hi guys/fordy, are the self certifyers plumbers who then connect the wetback as well? if this is the case then they seemed to have carved a nice little niche market for themselves,cheers

Yeh I know what you mean. I want to try and find out where to go from here? I don't want to let this go as it appears NZHAA has an agenda to do the same as they did in Auckland throughout the whole of NZ once they get enough members. I was told that they tried this in Christchurch but failed as they didn't have enough members in that area.

So if anyone has ideas about who to take this too to get it investigated - let me know

Do you mean inspected by council or by a CP?

I think CP's should be able to certify them - I mean you install them as per manufacturers specifications/code requirements - all a council inspector does is check the manufacturers specs and checks the measurements from wall, hearth size, flue fixing etc and seismic restraints. They don't climb into the ceiling to check anything else. How would they know if there is an issue in the ceiling cavity ( i.e a potential fire risk) whereas the CP installing them would - food for thought.

HI TS - you must be the exception - climbing into a roof space    - the self certifying is kinda getting away from my original post which asked :

1.How can HHA self certify when no one legislates them?
What happens in the event of a fire - is the client still covered by insurance?

2. How can Auckland Council have the different pricing structure - under what legislation/bylaw - the training for a CP is a heck of a lot more than a HHA installer - and what happens, as someone mentioned, if there is a wetback to be installed?

They don't self certify. The Council is the one that issues the CCC not the installer from NZHHA.

So, NZHAA installer would send a producer statement to the council similar to what we do on certain types of work such as a pressure test, or waste water treatment plant - which says that we are licensed to install said system and it is installed to council/building code/manufacturers requirements? Then based on that the Code Of Compliance is issued by the council. So why would Auckland City use the words "self certification - by NZHAA" ? I will try and contact our local inspector again and get this clarified.

Plumbers don't actually get that much training in solid fuel heating

I have to disagree with you on that, it was one our original modules at Tech under Trade Cert Plumbing, and it was involved, couple that with ongoing training on new fireplaces, flues, roof construction, flashing roof penetrations and there is a lot of work done by plumbers. We have done hundreds and hundreds of fireplaces over the years including a lot of offset/two storey flues and never failed an inspection (had a reinspect on one as it was 2mm to close to the wall -

The different fee structure is done under the Building Act. They advertise them and if no one objects they're adopted.Normally they're advertised with the Council's annual plan.

Interesting - we saw nothing in the annual plan nor any published advertisements relating to this and it seems no one else in the plumbing industry in the greater Auckland area including the Master Plumbers saw it either.

Why would I get a copy of the annual plan - surely a change such as this should be gazetted somewhere relevant to the affected trades - or even to Master Plumbers - or PGDB or the Federation?
That, I would doubt very much - I mean as most councils do - they do what they like with their own agendas - I still want to know about the $290 fee and the self certification by the NZHAA - although you say that its not self certified - well from what we are told it is here in the super city.

I will do some more digging and see what we can find out.

Regarding the two fee structures the Council doesn't need to gazette it or specifically notify affected trades. They are only required to publicly notify it. As I said previously most Councils do it as part of their annual plan which gets advertised and therefore meets the requirement to publicly notify. Its the document which outlines their financial position and costings for the next year.

They could do it separately and advertise it more specifically to the people it most affects but why would they? It means another round of consultation, more advisers, more lawyers, more cost and if I was to be sneaky I'd say they might end up with opposition to their proposals, which they can avoid by putting it with other changes. Its easier to hide if its in a large document. The DBH, the PGDB and other large organisations operate the same way unfortunately. You can't challenge them on it because they've complied with the law.

My advice would be to find out where and when they advertised these changes and look out for them next year. Then make a submission. This is how the law works unfortunately

Regarding PS3s.

A PS1 is a design statement saying that a design complies with the Building Code.

A PS2 is a peer review statement issued by someone if they've been requested to do a review of someone else's design. Often done on large construction jobs to check that the structural design doesn't have any errors. It will normally be an engineer reviewing another engineers design work. The engineer will certify the other engineers design as complying with the Building Code.

A PS3 is a construction producer statement advising that work haas been done in accordance with the Building Code. Normally issued by tradespeople and can be requested for work not seen by a Council. Its the Councils decision whether to rely on one of them or not. Some Councils ask for testing statements. These are examples of PS3s. If a fault develops the writer of the PS3 is liable.

A PS4 is a construction review statement normally given by an engineer. Its his final word that his design has been followed and that a building complies with his design and the Building Code.