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

1000 Determinations match your query
Show detailed results

2016/020: The refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for an 8-year-old house

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.

About this document

2024/048: Regarding an authority’s decision to grant a building consent

This determination considers an authority’s decision to grant a building consent regarding building work associated with the relocation of an existing dwelling. The authority believes it granted the building consent in error, and that decision should be reversed, due to concerns that have subsequently arisen with the designs for the onsite surface water and foul water disposal systems.

About this document

2016/012: Refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for the retrofitting of urea formaldehyde foam insulation to a house with asbestos cladding

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.

About this document

2015/083: Regarding the refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a 16-year-old house

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 and durability of the exterior envelope, and the performance of a concrete floor slab and the subfloor space beneath with respect to structure 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.

About this document

2016/004: Regarding the weathertightness of some 19-year-old stucco plaster walls to a house

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.

About this document

2024/036: The proposed refusal to issue a code compliance certificate for a house

This determination concerns the authority’s proposed refusal of a code compliance certificate. The determination considers whether the building work complies with the building consent, and whether particular elements of the building work comply with the relevant clauses of the Building Code.

About this document

2016/005: Regarding the durability of a substitute metal roofing material on a house located close to a tidal estuary

This determination considers the compliance of a substitute metal roofing material with respect to durability.  The determination includes the expert opinion of a specialist in corrosion engineering, and discusses the exposure and corrosion zones relevant to the site.

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: