Clause 26 of the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2014 requires a hard copy and/or electronic file for each client containing six specified items, written confirmation of lodgement and of every material discussion, a well-managed filing system, and retention for no less than seven years from closing the file. Clause 27 governs the documents themselves: held securely, returned securely.
It is the clause that turns up most often when a complaint reaches the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal and the adviser cannot show what happened. This is a plain-English walk through each sub-clause: the words, what they require in practice, and what the finished artefact looks like on the file.
Key facts
| Instrument | Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2014, clauses 26 and 27 |
|---|---|
| Made under | s 37(4), Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 |
| Applies to | Every licensed adviser: provisional, limited and full |
| Minimum file contents | Six items, cl 26(a)(i) to (vi) |
| Written confirmations | Lodgement and ongoing updates (26(b)); all material discussions (26(c)) |
| Retention | No less than 7 years from closing the file (26(e)) |
| Production to the IAA | On request (26(e)). Under s 57 of the Act, a person required to produce documents “must immediately comply” |
| File transfer | All applications lodged and all correspondence, on request by the client or their new adviser (26(f)) |
| Original documents | Held securely (27(a)); returned without delay and in a secure manner (27(b)) |
| Statutory cross-reference | Privacy Act 2020, IPP 9 (do not keep information longer than required) |
What are the six things clause 26(a) says must be on the file?
Clause 26(a) requires an adviser to “maintain a hard copy and/or electronic file for each client”. The word “each” does the work: one file per client, not a shared folder per practice. Six categories must be in it, and the list is a minimum, not a suggestion. The IAA describes a well-managed file as “a ‘useable trail’ of actions”.
| Sub-clause | What the words require | The artefact on the file |
|---|---|---|
| 26(a)(i) | A full copy of the client’s application or other immigration matter | The application form as lodged, any sponsorship form, all supporting documents, and the covering letter to INZ. For an appeal, request or claim, the equivalent bundle. |
| 26(a)(ii) | Copies of all written agreements and any changes to them | The signed engagement agreement, every variation, and written evidence that all parties accepted each change (cl 18(d)). |
| 26(a)(iii) | Copies of all written communications, including any file notes recording material oral communications and any electronic communications, between the adviser, the client and any other person or organisation | Email, letters, texts, WhatsApp, WeChat, INZ correspondence, agent and employer correspondence, and file notes of calls and meetings. The IAA adds that advisers should keep “a written record of their eligibility assessment and any other advice”. |
| 26(a)(iv) | Copies of all invoices and receipts relating to the client | Every invoice issued under cl 22, every cash receipt issued under cl 23. |
| 26(a)(v) | Copies of all personal documents relating to the client supplied to the adviser | Scans of passports, birth and marriage certificates, qualifications, police certificates, medicals. |
| 26(a)(vi) | Evidence of the safe return of the client’s original documents | Per the IAA: “a copy of a track and trace courier confirmation of delivery” or “a signed receipt from the client”. |
Note the third row. “Any other person or organisation” is broad and deliberate. Correspondence with an offshore agent, a recruiter, an employer or a family member is inside clause 26(a)(iii) even though none of them is your client.
Why does clause 26(b) matter more than it looks?
Clause 26(b) requires you to “confirm in writing to the client when applications have been lodged, and make on-going timely updates”. Two obligations, not one. The lodgement confirmation is a discrete event. The update duty runs for the life of the matter, and the IAA suggests agreeing the cadence in the written agreement.
This is where the direct-communication cases land. In INZ (Kindl) v Zhou [2026] NZIACDT 35 (4 June 2026), the adviser dealt only with an offshore agent and a person she believed was the client. The Tribunal held she “is responsible for confirming the lodgement and approval of the application in a communication to the client, not just his agent”. She had no communications at all with the client, so she breached cl 26(b).
In BM v Nantes [2026] NZIACDT 38 (24 June 2026), the failure to send critical Immigration New Zealand correspondence to the client, particularly the decline letter, was a breach of cl 1 and cl 26(b) together.
What counts as a “material discussion” under clause 26(c)?
Clause 26(c) requires you to “confirm in writing to the client the details of all material discussions with the client”. The Code does not define “material”. In practice the Tribunal treats a discussion as material where it concerns advice, eligibility, risk, instructions, a change of course or a response to Immigration New Zealand.
This is not a filing formality. In ZK v Li [2022] NZIACDT 27, quoted by the IAA in its own November 2023 webinar materials, the Tribunal said confirming material discussions in writing:
is not a trivial ‘bureaucratic’ obligation […] Advice given verbally at a meeting when many other matters are discussed is not always fully appreciated. Written confirmation allows a client to reflect more fully on the advice.
BM v Nantes shows how the breach is proved. The Tribunal reasoned from the gaps: “there must have been immigration advice given to the complainant by Ms Nantes but there was a paucity of written advice or confirmation of oral advice given”. There must have been a discussion about the additional evidence INZ wanted, about the correct process for a police certificate, about the client’s wish to withdraw, and about a character waiver. None was confirmed in writing. Breach of cl 26(c) upheld.
