms or organisations. Separate to the complaints process explained below, we also invite you to provide feedback on the suitability of people applying for registration as a CPEng or renewing their registration by emailing the registrar directly.
​
How we can help you
Our concerns and complaints process can only address certain types of concerns.
​
We can help resolve concerns about:
-
the quality of the engineer’s work, or
-
the engineer’s conduct and behaviour.
​
We can’t resolve concerns about:
-
commercial or contractual matters
-
fees and payment, or
-
employment.
​
Please note that if a commercial or contractual, fee, or employment matter is heard in another forum (eg the District Court) and the outcome indicates a potential conduct or quality issue, we may be able to consider this.
Our process is focused on resolution, quality improvement, learning and appropriate accountability. We can’t help you achieve compensation or reparation, and we can’t order an engineer to undertake specific action in relation to project.
How to raise your concern
If you’ve got a concern about a CPEng, you should let them know and give them an opportunity to resolve it directly with you first by:
​
-
Writing to the engineer, being clear about your concerns and asking for a response. Tell the engineer what outcome you want.
-
Requesting a meeting with the engineer to talk through your concerns. You could take a support person with you, and you could request that an independent person facilitate the meeting.
-
Raising your concerns with the engineer’s manager.
​
If you can’t resolve the concern directly with the engineer, it's time to let us know so we can help. To formally raise a concern, you must complete our “Raising Concerns” form, available below. Before doing this, it can help to contact us first to talk through your potential concern, so you can gain an understanding of the process and what will be required.
​
You’ll need to provide us with your perspective on what happened and all relevant evidence. This could include reports, email conversations you've had with the engineer, or statements from other people involved. It’s better to give us everything you have at the beginning of the process.​
​
Please ensure you have any pending evidence (eg engineering reports that help prove your concern) before raising the concern itself. We may refuse or close a concern that’s based on evidence you’re yet to obtain. There’s no specific time limit on raising a concern, so take the time to obtain that evidence before officially lodging your concern. In rare cases, matters will have occurred so long ago (for example, decades) that it may not be practicable or desirable to investigate (due to lack of evidence, or the passing of an engineer). If you’re unsure whether your concern can be investigated, we encourage you to have a conversation with us.
​
​Once we’ve assessed your concerns, we’ll talk with the engineer and ask for a response. For this reason, it’s important that you feel comfortable with your concern being shared with the engineer at the time you raise your concern with us. If you don’t want to share your concern with the engineer at this step in the process, your concern will be dismissed. We’re committed to the swift processing of complaints and concerns, and we will not leave your concern on file while you consider whether you’re comfortable with the concern being shared with the engineer.
Speaking with us before submitting your concern means you won’t yet need the evidence or be required to share with the engineer. This can be a helpful step for you to take before you commit to the process.
​
We may need to get information from other people involved too. We then consider how best to resolve your concerns. Different options include:
​
-
Asking if you’re open to an Alternative Disputes Resolution process.
-
Asking if you’re open to any other early resolution options, such as using your concerns as an educational opportunity for the engineer.
-
Commencing a formal investigation and disciplinary process.
-
Commencing a competency review of the CPEng.
​
Using an early resolution option for concerns helps things be resolved quickly (2–4 months). More complex concerns of a technical nature, or concerns that proceed down a more formal route, may take longer. A full disciplinary process takes more than a year and sometimes longer.
For the industry
If you’re a CPEng who has reasonable grounds to believe that another CPEng has committed a significant breach of the code of ethical conduct, you must report the matter to the Registration Authority.
​
Additionally, if you, as a CPEng, believe on reasonable grounds that an engineering matter has, or could have, adverse consequences, and you’re not satisfied that the matter is being dealt with in an appropriate way, you must bring the matter to the attention of the Registration Authority and any other relevant regulatory body.
​
If you have concerns or thoughts about a CPEng due for reassessment and want to provide feedback – either positive or negative – to be considered as part of their reassessment, please follow the Public Industry Disclosure process by submitting the form below at least two months before they are due for reassessment. The information must relate to the engineer’s eligibility for registration as a CPEng.
If you’re unsure whether to submit your concerns as a member of the public or as a member of industry, please contact us directly and we can point you in the right direction.
Responding to a concern as a CPEng
Most concerns can be resolved if they’re dealt with openly and quickly through direct communication.
​
​If someone raises a concern directly with you, work with them to try to resolve it yourself, as this may prevent the matter from being formally escalated to the Registration Authority. People don’t raise concerns lightly. Even if you think their concerns are without grounds, try to understand their perspective and provide a clear response.
​
We encourage engineers responding to concerns or going through our formal processes to seek support and guidance from their mentors and colleagues that they trust. If you don’t have access to that support, let us know and we will connect you with a senior member of Engineering New Zealand for support and guidance. If you can’t resolve the concern yourself, contact us for help.
