This option is helpful where the proposed product or method has been used successfully in similar applications.
The proposed solution must be directly comparable to past history, taking into account use, situation and environment. Comparison with overseas conditions, with different ultraviolet light or rainfall levels, may not always be relevant to support the product use in the New Zealand environment.
When using in-service history as evidence, ensure that:
- the proposed work is sufficiently similar to the cited examples to make a valid comparison
- the in-service history for the product is adequate
- the historical use record has been interpreted by a person with appropriate expertise
- it is relevant to New Zealand
- it is relevant to the specific site and environmental conditions
- it meets or exceeds the current minimum requirements of the Building Code
- the proposed product is the same as the product for which the in-service history is presented (as products may change over time).
The building consent authority is not obliged to accept performance claims, so the evidence must be a valid demonstration of successful use in other similar situations.
Compliance path 3 is likely to be regularly used with renovation work, particularly where new construction and detailing is to match the old. The proviso is satisfying the BCA that the original detailing and construction has been working successfully. This may mean that the BCA will need to inspect the original building to satisfy themselves that the materials and detailing have been performing.