Previous determinations

This determination considers the compliance of Western Red Cedar weatherboards as installed with respect to weathertightness and durability.  The key issues involved are the departure from the manufacturer’s specifications in regards to the use of galvanised steel holding brads and the placement of the fixings.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 19-year-old brick veneer house.  This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate based onits concerns regarding the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and the authority's actions in regards to its inspection, and considered whether the building work complies with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for a house; the authority’s concerns were chiefly to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope. The determination discusses the authority’s reasons for the refusal, and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

The determination considers whether zero pitch protected liquid-applied membrane roofs will comply in regards to weathertightness and durability if constructed as specified by the manufacturer. The determination provides analysis of the evidence in support of the membrane in this use, sets out the design parameters for buildings for which the waterproof membrane would be used, and discusses drainage, resistance to water, and whether there is reliance on other components of the roofing system.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a certificate of acceptance for remedial work to a membrane roof and parapets. The determination reviews the reasons given for the refusal and discusses the lack of inspections, the information that was before the authority at the time of its decision, and whether the building work was exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope, the adequacey of barriers to a deck and stairs, surface water disposal, and a change of use. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate: the grounds for the refusal were the authority’s concerns regarding the weather-tightness given that the foam was installed through the cladding in some places rather than through the interior as approved. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the external envelope complies with the Building Code.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate; the authority’s concerns were largely to do with the weathertightness and durability of the exterior envelope.  The determination discusses the authority’s refusal to inspect the building work and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination considers the compliance of particular external walls of the house with respect to weathertightness and durability.  The walls are not under eaves that would provide shelter from the weather, and the joinery is not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.