Gathering evidence
It's important that we hear both sides of the story. Once someone has told us their concerns, we’ll ask you for a response. Your response needs to be as clear and detailed as possible and should include all relevant information such as:
​
-
exactly what happened (including dates and timeline)
-
documentation (including contracts and reports)
-
correspondence (including emails and text messages)
-
steps you have taken to resolve the concerns
-
names of people who might be able to provide further information.
​
We usually send a copy of your response to the person to see if it resolves their concerns.
​
We strongly encourage that you do respond, and respond constructively, to any concerns that are raised, even if you believe they are without merit. If the matter is truly without merit, the process will bear that out.
​
If you do not provide a response, we will be forced to proceed on the basis of the evidence before us, which will not include your side of the story and will often result in the matter escalating to the next stage.
​
Handling a concern about you can be daunting, and at times frustrating. However, when faced with a concern, engineers should also keep in mind their professional obligations under the Code of Ethics to behave appropriately.
​
Potential outcomes
​
Once all parties have had an opportunity to provide their perspectives, we assess the concern and consider how best to resolve the situation. Different options include:
​
-
Asking if you are open to an Alternative Dispute Resolution process.
-
Using the situation as an educational opportunity and a reminder of your professional obligations.
-
Commencing a formal investigation and disciplinary process.
-
Commencing a competency review.
Our processes
Where appropriate, we’ll look to support the parties involved to resolve the concerns informally between themselves. In these cases, the focus is on resolution, quality improvement and learning. This approach, and our Alternative Dispute Resolution process, helps things be resolved quickly – usually in 2–4 months. More complex concerns of a technical nature, or concerns that proceed down a more formal route, may take longer. A full disciplinary process (explained below) takes more than a year and sometimes longer.
​
If a concern cannot be resolved informally between the person who raised it and the CPEng in question, or if the concern raises serious issues of competence, health, or safety, then the following options may need to be pursued.
​
Alternative Dispute Resolution
​Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to a range of processes to help parties reach resolution in a way that ensures everyone is heard and understood. Disputes often arise from miscommunication, and this is a way to resolve them.
It’s an efficient, confidential, and flexible process that allows the engineer to learn directly from the person concerned. It also allows the person concerned to work with the engineer to agree on solutions.
If we think Alternative Dispute Resolution is right for you, we’ll talk to you and seek your consent. If you agree, we’ll explore ways to resolve the matter, which may include asking an independent mediator to run a formal process.
​
Formal Complaints Process
​If your concern is not resolved through the above measures, or it discloses a serious concern about the competence, conduct or behaviour of a CPEng, we may commence a formal investigation and disciplinary process.
This process looks at whether the engineer has breached their professional or ethical obligations. These obligations are contained in the:
​
Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002
Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Rules 2025
​
The investigation and disciplinary process is a formal, regulated process.
​
Initial assessment
We provide the information we have gathered and a recommendation to an adjudicator, who makes a decision on how the complaint should proceed. This person is a senior engineer appointed by us and acts independently.
​
The adjudicator can:
-
dismiss the complaint
-
talk to the parties about alternative disputes resolution
-
refer the complaint to an Investigating Committee
-
Refer them for a competency assessment.
​
Guidance for engineers undergoing a competence assessment triggered by a complaint is now available and will be provided to those affected or upon request.
​
A complaint may be dismissed if:
-
There is no applicable ground of discipline. The most common grounds are that an engineer has acted negligently, acted incompetently, or breached the Code of Ethical Conduct.
-
The matter is trivial.
-
The alleged misconduct is insufficiently grave.
-
The complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or not made in good faith.
-
The person offended against doesn’t wish to proceed.
-
The person bringing the complaint doesn’t have sufficient personal interest in the matter.
-
Too much time has elapsed to make an investigation practicable or desirable.
-
The decision maker determines that there is any other reason to dismiss the complaint (for example, a lack of evidence).
If the complaint is dismissed we’ll tell you why. We’ll also let you know what your options are if you’re not happy with the decision.
​
Sometimes, even though the adjudicator dismisses a complaint, they may suggest that some action be taken. For example, that Engineering New Zealand send an educational letter to the CPEng.
​
It’s important to note that just because a matter has been referred to an Investigating Committee, this does not mean that the person complained about is at fault or will be disciplined. All it means is that the allegations will be fully investigated. This is especially important for people subject to complaints to keep in mind; they will have a further opportunity to provide a response or explanation before the Investigating Committee makes their decision.
​
Investigating Committee
An Investigating Committee is made up of three individuals from our panel. Those on the panel are made up of experienced senior engineers, members of Engineering New Zealand, and other professionals with relevant qualifications and experience.
