Previous determinations

Determinations are made by MBIE on matters of doubt or dispute to do with building work. Rulings are legally binding, but only in relation to each case.

Previous determinations may provide some useful guidance for those faced with similar problems, but note that individual circumstances may vary.

You can also search for Determinations on Building CodeHub

Find a determination

Applying filters will narrow down your search results

Find a determination

Search results

1024 Determinations match your query
Show detailed results

2020/011: Regarding the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a relocated house with 19-year-old alterations and additions

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a relocated house with 19-year-old alterations and additions principally for reasons to do with the performance of the building envelope. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code requirements in force when the building consent was issued.

2020/008: The refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house with monolithic cladding

This determination considers the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house due to concerns about its compliance with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and performance of the building envelope with the requirements of the Building Code.

About this document

2020/005: Regarding the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 22-year-old house

This determination considers the reasons given by a building consent authority to issue a code compliance certificate for a 22-year-old house. The reasons for the refusal included the lack of energy works certificates for electrical and gas services. The house was the subject of significant consented alterations that are now 12 years old, and for which a code compliance certificate was issued.

About this document

2020/002: Regarding the consented alterations to the walls and roof of a house and its compliance with Building Code Clause B1

This determination considers whether alterations to the walls and roof of a house comply with Building Code Clauses B1 Structure, E2 External moisture and F7 Warning systems. The determination also considers whether changes to the consented building work can be considered a minor variation to the building consent, and the issue of the code compliance certificate for the alterations.

About this document

2019/049: The refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house with monolithic cladding

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 20-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

About this document

2019/037: The refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old house with a corrugated cellulose fibre cladding system

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 17-year-old house principally due to concerns about its compliance with Clause E2 External moisture.  The building owners had commissioned an assessment of the building’s performance which the authority had declined to accept.

About this document

2019/033: Regarding the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 22-year old house

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate where the building work was carried out without required inspections.  The determination considers the compliance of three areas identified by the authority in its refusal.

About this document

2019/032: Regarding the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 21-year-old commercial building

The determination considered whether the authority correctly exercised its powers of decision in refusing to issue a code compliance certificate. The determination considered the authority’s decision to refuse a code compliance certificate without inspecting the building.

About this document

2019/028: Regarding the code compliance of parapet and post details without metal cap flashings to membrane decks

Explanatory note

This determination contained an error when it was issued on 26 June 2019. At Paragraph 5.6.6 it read, “I note here the torch-on-membrane, which the authority issued a building consent for (refer paragraph 4.5.1), is permitted within the Acceptable Solution as a capping material to parapets".

To provide clarity paragraph 5.6.6 is now to be read as follows, “I note here metal, butyl or EPDM membranes are the materials specified in the Acceptable Solution as capping materials to parapets. The authority issued a building consent (refer paragraph 3.7) for the torch on membrane, which established that the authority was satisfied with the compliance of that material as a weathertightness system."

This determination considers the compliance of parapet and post details without metal cap flashings to two membrane decks. The determination discusses the details and whether the building work complies with the Building Code in regard to Clause E2 External moisture.

About this document

2019/020: The refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 16-year-old house with monolithic cladding

This determination considers an authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 16-year-old house principally for reasons to do with the performance of the building envelope. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for the refusal and whether the items identified by the authority are compliant with the Building Code.

About this document

This information is published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Chief Executive. It is a general guide only and, if used, does not relieve any person of the obligation to consider any matter to which the information relates according to the circumstances of the particular case. Expert advice may be required in specific circumstances. Where this information relates to assisting people: