Previous determinations

This determination concerns the retro-fitting of blown mineral fibre insulation into an existing house and the authority’s decision to refuse to grant building consent.  The determination considers the grounds for the authority’s decision, and whether there are now reasonable grounds to be satisfied that the building after the alterations will comply with the Building Code to the extent required by section 112 of the Act.

This determination considers completed remedial work to a house. The work was consented, but work that was intended to be done as an amendment to the consent was completed by the owner before the amendment was approved by the authority. The code compliance certificate issued by the authority excluded the amended work, which was regularised through the issue of a certificate of acceptance. The owner disputed the exclusion of the amended work from the code compliance certificate.

The determination is concerned with the compliance of the concrete ramp and ground clearances to the front entry to the Building Code. The determination considers whether the authority was correct in exercising its powers of decision in refusing to issue a code compliance certificate.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of discrete repairs proposed to the top levels of a multi-storey building. The determination considers whether the authority was correct to issue a building consent for that work, and whether the replacement of a related deck membrane was exempt from requiring a building consent.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a panel facade cladding system used in the recladding of two apartments at the top of a multi-level building. Due to its height, the building fell outside the scope of the Accetable Solution and Verification Method, and the determination considered the effect of wind pressures likely to be imposed on the cladding system.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of an 11 year old house. The 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 the AAC cladding to a four year old house and the authority's refusal to issue an amendment for repairs and repainting. The determination discusses damage caused by thermal movement due to the dark paint colour, and the authority's request for a producer statement and warranty for the cladding.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of a house and alterations that are, respectively, 21 and 9 years old. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificates, and whether the house currently complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination is concerned with the compliance of cladding and timber framing in a 15-year-old house that had previously been subject to moisture ingress. The determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing the code compliance certificate for alterations that involved recladding and over-cladding, and whether the house complies with the requirements of the Building Code, particularly with respect to weathertightness and durability.

This determination considers the authority’s reasons for refusing to issue a code compliance certificate for remedial work to an existing house; and whether the work concerned complied with Clause B1, B2, and E2 of the Building Code. The building consent had been issued with requirements for quality assurance in relation to construction monitoring which was also the subject of the dispute between the parties.