Previous determinations

The matter to be determined, under section 177(1)(b) and (2)(f), is whether the authority was correct in its decision to issue a notice to fix for the owners’ structure. In deciding this matter, I must consider whether the structure was exempt from requiring a building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act, and whether the authority had sufficient evidence to consider on reasonable grounds that the building work did not comply with the Building Code.

This determination considers whether the authority was correct to refuse to issue a notice to fix for site works that occurred over a period of years. The determination also considers the compliance of the work and status of the developer as a specified person.

This determination addresses three decisions, the first two being certificates for public use issued in 2014 and 2023. The third concerns an application for a certificate for public use refused in 2024. The determination turns on whether the public safety test was met with regard to each of the three decisions. 

It also discusses the specified systems raised during the process as well as the conditions listed on the 2014 and 2023 certificates.

This determination considers an authority’s decision to refuse to issue a code compliance certificate for the construction of a two‐storey detached dwelling.

The determination considers the reasons for the refusal and whether they meet the requirements of section 95A of the Building Act 2004.

This determination considers the authority’s refusal to issue a code compliance certificate due to concerns that some of the building work does not comply with the building consent and the Building Code.

The determination considers whether the authority had grounds for refusing to issue the code compliance certificate, and the reasons given for the refusal as set out in its section 95A notice.

This determination considers an authority's decision to refuse to modify a building consent for two relocatable dwellings built in a factory by administratively splitting it to allow for individual code compliance certificates to be issued.

This determination concerns a return wall to a retaining wall built under a building consent; the return wall encroaches over the owners’ boundary into a neighbouring property.  The authority issued a notice to fix in respect of the return wall, as it is of the view it was a built without first obtaining an amendment to the consent.  The determination considers whether the notice to fix was correctly issued, and whether the return wall was a major or minor amendment to the building consent.

This determination considered whether the authority’s decision to grant a building consent with an attached section 37 certificate that did not include a planning noncompliance that was not identified in the certificate. The determination also considers whether the authority could place a section 37 tag on the building work after the building consent had been issued.

This determination considers the authority’s decision to refuse to issue the code compliance certificates for the 13-year-old house and the swimming pool. The determination discusses the authority’s refusal to inspect the building work and whether there was sufficient evidence of compliance in order to issue the code compliance certificates.

This determination was sought by the authority in regards to whether a notice to fix was correctly issued to the designer as a specified person, and whether the sprinkler system is a specified system for the purpose of the compliance schedule and building warrant of fitness.  The determination also considers the compliance of particular features of the building, and discusses the various contraventions listed in the notice to fix.