The IAA publishes a workable file-note shape in the same webinar deck: date and time, location or medium, attendees and participants (including licence numbers), main points discussed, action points with names and dates, and a timeline. Send it to the client and cl 26(c) is discharged along with the 26(a)(iii) note.
Does clause 26(a) require me to create records that do not exist?
No, and this is the most useful defensive point in the clause. In NI v Chak [2023] NZIACDT 1 (5 January 2023), the Registrar alleged that missing meeting notes breached cl 26(a)(iii). The Tribunal disagreed:
Clause 26(a) concerns file maintenance and integrity (of documents which have been created) and does not oblige advisers to create documents.
Read the rest of that paragraph before relaxing. The Tribunal went on to say the absence of the notes was a breach of cl 26(c), “which has not been cited”. The head of complaint failed on pleading, not on merit. Clause 26(a) is about keeping what exists; clause 26(c) is the clause that makes the record exist in the first place.
The same drafting discipline cuts both ways. In BM v Nantes, the allegations under cl 26(a)(iii) and (a)(v) were dismissed because “the obligation to make the records available to the Authority is cl 26(e), which has not been cited”. The cl 26(a)(iv) allegation failed on the evidence, the Tribunal finding that an invoice and an INZ tax invoice were both on the file, and it added the same point that “the requirement to provide documents to the Registrar is cl 26(e)”. And the cl 26(d) allegation failed because “no deficiencies in the file given to the Authority have been identified”.
How long must I keep the file, and what does “well-managed” mean?
Clause 26(e) requires you to “maintain each client file for a period of no less than 7 years from closing the file”. The clock starts at closure, not at lodgement or decision. Clause 26(d) separately requires “a well-managed filing system”. The IAA’s only stated tests are that it is well-managed and easy to use.
BE v Ganeshkumar [2026] NZIACDT 43 (14 July 2026) is the cautionary version. The adviser told the Authority she did not save copies of WhatsApp texts because “they can be edited quite easily”, did not store WhatsApp voice messages, and cleaned out her emails every couple of months because her paid storage filled up. The matter completed in April 2024, so “the emails and the WhatsApp messages went through the cleaning process”. The Tribunal found she had not collected the communications into a specific file for the client, in breach of cl 26(a)(iii) and (d), and that the records were lost or deleted, in breach of cl 26(d) and (e).
INZ (Kindl) v Zhou is the other version of the same failure. WeChat records vanished with a lost phone. The Tribunal:
The loss of her phone is not a justification for her failure to retain them and make them available for inspection by the Authority. The retention of a ‘paper trail’ is an important feature of consumer protection.
Its practical instruction was blunt: the records “should have been stored more securely, perhaps backed-up or transferred to her PC”.
Clause 26(e) sets a seven-year floor. IPP 9 of the Privacy Act 2020 says an agency “must not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used”. Keeping everything forever resolves the Code obligation by breaching the privacy one. The answer is a retention schedule: a clock that starts at closure, a documented disposal step, and a stated lawful purpose for anything held beyond it. This is one of the moments Clerq is built around, because a retention clock that nobody starts is not a retention policy.
What happens when the Authority asks for the file?
Clause 26(e) requires you to “make those records available for inspection on request by the Immigration Advisers Authority”. Behind it sits s 57 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, which lets an authorised person require production of relevant documents, inspect and copy them, and enter premises where an adviser works or has worked in the past two years.
Section 57(2) is the sentence advisers underestimate: “If a requirement is made of a person under subsection (1)(c), the person must immediately comply with that requirement.” There is no reasonable-time allowance written into it. Obstructing an inspection is a separate offence under s 69.
Failure to produce is charged as a breach in its own right. In KZ v Ma [2026] NZIACDT 31 (11 May 2026), one of six upheld heads was “failed to provide to the Authority complete copies of the complainant’s immigration matters in her client file, in breach of cl 26(a)(i) and (e)”. The sanctions across all six heads were censure, a two-year prohibition on reapplying for a licence, $8,000 to the Registrar and $3,900 to the complainant. Clause 26 was not the whole of that case, and it rarely is; it is the clause that makes the rest of the case provable or not.
Clause 26(f) is the client-facing twin: on request by the client or their new licensed or exempt adviser, release a copy of all applications lodged and all correspondence. The IAA notes there is no requirement in the Code to do this free of charge, but any charge must comply with clause 21 on disbursements and be agreed in writing if not agreed already.
What does clause 27 require about original documents?
Clause 27(a) requires financial and personal documents belonging to or relating to the client, “whether held physically or electronically”, to be held securely while in your possession. Clause 27(b) requires passports and other personal documents to be returned “without delay and in a secure manner” when requested or required.
The IAA’s guidance is unambiguous on one point: advisers cannot retain personal documents, including passports, for any reason, and specifically not as security for unpaid fees. Its suggested methods for discharging 27(b) are a courier with track and trace or a signature on delivery, or collection in person against a signed acknowledgement. Whichever you use, the proof goes back on the file under cl 26(a)(vi), so 27(b) and 26(a)(vi) are one workflow, not two.
