ᐅ The windows are smaller than specified in the building permit/planning permission or construction plans.

By the way, the proportionality can also be seen in the fact that these few centimeters were not noticed before.

Pinky0301 schrieb:

Rectifying defects always has to be reasonable. Replacing a window because of 6cm (2.4 inches) probably isn’t.

Mycraft schrieb:

It’s a classic problem also because there are always different plans, and one contractor gets version 1.0, another 2.0, and the third 2.0a.

Usually also because the client decided differently at short notice or made a change on site.

I was at the house almost every day. Yes, the driving was annoying, but it was worth it. We also noticed immediately during the brickwork that two windows had incorrect sill heights, which were corrected on the spot.
The passage between two rooms was suddenly full height, reaching the ceiling instead of being the normal height like a door. We pointed it out, it was corrected, done.
As for the socket outlet positions... well, almost all of them were correct. The “almost” was fixed during the chase cutting.
So yes – it definitely pays off to show up often, talk, and ask questions. Be friendly but firm.
Write phone numbers clearly on the walls as soon as the shell is large enough.
They will be used – at least, that was the case for us.

hanse987 schrieb:

Every house is a prototype and not a fully planned industrial product from start to finish.

I agree with you, but I also believe that since houses (with early dry stone walls) have been built from around 9500 to 8200 BC, despite changes over time, it should gradually work out.
If someone completes a three-year apprenticeship in their trade and works for years or even decades in the field, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that nothing is impossible. I don’t mean to be unpopular here, but I still don’t fully understand the industry.
After the success or failure of building my house, I hope to be wiser; I consider myself a (somewhat) teachable system.

11ant schrieb:

...
Basically, every plan should state: "If older than 14 days, then actively confirm validity before proceeding."

This is an example of what I mean when I say I don’t understand the usual practices in this industry. Even though in your example I would place the responsibility more on the client. You (as a non-expert?) recognize this sensible possible solution, but why isn’t something like this implemented? There should be many approaches to achieve defect-free or at least defect-reduced construction.

ypg schrieb:

Mostly because the property owner has made a last-minute decision or change during construction ;:

The most prominent example is the BER airport, where it’s the same story. Many plans and many client requests came after all approvals were obtained and construction had already started.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

You (as a non-expert?) see this reasonable solution, but why is something like this not implemented? There should be many approaches to achieve construction with fewer or no defects.

Because it involves a lot of extra bureaucracy. The key people responsible are the foreman, the site manager, the expert inspector, and as the final authority, the client themselves. Despite these four supervising parties, defect-free houses do not exist. Anyone in construction will tell you that.

It's quite complex. And there is a lot of pressure building up.