Applying filters will narrow down your search results
This determination considers the compliance of an alternative solution proposing the use of a single handrail on the inner face of a secondary private spiral stairway. The determination discusses the relative angle of the handrail and the pitch line of the stairs, and whether the handrail is graspable and would provide sufficient grip to arrest a fall.
This determination considers the information required to establish on reasonable grounds that specific elements of building work complies with the relevant clauses of the Building Code. At issue was the compatibility of plumbing fittings and pipes from different manufacturers, and whether evidence of construction monitoring was required.
This determination considers the compliance of an alternative solution using imported window and door joinery and the associated fixing and installation. The determination discusses the available technical information and the use of proposed testing to support the building consent amendment application.
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 considers whether signage is required between the common corridor and guest suites in a hotel in order to satisfy Clause F8 of the Building Code. The determination discusses the risks of the doors being wedged open and whether this constitutes a potential hazard.
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 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: