Previous determinations

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.

The authority has refused to issue a code compliance certificate for building work carried out pursuant to building consent because it is not satisfied that the cladding system that formed part of the building work complied with clauses B2 and E2 of the Building Code at the time it was constructed.

The authority’s formal refusal letter, when read together with an accompanying email referring to the reasons for refusal, had provided sufficient reasons for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate. 

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 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 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 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 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.

This determination considers whether a roof cladding system as installed on a house complies with Building Code Clause E2 External moisture.

Specifically, the determination considers how the perimeter edges of the profile metal cladding have been finished where it overhangs the gutters, along with the associated eaves flashing.

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 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.