Previous determinations

This determination concerns the construction of a concrete floor slab and foundations without a damp proof membrane. The determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue the code compliance certificate in respect of compliance of the  concrete floor slab with Clause E2 External Moisture, and Clause B2 Durability.

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 considers the compliance of a PVC foul water drainage system to a house where the TPR valve from a hot water cylinder drained into the foul water system.  The hot water cylinder was connected to a solid fuel wetback and a solar water heater as uncontrolled heating sources.

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 considers whether a lift is required to a three-level office building as part of alterations to the existing building. The determination discusses the requirements of section 118, the effect of unit titles, the performance requirements of Clause D1, and whether there is sufficient information on which to conclude that compliance to the extent required by section 112 is achieved in that it would not be reasonably practicable to install a lift.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a 20-year-old 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 concerns construction defects that were exposed during building work undertaken to remediate weathertightness issues. The determination considers the code-compliance of the use of intumescent sealant without plasterboard patches for penetrations in intertenancy walls, and discusses the application of section 112 of the Act in respect of the defects in existing construction including those not exposed as part of the proposed building work.