An inspection happens once, on one day, and then the work gets covered: concrete over the reinforcement, plasterboard over the frame, tiles over the membrane. After that, the record is usually the only proof the inspection happened and that it was done properly. Regulators are now checking those records much more closely.
What Victoria’s regulator said
On 16 October 2026 the Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC), which replaced the Victorian Building Authority, published a warning from State Building Surveyor Steven Baxas. He told Victorian building surveyors to “maintain active oversight of inspections carried out on their behalf and regularly review inspection data and records” (BPC, State Building Surveyor warning on mandatory inspection records).
He spoke at the Victorian Municipal Building Surveyors Group annual conference in Yarrawonga and gave an update on the BPC’s investigation into “the integrity and accuracy of inspection records”. The BPC says the investigation began after building permit data showed “a number of anomalies and unusual patterns”. It is now checking that data through field surveillance, background checks and other intelligence. Surveyors were told to question activity that “does not look right” and to have processes that check records are accurate before they go to the regulator. The BPC also said it “won’t hesitate to take strong enforcement action” if it finds records were falsified.
The warning is backed by obligations that already exist. The BPC’s practice note MI 01 Mandatory Notifications and Inspections of Building Work says mandatory-stage inspections must be done in person. They can’t be replaced by “photographs, drone, video, declarations, or reports”, although these can support an inspection. A relevant building surveyor (RBS) can send a registered inspector, but the practice note says the RBS “remains responsible for the proper inspection of the work”. The RBS should also have procedures to oversee that person and to make sure a compliant record is made and given to them promptly.
The timeline has also tightened. Under changes that started on 1 September 2026, the RBS must give the relevant council a record of each inspection within seven days of completing it. Previously the deadline was seven days after the occupancy permit was issued (SPASA, VIC – Changes for building surveyors and inspectors, 1 October 2026). Inspection records now reach councils during the build, while the work can still be checked, so a record that doesn’t match the site is more likely to be noticed.
The wider pattern
Victoria isn’t the only place doing this. Inspection records were a central theme of national building reform after the 2018 Building Confidence report by Peter Shergold and Bronwyn Weir. The Australian Building Codes Board’s model guidance on mandatory inspections (December 2021) responds to that report. It lists “suitability of documentation” among the main concerns with how inspections were being done. It also sets out what an inspection report should include: the date, who inspected, who was present, whether it was on-site or virtual, which stage and areas were inspected, any non-compliance, and whether a reinspection is needed.
In NSW, Building Commission NSW publishes a certifier disciplinary register so the public can see how it responds to misconduct. Its most recent entry, dated 7 October 2026, is a cancellation and permanent disqualification. Earlier 2026 entries include reprimands and monetary penalties.
The same issues appear overseas, often in more detail. In August 2026, the Jefferson Parish Inspector General in Louisiana reviewed 94 third-party residential inspections (FOX 8, Jefferson Parish accepting building reports from unregistered inspectors, 4 August 2026). Local rules require reports within five days, with dated, geotagged photos and video. Of the 94 reports, 19 had no photos, 28 didn’t have the required dated geotagged photos, and one had photos of a different property. The office warned that unenforced requirements let deficiencies “become concealed by later stages of construction”.
In nearby New Orleans, a contractor was charged with forgery and filing false public records. He is alleged to have submitted forged inspection reports and to have set up a fake email address so the documents seemed to come from a real inspector (WWL Louisiana, 9 April 2026). These are allegations, not findings.
A case in Maryland shows how easily a document can be changed. A certified lead-paint inspector was sentenced after investigators found he had changed “dates, addresses, and lead content values on official lab reports” with ordinary PDF software. The regulator invalidated 1,400 certificates he had issued (Maryland Department of the Environment, 4 February 2026). Once a record is in doubt, everything that relied on it is in doubt too.
The most serious example is the UK. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report (September 2024) found that dishonest product testing and marketing succeeded partly because certification bodies “failed to ensure that the statements in their product certificates were accurate and based on test evidence”. That case involved product certificates rather than site inspections, but the lesson is the same. If people accept a document without checking the evidence behind it, it can do serious harm.
Why records fail
Most bad records aren’t deliberate fraud. They usually come from ordinary habits that make honest mistakes easy and dishonest ones hard to spot.
Delegation without oversight. An inspector or engineer inspects on the surveyor’s behalf, and the report is accepted without any real review. The Victorian practice note is clear that delegating the inspection doesn’t delegate responsibility for it.
Paperwork finished after the fact. Notes are written up at the end of the week, photos are added later from a phone’s camera roll, and times are typed from memory. Each step separates the record a little further from what happened on site, and it becomes hard to show which photo belongs to which inspection.
Edits with no history. A PDF or spreadsheet can be changed without trace, as the Maryland case shows. When a date, address or result can be changed with nothing to show it was changed, an honest correction looks the same as a falsification.
No review before submission. Records go to the council or regulator because a deadline has arrived, not because someone has checked them. The BPC’s advice to “verify the accuracy of records before they are submitted” responds directly to this.
Practical steps
For building surveyors
- Treat delegated inspections as your own. Check the inspector’s registration, set clear instructions, and spot-check reports against the site and permit data.
- Look at your records in bulk, the way a regulator would. Watch for patterns that don’t fit, such as many inspections in an impossible timeframe, photos that repeat, or times that clash with travel.
- Put a review step before anything is submitted, and record who did the review.
For builders
- Notify each mandatory stage promptly, and don’t cover work until it has been inspected and approved.
- Keep your own dated record of when you notified, who came to site and what they looked at. If a record is ever disputed, you’ll want your own evidence.
- Only accept inspections arranged through the relevant building surveyor.
For trades and subcontractors
- Photograph your work before it’s covered. Make sure each photo shows the location and the date it was taken.
- Keep compliance certificates, test results and sign-offs with the job, not in someone’s inbox.
- If you’re asked to sign something that doesn’t match what you did, don’t sign it.
Where software fits, and where it doesn’t
Software can’t make an inspection honest. It can, however, make the record harder to separate from the event. Field tools that capture an inspection while it’s happening record a time stamp and location automatically, and they record who did the inspection and who signed it off. It’s the standard we hold our own inspection and site-record tools in FieldTaskora to. Whatever tool you use, check that it records when something happened, who did it, and what has changed since.
The takeaway
The BPC’s warning is aimed at Victorian building surveyors, but it applies to anyone whose name goes on an inspection record. Regulators are now comparing permit data across many jobs, receiving records within days of each inspection, and checking them against what’s on site. A record made on site at the time, by the right person, and reviewed before submission will hold up under that checking. A record put together later from memory may not.
Sources are linked in the text. This article is general information, not legal advice. Check your obligations with your state regulator.