Previous determinations

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’.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 6-year-old house. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate, and whether the information provided in a building surveyor's report was adequate to establish that the building work complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of the 18-year-old house and 14-year-old extension. 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 concerns the substitution of a concrete tiled roof to a house with composite slate tiles where the substitution was the subject of an amendment to the consent. The determination considers the amendment and whether the authority was correct to refuse it. The determination also considers the compliance of the slate tiles as installed.

This determination considers the level and tolerances in surface finish to the concrete floor slab and consequential variations in the timber framing to a two-story house.  The determination considers the compliance of the slab in relation to loss of amenity under Clause B1 Structure, and the application of the appropriate standards cited in the building consent.

This determination considers whether an authority was correct to issue dangerous building notices in respect of a concrete block retaining wall and fence located on the boundary between two properties: one notice was issued to each owner.  The determination considers the state of the wall and likelihood it will collapse; and what can be done to render the wall safe.