The same guidance notes that New Zealand law authorises retaining paper records in electronic form provided the electronic form reliably assures the integrity of the information and keeps it readily accessible. The IAA page cites the Electronic Transactions Act 2002; those provisions now sit in Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. Scan and shred is permitted. Scan and lose is not.
What does a complete clause 26 file look like?
One file per client, opened at instruction, containing the six categories in 26(a), organised chronologically, with a written lodgement confirmation, a written confirmation of every material discussion, proof that originals went back, a closure date that starts the seven-year clock, and the ability to produce the whole thing immediately.
Three practical tests, each drawn from a decided case:
- The phone test. If the device carrying your client correspondence disappeared tonight, is the correspondence still on the file? INZ (Kindl) v Zhou.
- The cleanup test. Does anything on your system delete client communications on a storage-quota schedule rather than a retention schedule? BE v Ganeshkumar.
- The reconstruction test. For every material discussion this month, is there a written confirmation sent to the client, not just a note to yourself? ZK v Li and BM v Nantes.
In INZ (Watson) v Wan [2026] NZIACDT 44 (27 July 2026), the Tribunal recorded, while weighing penalty, that the adviser had “not only accepted the Tribunal’s findings but also implemented the learning with new practice management and systems within the agency”. It still imposed a $4,000 penalty, because this was the third complaint upheld against him. Systems do not prevent complaints, and no software can. They determine whether you can show what you did.
This article describes practice-management and record-keeping obligations. It is not legal advice on any particular matter, and it is not immigration advice. Where a complaint, an inspection or a file-transfer dispute is live, get your own legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Does clause 26 allow a fully electronic file? Yes. Clause 26(a) says a licensed immigration adviser must maintain a hard copy and/or electronic file for each client. Electronic is expressly permitted. The IAA’s guidance notes that the electronic form should provide a reliable means of assuring the integrity of the information and keep it readily accessible for later reference.
Do WhatsApp, WeChat and text messages have to go on the file? Yes. Clause 26(a)(iii) covers copies of all written communications, including any electronic communications, between the adviser, the client and any other person or organisation. The Tribunal has upheld breaches where WeChat and WhatsApp records were lost or deleted, and has rejected a lost phone as a justification.
When does the seven-year retention clock start? At closure, not at lodgement or at the decision. Clause 26(e) requires each client file to be maintained for a period of no less than seven years from closing the file. A file closed in April 2026 must therefore be retrievable until at least April 2033.
Is a file note enough, or must the client be sent something? Both obligations exist and they are different. Clause 26(a)(iii) requires file notes of material oral communications to be kept on the file. Clause 26(c) separately requires the adviser to confirm in writing to the client the details of all material discussions. A note that never leaves your office does not satisfy 26(c).
Can I charge a client for a copy of their file under clause 26(f)? The IAA’s guidance says there is no requirement in the Code to release the file without charge, but any charge must comply with clause 21 on disbursements and, if not already agreed, must be discussed and recorded in writing. The Privacy Act 2020 access rules and the Privacy Commissioner’s guidance on charging also apply.
Does clause 26 require me to write up a meeting I never recorded? Clause 26(a) does not. In NI v Chak the Tribunal held that clause 26(a) concerns file maintenance and integrity of documents which have been created and does not oblige advisers to create documents. The obligation to create the record of a material discussion sits in clause 26(c) instead.
Sources
- Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2014 (PDF), Immigration Advisers Authority. Checked 10 August 2026.
- IAA Code of Conduct toolkit: File management. Checked 10 August 2026.
- IAA Code of Conduct toolkit: Document security and return. Checked 10 August 2026.
- IAA webinar: Providing immigration advice, November 2023 (PDF), source of the ZK v Li [2022] NZIACDT 27 quotation. Checked 10 August 2026.
- Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, ss 56, 57 and 69. Checked 10 August 2026.
- Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, Part 4. Checked 10 August 2026.
- INZ (Kindl) v Zhou [2026] NZIACDT 35 (PDF). Checked 10 August 2026.
- BE v Ganeshkumar [2026] NZIACDT 43 (PDF). Checked 10 August 2026.
- BM v Nantes [2026] NZIACDT 38 (PDF). Checked 10 August 2026.
- NI v Chak [2023] NZIACDT 1 (PDF). Checked 10 August 2026.
- KZ v Ma [2026] NZIACDT 31 (PDF). Checked 10 August 2026.
- INZ (Watson) v Wan [2026] NZIACDT 44 (PDF). Checked 10 August 2026.
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Privacy principle 9. Checked 10 August 2026.
- IACDT decisions index. Checked 10 August 2026.
Published 10 August 2026. This is a plain-English guide for licensed advisers, not legal advice. Where it cites the Code of Conduct, the Immigration Act or the Privacy Act, read the source it links to rather than this summary of it.
