ᐅ Missing waterproofing in bathrooms discovered after 16 years.
Created on: 12 Apr 2019 12:19
I
Ibdk14
Hello dear forum members,
During the renovation of our basement, we discovered that the bathroom in the basement was missing waterproofing — both underneath and on the walls. This is now being properly installed.
At the same time, I am wondering what has been done about the bathrooms on the upper floor and the toilet on the ground floor.
Water would drip from one of the bathrooms on the upper floor into the hallway below after using the shower (cross-laminated timber ceiling). So I assume no waterproofing was applied there either. Only the silicone seal prevented water damage so far, but it was no longer perfect and we recently redid it.
Well, the house was built over 16 years ago with a general contractor who went bankrupt shortly after. So there is no warranty anymore.
What are our options now? Replace everything at our own cost, or is there any liability on the part of the tile installer, even though it was done through a general contractor? I still need to review the construction specifications in detail, but if waterproofing was state of the art back then, I don’t understand why it wasn’t applied here.
I really don’t want a legal dispute. We just don’t want to bear all the costs ourselves and want a proper installation so that no more water can penetrate the timber house.
Sorry if I have not provided enough details. I’m a bit overwhelmed at the moment and I’m happy to answer further questions. However, I would really appreciate avoiding any negative remarks, which I’m sure you understand.
Thanks in advance for all the helpful answers.
Good luck, Alena
During the renovation of our basement, we discovered that the bathroom in the basement was missing waterproofing — both underneath and on the walls. This is now being properly installed.
At the same time, I am wondering what has been done about the bathrooms on the upper floor and the toilet on the ground floor.
Water would drip from one of the bathrooms on the upper floor into the hallway below after using the shower (cross-laminated timber ceiling). So I assume no waterproofing was applied there either. Only the silicone seal prevented water damage so far, but it was no longer perfect and we recently redid it.
Well, the house was built over 16 years ago with a general contractor who went bankrupt shortly after. So there is no warranty anymore.
What are our options now? Replace everything at our own cost, or is there any liability on the part of the tile installer, even though it was done through a general contractor? I still need to review the construction specifications in detail, but if waterproofing was state of the art back then, I don’t understand why it wasn’t applied here.
I really don’t want a legal dispute. We just don’t want to bear all the costs ourselves and want a proper installation so that no more water can penetrate the timber house.
Sorry if I have not provided enough details. I’m a bit overwhelmed at the moment and I’m happy to answer further questions. However, I would really appreciate avoiding any negative remarks, which I’m sure you understand.
Thanks in advance for all the helpful answers.
Good luck, Alena
The basement is being renovated due to water damage, but this is unrelated to the missing waterproofing. The fact that there was no proper waterproofing in the shower was discovered incidentally by the new construction company. The basement has already been thoroughly dried and is now ready for new tiles.
We suspect that our original tiler may also have done a poor job on the upper floor, but we will soon verify this by removing at least one shower for inspection. If necessary, we will take further measures after that.
Thank you all!
We suspect that our original tiler may also have done a poor job on the upper floor, but we will soon verify this by removing at least one shower for inspection. If necessary, we will take further measures after that.
Thank you all!
nordanney schrieb:
With that, you have already answered your own question. Unfortunately, you will have to cover the costs yourself, as there is no one left to hold accountable.That is not correct. I am aware of a similar case...
I will simply quote here, as I am not sure whether I am allowed to post links.
If the work of a subcontractor is defective and causes damage to the property owner—who does not have a construction contract with the subcontractor—the subcontractor is obliged to compensate for this damage.
The subcontractor is hired not by the property owner but by a contractor who holds a contract with the property owner. Typically, this is the general contractor. Therefore, claims related to defects in the subcontractor's work can only be made by their contractual partner, the general contractor, against the subcontractor. The general contractor, in turn, is liable for the subcontractor’s defects to their client, the property owner.
The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz ruled on a case where defective work by a subcontractor—in this case, a roofer—caused moisture damage to the upper and ground floors of the property owner’s building. Since the general contractor had become insolvent, the property owner filed a claim for damages directly against the subcontractor and won.
The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz affirmed the subcontractor’s liability for the resulting damage even if the defect was based on an incorrect design by the general contractor.
The court ruled that the subcontractor is liable under tort law pursuant to § 823 of the German Civil Code for the damage caused by moisture to the property owner’s building due to trespass of property rights and must compensate for the damage. It makes no difference that no contract exists between the property owner and the subcontractor, but only between the property owner and the general contractor on one hand, and the general contractor and the subcontractor on the other. Tort liability under § 823 German Civil Code applies precisely when there is no contractual relationship between the injured party and the party causing the damage. Regarding what you can or must do.
Quick and dirty: As last time, renew the silicone joints where visible detachment occurs. A significant number of German showers no longer have this.
Or have the shower tray reinstalled with sealing tape. You only need to redo the shower, not the entire bathroom.
Quick and dirty: As last time, renew the silicone joints where visible detachment occurs. A significant number of German showers no longer have this.
Or have the shower tray reinstalled with sealing tape. You only need to redo the shower, not the entire bathroom.
danixf schrieb:
That’s not correct. I know of a similar case...
I’ll just quote it because I’m not sure if I’m allowed to post links. But not after 16 years?!
dertill schrieb:
Regarding what you can or must do.
Quick and simple: As last time, renew the silicone seals where they show visible detachment. A significant number of German showers no longer have this.
Alternatively, have the shower tray reseated with sealing tape. You only need to redo the shower, not the entire bathroom.Thanks to everyone for the tips and advice. We will first focus on the basement – the construction work is large enough – and then have the upper floor carefully inspected with as little effort as possible. There is currently no need for action, at least no urgent one, since everything has been watertight for several years. However, we will keep an eye on it.
Similar topics