Good evening,
as the title says, our new build (shell construction) was completely botched in autumn 2018 and now needs to be repaired. In the course of this renovation, we are considering changes to the staircase (which should be carried out by a third party).
1. In June 2019, the basement was flooded with nearly 50 cm (20 inches) of groundwater in the solid concrete basement for about 2 weeks.
2. Bricks not laid according to Wienerberger guidelines (instead of thin-bed mortar, 5 mm (0.2 inches) or wider joints).
3. Flat roof was executed incorrectly – tapered insulation not installed according to the installation plan and then cut afterwards to create a slope.
4. Basement was excavated over 50 cm (20 inches) too shallow – consequence: the house is too high according to the allotment garden law and is not consolidated.
Suing the company is not an option – costs for legal proceedings would be enormous and lengthy – lasting for years – and the company could file for bankruptcy at any time. The result would be that we would still be stuck with the court costs. We have already consulted six construction law attorneys. We cannot afford to demolish and rebuild the house, although we will always be uncertain about water leakage in the basement. We live near a river, and high groundwater is a recurring issue every spring after the snow melt. We are completely desperate.
The building authority does not help: despite the clearly wrong height. According to a new submission plan by the construction company, it is supposedly approved, even though it is clearly too high (according to recent surveying by a certified surveying office). It all sounds like a bad movie, but it is true.
The defects became apparent starting in summer 2019, and since then we have had an expert involved.
Our only option is to play along and reach a consensus with the construction company. We have already paid about 250,000 EUR (approximately) for the shell construction.
The floor plan is an external dimension of 8.3 m x 6.15 m (27.2 ft x 20.2 ft).
The staircase from the ground floor to the basement is about 4 m (13 ft) long and 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) wide, very uncomfortable concrete steps. (26 cm (10 inches) tread, 18 cm (7 inches) riser).
We are considering hiring an architect again to change the staircase to possibly a 2 x 2 m (6.5 ft x 6.5 ft) half-turn or slightly rotated. We have no joy with the whole house anymore. The stair width should also be a maximum of 90 cm (3 ft), not 130 cm (4 ft 3 in).
On one short side there is a 4 m (13 ft) kitchen and a 1.5 m (5 ft) WC. Then the dining area faces the long side and the living area is there. There would be a 3 x 2.2 m (9.8 ft x 7.2 ft) lift-and-slide door on the other short side.
In the middle of this whole mess, doubts arise about the floor plan and the staircase. We have two schoolchildren and a toddler and wanted to be living in the house since last autumn.
Sorry for the long post. I can only upload the plan next week.
Please share your opinions on changing the staircase (this would involve demolition of the existing one and widening but shortening the stairwell).
as the title says, our new build (shell construction) was completely botched in autumn 2018 and now needs to be repaired. In the course of this renovation, we are considering changes to the staircase (which should be carried out by a third party).
1. In June 2019, the basement was flooded with nearly 50 cm (20 inches) of groundwater in the solid concrete basement for about 2 weeks.
2. Bricks not laid according to Wienerberger guidelines (instead of thin-bed mortar, 5 mm (0.2 inches) or wider joints).
3. Flat roof was executed incorrectly – tapered insulation not installed according to the installation plan and then cut afterwards to create a slope.
4. Basement was excavated over 50 cm (20 inches) too shallow – consequence: the house is too high according to the allotment garden law and is not consolidated.
Suing the company is not an option – costs for legal proceedings would be enormous and lengthy – lasting for years – and the company could file for bankruptcy at any time. The result would be that we would still be stuck with the court costs. We have already consulted six construction law attorneys. We cannot afford to demolish and rebuild the house, although we will always be uncertain about water leakage in the basement. We live near a river, and high groundwater is a recurring issue every spring after the snow melt. We are completely desperate.
The building authority does not help: despite the clearly wrong height. According to a new submission plan by the construction company, it is supposedly approved, even though it is clearly too high (according to recent surveying by a certified surveying office). It all sounds like a bad movie, but it is true.
The defects became apparent starting in summer 2019, and since then we have had an expert involved.
Our only option is to play along and reach a consensus with the construction company. We have already paid about 250,000 EUR (approximately) for the shell construction.
The floor plan is an external dimension of 8.3 m x 6.15 m (27.2 ft x 20.2 ft).
The staircase from the ground floor to the basement is about 4 m (13 ft) long and 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) wide, very uncomfortable concrete steps. (26 cm (10 inches) tread, 18 cm (7 inches) riser).
We are considering hiring an architect again to change the staircase to possibly a 2 x 2 m (6.5 ft x 6.5 ft) half-turn or slightly rotated. We have no joy with the whole house anymore. The stair width should also be a maximum of 90 cm (3 ft), not 130 cm (4 ft 3 in).
On one short side there is a 4 m (13 ft) kitchen and a 1.5 m (5 ft) WC. Then the dining area faces the long side and the living area is there. There would be a 3 x 2.2 m (9.8 ft x 7.2 ft) lift-and-slide door on the other short side.
In the middle of this whole mess, doubts arise about the floor plan and the staircase. We have two schoolchildren and a toddler and wanted to be living in the house since last autumn.
Sorry for the long post. I can only upload the plan next week.
Please share your opinions on changing the staircase (this would involve demolition of the existing one and widening but shortening the stairwell).
Zaba12 schrieb:
I don't know the details. The waterproof concrete basement has been leaking after 10 years. I’m also wondering how that can happen, because that’s exactly why you build a waterproof concrete basement – to have peace of mind for decades.
