ᐅ Incorrect installation boxes used. Who is responsible for the resulting costs?
Created on: 5 Jan 2020 17:35
L
lin0r87
Hello everyone,
we have the following problem...
We ordered 19 recessed ceiling spotlights in the prefabricated ceiling on the ground floor from the shell construction company. We want to control everything via DALI.
One spotlight was charged at €83. This price included the housings and the installation.
Now to the problem...
THE COMPLETELY WRONG HOUSINGS (Kaiser 1227-55) WERE INSTALLED!
One housing alone costs €2.14! The diameter is 60mm (2.4 inches).
I could not fit any spotlights into these housings, so I said, "Remove the ceilings and redo them!"
This was not done. The ceilings were simply laid on top. I had no say in this, for whatever reason.
The shell constructor promised to find a solution. I agreed, on the condition that the full price would definitely not be paid!
A core drill hole of 170mm (6.7 inches) was made, and the correct housings were inserted and somehow adjusted (??)...
Complete mess! On top of that, the openings for the “new” housings were terribly modified. They want me (a layperson) to close the gaps.
The spots are partly misaligned and not flush with the ceiling surface as they should have been at the factory.
To somehow ensure alignment, I bought new front covers (about €6 each) to at least achieve a decent result.
The point is, they insist on the full amount, saying they did not earn anything and actually lost money.
The fault clearly lies with the shell constructor.
How would you handle such a situation? Would a 50-60% deduction be reasonable, or would you say a full 100% deduction is justified?
I really need advice on this matter.
we have the following problem...
We ordered 19 recessed ceiling spotlights in the prefabricated ceiling on the ground floor from the shell construction company. We want to control everything via DALI.
One spotlight was charged at €83. This price included the housings and the installation.
Now to the problem...
THE COMPLETELY WRONG HOUSINGS (Kaiser 1227-55) WERE INSTALLED!
One housing alone costs €2.14! The diameter is 60mm (2.4 inches).
I could not fit any spotlights into these housings, so I said, "Remove the ceilings and redo them!"
This was not done. The ceilings were simply laid on top. I had no say in this, for whatever reason.
The shell constructor promised to find a solution. I agreed, on the condition that the full price would definitely not be paid!
A core drill hole of 170mm (6.7 inches) was made, and the correct housings were inserted and somehow adjusted (??)...
Complete mess! On top of that, the openings for the “new” housings were terribly modified. They want me (a layperson) to close the gaps.
The spots are partly misaligned and not flush with the ceiling surface as they should have been at the factory.
To somehow ensure alignment, I bought new front covers (about €6 each) to at least achieve a decent result.
The point is, they insist on the full amount, saying they did not earn anything and actually lost money.
The fault clearly lies with the shell constructor.
How would you handle such a situation? Would a 50-60% deduction be reasonable, or would you say a full 100% deduction is justified?
I really need advice on this matter.
Vicky Pedia5 Jan 2020 19:03What kind of damage are we talking about here? The client ordered a functional structure that was to be built according to recognized construction standards. The fact that the structural contractor acknowledges this is shown by the fact that they have made corrections, although not properly. The argument that they don’t make any profit from it is also invalid, since the contractor prepared the cost estimate themselves.
You should request the contractor to properly construct the ceiling (4-week deadline). Retaining an amount equal to twice the repair costs is possible. Simply withhold 2,500 (currency). The contractor must prove to you that their solution was proper and acceptable. If they still owe you money, they will likely take action.
You should request the contractor to properly construct the ceiling (4-week deadline). Retaining an amount equal to twice the repair costs is possible. Simply withhold 2,500 (currency). The contractor must prove to you that their solution was proper and acceptable. If they still owe you money, they will likely take action.
lin0r87 schrieb:
How would you handle a situation like this now? Would a deduction of 50-60% be acceptable, or would you say a full 100% deduction is justified!? You won’t get very far with that. Ultimately, a judge will decide, and the deduction will likely be much less than your figures. Aside from the stress involved. The recessed lights are not a core element of a ceiling. At best, this would be considered a cosmetic defect.
What surprises me more is this:
lin0r87 schrieb:
They didn’t install recessed lights in that area, so on my side it was clear: “Remove the ceilings and redo!” This was not done. The ceilings were just installed over them. I had no say in this, for whatever reason. You are the client and you’re letting them do whatever they want...
Now, regarding the solution.
lin0r87 schrieb:
The recessed lights are partly misaligned and not flush with the surface. Could you explain that in more detail?
It really doesn’t matter much unless they are completely crooked, but judging from the photos, it seems acceptable. The covers remain sealed until handover. The diameter of the junction box is usually much larger than the actual recessed light, so the final alignment is typically done during installation after moving in. With us, even the painter had already finished. Keep the 83€ for the recessed lights. Buy new covers for around 10€ (about 10 dollars) and treat yourselves to something nice with the remaining 1.5 (units missing here?). In the end, everything should still look perfect.
Vicky Pedia schrieb:
What kind of defect are we talking about? The client ordered a functioning installation that was to be completed according to recognized construction engineering standards. It’s a ceiling, and it will probably function properly. I still maintain that the recessed lights constitute a cosmetic defect.
Similar topics