​
Once an Investigating Committee has been established, the parties will be informed of this. If, for any reason, either of the parties are unsatisfied with any of the individuals selected for the Investigating Committee, either party has five working days from the day they were informed of the Investigating Committee membership to request any or all of the members be replaced. We are required to consider such requests, but are not required to grant them.
​
During its investigation, the Investigating Committee will consider all available information, and may gather more information. It may also request the parties meet the Investigating Committee for a discussion or interview.
​
Once the Investigating Committee has concluded its investigation, it will make one of the following decisions:
​
-
dismiss the complaint
-
refer the complaint to a Disciplinary Committee
-
refer the CPEng for a competency assessment
-
make one or more of the following orders:
-
that the CPEng apologise
-
censure the CPEng
-
order the CPEng to undergo training, mentoring or counselling.
-
They may also talk to you about alternative dispute resolution.
​
If the complaint is dismissed, we’ll tell you why. We’ll also let you know what your options are if you’re not happy with the decision.
​
Disciplinary Committee
​
If a complaint makes it to this stage, it will be because the Investigating Committee believes that, based on the evidence gathered, there’s grounds for disciplinary action to be taken. Because of this, it will be a Registration Authority lawyer on behalf of the Investigating Committee who will take the matter forward, rather than the member of the public who raised the complaint. As discussed below, the complainant may still participate in this stage if they wish.
​
Once the referral decision is made, we will appoint a Disciplinary Committee from our panel. Those on the panel are made up of experienced senior engineers, members of Engineering New Zealand, and other professionals with relevant qualifications and experience. Disciplinary Committees consist of two to four members, plus a Chair. Whatever the size of the Disciplinary Committee, at least half of the members will be engineers.
​
As with Investigating Committees, if either party are unsatisfied with any of the members selected to the Disciplinary Committee, they have five working days from the date they are notified of the selection of the Disciplinary Committee to raise an objection. Please note that, while we are required to consider requests to replace members of the Disciplinary Committee, we are not required to grant such requests.
​
After its formation, the Disciplinary Committee will schedule a hearing. The Disciplinary Committee may decide the format of the hearing, whether it’s heard on the papers (ie with no attendance by the parties, with the Committee deliberating based on the paper evidence before them), a hearing in person, or an online hearing via video chat. The Disciplinary Committee will confer with the parties over the format of the hearing.
​
The parties will be informed of the time, date, format and procedure of the hearing through a procedural minute issued by the Disciplinary Committee. In this procedural minute, the Disciplinary Committee will also timetable due dates for written submissions from the Investigating committee and respondent CPEng in advance of the hearing. Unless the matter is to be determined on the papers, the Investigating Committee and respondent will also have an opportunity to provide oral submissions. The complainant also has a right to be heard at hearings too, if they wish to participate.
​
Please note that hearings in person are usually open to the public and media. Participants may also bring a support person or be represented by a lawyer.
​
The Disciplinary Committee will consider the complaint and make a decision on whether there are grounds for disciplining the engineer and, if so, what the penalties should be. If the Disciplinary Committee finds that there are grounds for discipline, they will invite the Investigating Committee and respondent to make submissions as to the appropriate penalty.
Penalties can include:
​
-
Removing the CPEng’s registration.
-
Suspending the CPEng’s registration.
-
Censuring the CPEng.
-
Ordering the CPEng to pay a fine not exceeding $5,000.
​
The Disciplinary Committee can also order that the CPEng:
-
Contribute to the costs of the inquiry.
-
Be named.
​
Sometimes the Disciplinary Committee might make other recommendations. For example, that the CPEng undertake further education.
​
Parties will be told why the Disciplinary Committee made this decision. We’ll also let you know what your options are if you’re not happy with the decision.
​
All Disciplinary Committee decisions are published. If the Disciplinary Committee has ordered that the CPEng not be named, the decision will be published in an anonymised form.
​
Appealing a decision
You can appeal any decision on a complaint to the Chartered Professional Engineers Council (CPEC). You have 28 days to lodge the appeal from the time you are notified of the decision.
​
Please note that if you appeal a decision, we will seek costs in respect of you. This means that if your appeal is dismissed, you will be required to pay a proportion of Engineering New Zealand’s legal costs in responding to the appeal. Responding to appeals can be very time consuming and expensive, a cost which would otherwise fall on our fee-paying members and CPEng registrants.
​
Confidentiality
Our concerns and complaints process is confidential to the parties involved, to protect people’s privacy and encourage parties to participate in an open and honest way. Engineering New Zealand will only share information relating to the complaint in accordance with our Rules and Disciplinary Regulations, and applicable legislation including the Privacy Act 2020, the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act 2002 and the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Rules 2025.