Previous determinations

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 performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. 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 performance of the exterior cladding in terms of weathertightness and durability. The determination reviewed the reasons given for the refusal and considered whether the items identified in the refusal comply with the Building Code.

Regarding the installation of a lift without building consent, and a request to remove the compliance schedule, for a multi-unit residential building.

This determination discusses who can be issued with a notice to fix, in particular when building work was undertaken by a previous owner without building consent having been obtained. It also considers the compliance of building work and discusses circumstances where building work departs from Acceptable Solutions or New Zealand Standards.

Note: This Determination was set aside by order by the District Court as a result of an appeal under section 208 of the Building Act. The Court order was made by consent of the parties after the respondent Council conceded it failed to comply with the statutory provisions governing notices to fix.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work carried out with Clauses B1 and B2, and discusses whether there is an obligation to comply with Clause E1.3.2 of the Building Code when repairs are carried out to foundations. The determination also discusses whether the building work carried out was exempt under Schedule 1.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work carried out with Clauses B1 and B2, and discusses whether there is an obligation to comply with Clause E1.3.2 of the Building Code when repairs are carried out to foundations. The determination also discusses whether the building work carried out was exempt under Schedule 1.

This determination discusses the assessment required under section 115 when there is a change of use to only part of a building, particularly how the phrase “the building, in its new use” in section 115 applies and in respect of Building Code clause B1 Structure. The discussion also considers information provided by way of an Initial Seismic Assessment (ISA) in relation to that assessment, and the separate functions performed by authorities under section 112 and section 115.

This determination considers the compliance of retrofitted metal sill flashings installed to timber windows and doors in a house. The house is over 130 years old and is being altered and refurbished.

This determination considers the compliance of the building work in light of a refusal to issue a code compliance certificate; the refusal was primarily on the grounds of concerns regarding weathertightness and durability of the exterior cladding given the building’s age.

This determination discusses the approach to be used when establishing whether a portable unit is a building for the purposes of the Building Act, including factors to consider when deciding if it is immovable and occupied on a permanent or long term basis. The determination includes a decision tree that can be utilised in other cases, and applies the framework in this case where three portable units were connected together.