Previous determinations

Note: This determination is subject to clarification.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure and whether a detailed seismic assessment is required for the whole building.

This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate for remedial work to an existing house; and whether the work concerned complied with Clause B1, B2, and E2 of the Building Code. The building consent had been issued with requirements for quality assurance in relation to construction monitoring which was also the subject of the dispute between the parties.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 12 to 15-year-old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers the information required to establish on reasonable grounds that specific elements of building work complies with the relevant clauses of the Building Code.  At issue was the compatibility of plumbing fittings and pipes from different manufacturers, and whether evidence of construction monitoring was required.

This determination considers the compliance of an alternative solution using imported window and door joinery and the associated fixing and installation. The determination discusses the available technical information and the use of proposed testing to support the building consent amendment application.

This determination considers the compliance of a substituted uPVC joinery product that is the subject of an application to amend a building consent. The determination discusses the evidence base and consequences of failure.

This determination concerns the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate on the grounds that the authority could not be satisfied that the building work complied with Clause B1 Structure.  The as-built work differed from that described in the building consent, which been supported by the specifications and design documentation for a proprietary construction system that was not used in the construction of the building.

This determination concerns the compliance of a 14-year-old house with EIF cladding. This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers a request by the authority to reverse its decision to issue a code compliance certificate; the authority became aware that the building work was not compliant with the building consent or with the Building Code. The determination discusses the scope of the authority's powers in respect of withdrawing code compliance certificates, and concludes that this can only be done through a determination.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct in requiring an application for building consent or whether the proposed building work, to relevel the house foundations by injecting expanding resin, was exempt under Schedule 1.  The determination discusses the whether the expanding resin is a ‘comparable component’ in terms of the foundation system, and whether the proposed building work is a ‘substantial replacement’.