Hello everyone,
We planned our house with a developer. The knee wall was set at 1.50 m (5 feet) in the initial design, which was important to us so we could still place some cabinets or dressers there.
Now the financing is finalized, and the deposit paid, etc., and suddenly they say they overlooked something in the fine print of the building regulations, and the knee wall can only be up to 1 m (3 feet 3 inches) high. To compensate, they want to change the roof pitch from 38 to 45 degrees. This would increase the volume and give us a really big attic space.
That sounds great – but it doesn’t really add much usable living space. It actually reduces the living area quite a bit, or are we seeing this wrong?
Before I start complaining, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. I feel like they should at least add some square meters as compensation, shouldn’t they?
Thanks in advance!
We planned our house with a developer. The knee wall was set at 1.50 m (5 feet) in the initial design, which was important to us so we could still place some cabinets or dressers there.
Now the financing is finalized, and the deposit paid, etc., and suddenly they say they overlooked something in the fine print of the building regulations, and the knee wall can only be up to 1 m (3 feet 3 inches) high. To compensate, they want to change the roof pitch from 38 to 45 degrees. This would increase the volume and give us a really big attic space.
That sounds great – but it doesn’t really add much usable living space. It actually reduces the living area quite a bit, or are we seeing this wrong?
Before I start complaining, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. I feel like they should at least add some square meters as compensation, shouldn’t they?
Thanks in advance!
My parents have a knee wall height of 40cm (16 inches). However, officially it is considered a bungalow, with the attic used only as storage space. That’s not really feasible, at least not if you don’t have a floor area of around 150 square meters (1,615 square feet) and are willing to accept significant loss of usable space along the sides upstairs.
Even then, you still have those unused gable ends that are almost impossible to use effectively, even for storage. In my parents’ case, wooden walls were installed at about 120cm (47 inches) height, and the space behind these walls extending to the end of the house was used as storage; or more accurately, it’s really the last possible storage option for items that are almost never used. You can only access it by crawling in, so it’s really just wasted space...
Even then, you still have those unused gable ends that are almost impossible to use effectively, even for storage. In my parents’ case, wooden walls were installed at about 120cm (47 inches) height, and the space behind these walls extending to the end of the house was used as storage; or more accurately, it’s really the last possible storage option for items that are almost never used. You can only access it by crawling in, so it’s really just wasted space...
B
Bieber081511 Oct 2016 16:10Bauexperte schrieb:
Regarding the mistake made by your contractual partner: it’s not only them who made a serious error, you also made a mistake. [...] Therefore, I see the responsibility for negligence as being evenly shared. Purchasing from a developer actually relieves the buyer from the duties of a builder. You buy a house just like a car. Who really asks whether everything is done properly? (A little jab—cars aren’t any better than construction sites, either...) It may be true that in real life you have to be actively involved to achieve a decent outcome (construction supervision...). But that rather says something about the existing developers. For that reason, I see the matter in a somewhat more one-sided way. The developer sold a house with specific features and now cannot deliver. They should seriously reconsider their position.Practically speaking, our buyer is the one suffering the loss. I would be very surprised if the contract does not include some kind of loophole regarding potential official requirements or objections from the authorities.
Now it would be interesting to know what exactly is stated in the zoning plan and what is written in the contract. Only after that can you consider the next steps. I would also suggest discussing the matter with the developer only after clarifying these basic conditions.
B
Bauexperte11 Oct 2016 23:57Bieber0815 schrieb:
Purchasing from the developer actually relieves the buyer of the responsibilities typically held by builders. It depends on the contract; I also don’t think that a traditional developer is the contractual partner here.
Bieber0815 schrieb:
In practice, our buyer suffers the loss, so I would be very surprised if the contract does not include a loophole regarding possible requirements or objections from the authorities. I agree with that as well.
Bieber0815 schrieb:
It would now be interesting to know what the zoning plan states and what the contract says. Only after that can one consider the next steps. I would also only approach a discussion with the developer after clarifying these conditions. However, that assumes the original poster can read and understand both documents.
Best regards, Bauexperte
B
Bieber081512 Oct 2016 08:01Bauexperte schrieb:
It depends on the contract; I also don't think a traditional main contractor is the contractual partner here. A main contractor is a main contractor. But since a "down payment" is mentioned above, it might not be a main contractor in this case. I don’t know who signed or will sign the building permit / planning permission. Then it would be clear to me where the responsibility lies.
B
Bieber081512 Oct 2016 08:02Bauexperte schrieb:
However, this assumes that the original poster can read and understand both If not, that’s not a problem. Many of us here, myself included, have been saying for years that expert knowledge can also be outsourced. You just have to actually do it.