But the guy had to pump out several liters daily quite early on. The lower level is completely damaged.
Now they want to inject something inside somewhere. Thanks! I wasn’t aware that concrete ages and can become leaky. I could only imagine that something cracked, but where would such a sudden force come from? Injection usually works well and is fairly inexpensive, but this must be quite a shock.
Bookstar schrieb:
Thanks! I wasn’t aware that concrete can age and become permeable. I can only imagine that something cracked, but where would such a force suddenly come from? Yes, injection grouting usually works well and is relatively inexpensive, but something like this must be quite a shock. Definitely. It took 2-3 weeks just to find someone to take a look since the basement contractor no longer exists. Nothing has been done yet. There are now holes in the screed, and the water is currently being continuously pumped out.
L
Laurasstern12 Feb 2020 09:17Scout schrieb:
1. Are you really sure it was groundwater? Why is there no water now? What changes were made? What does the expert recommend?
2. So what? In the worst case, you have thermal bridges. Will there be an external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) installed? Or are you genuinely concerned about the structural integrity?
3. What exactly are you worried about here?
4. That’s really unfortunate. What does the expert suggest? Would it be an option to propose to the authorities to slightly raise the ground level from the street side so that the maximum height above the top of the terrain is not exceeded? This could prevent a precedent that neighbors might refer to. Regarding your questions:
1. Yes, definitely groundwater. It was late spring, during almost continuous heavy rain throughout May—the Danube was in flood, as was the Donaukanal, which is about 30 m (100 feet) from our property. At the time, I communicated with the water management authority, and the groundwater level was measured about 1 m (3.3 feet) higher than usual. Also, groundwater flowed like a spring below the foundation slab even when it hadn’t rained for a long time.
2. Structural issues—long horizontal cuts (for pipes) were made in 20 cm (8 inch) Wienerberger Porotherm bricks; these should have all been vertical. The bricks have insulation inside. Additionally, a flat surface should have been created at the base of the floor plan. According to the manufacturer, the bricks should look like on a pallet—practically no joints. We paid for proper and correct installation, not poor workmanship.
3. Leaking roof!
There is a sloped insulation that directs water from the flat roof precisely into the gutter. There is a detailed installation plan—each board has a designated place, like a puzzle. The company admitted that the sloped insulation was installed incorrectly. As a result, the slope no longer directed the water toward the gutter. Instead of removing and reinstalling it, they cut a different slope into the insulation boards! Out of fear of uncertainty, the roof was then torched not twice as usual, but, according to the construction manager, five times! As a consequence, there are now pools of standing water on the flat roof (my husband and the expert saw this). In addition, insulation was used that has not been allowed since February and even absorbs water.
4. Excavating and filling must be done simultaneously. It’s not acceptable to just add fill. The building company has a new plan with the terrain modifications.
Bookstar schrieb:
It would be new to me that concrete ages and becomes leaky.This is not new, the keyword is concrete cancer. However, the likelihood of this happening should currently be quite low. Although the "incubation period" of about 10 years (10 years) would fit.oh, indeed.
So, to summarize:
1) Basement not deep enough: practically resolved through the permit/planning permission.
2) Basement leaking: The contractor has a plan and is willing to take action. Very good.
3) Roof leaking: It looks like there was serious poor workmanship here. How much of the roof would need to be removed and redone?
4) Stairs and floor plan: your private matter. But as long as you are still seriously trying to invest money here, it seems there is still capital available that could be much better used for points 2 and 3.
I completely agree. In any case, the construction is far from a total loss as soon as the height is approved.
So, to summarize:
1) Basement not deep enough: practically resolved through the permit/planning permission.
2) Basement leaking: The contractor has a plan and is willing to take action. Very good.
3) Roof leaking: It looks like there was serious poor workmanship here. How much of the roof would need to be removed and redone?
4) Stairs and floor plan: your private matter. But as long as you are still seriously trying to invest money here, it seems there is still capital available that could be much better used for points 2 and 3.
Snowy36 schrieb:
The only really serious problem is the wet basement
I completely agree. In any case, the construction is far from a total loss as soon as the height is approved.
L
Laurasstern12 Feb 2020 16:27Tassimat schrieb:
oh, indeed.
So, to summarize:
1) Basement not deep enough: virtually resolved through approval.
2) Basement leaking: The builder has a plan and is willing to take action. Very good.
3) Roof leaking: Apparently, there was poor workmanship here. How much of the roof would need to be removed and redone?
4) Stairs and floor plan: your personal preference. But as long as you’re still seriously considering investing money here, it seems you have capital available that would be much better spent on points 2 and 3.
I completely agree. In any case, the construction is far from a total loss once the height is approved. Why should WE, as the homeowners who contractually agreed on a defect-free building and, UNFORTUNATELY, HAVE ALREADY PAID, pay AGAIN for a roof and tiles that the builder installed incorrectly???
Of course, there is still capital—we only agreed on the shell construction. The rest up to move-in, including interior and exterior plastering, flooring, walls, kitchen, bathrooms, interior stairs, furnishings, roof terrace, landscaping, and so on, still needs to be planned and budgeted for...
We have to accept a house that is off in height by more than 50 cm (20 inches), which also means the terrace and garden have to be arranged differently than planned, where the basement may never be watertight—we ordered a living basement and need it because there are five of us...
You also forgot the improperly pointed and potentially structurally problematic bricks.
If all of this is NOT a total loss, then what do YOU consider one?
Similar topics