ᐅ Wall waterproofing not compliant with standards, minor defect
Created on: 20 Apr 2021 07:57
M
Meyer37
Hello,
we are currently building a single-family house in Baden-Württemberg with a general contractor, and the shell structure has just been completed.
During the inspection with our expert, it was noticed that the masonry waterproofing was not carried out fully in compliance with the standards.
It should have been implemented as shown in the top image; unfortunately, the yellow-marked area is missing. The membrane has not been wrapped around the strip foundation but is only laid horizontally.
I have not yet spoken with the general contractor because I am still unsure about how to proceed.
What options do I have? Which ones are reasonable and proportionate?
Is this something where I should demand a defect repair? Or can it be overlooked if everything else is correct? How critical is the missing part?
So far, I am satisfied with the contractor and somewhat hesitant/afraid to disturb the good relationship.
we are currently building a single-family house in Baden-Württemberg with a general contractor, and the shell structure has just been completed.
During the inspection with our expert, it was noticed that the masonry waterproofing was not carried out fully in compliance with the standards.
It should have been implemented as shown in the top image; unfortunately, the yellow-marked area is missing. The membrane has not been wrapped around the strip foundation but is only laid horizontally.
I have not yet spoken with the general contractor because I am still unsure about how to proceed.
What options do I have? Which ones are reasonable and proportionate?
Is this something where I should demand a defect repair? Or can it be overlooked if everything else is correct? How critical is the missing part?
So far, I am satisfied with the contractor and somewhat hesitant/afraid to disturb the good relationship.
ypg schrieb:
Your questions should be answered by the expert...
... or what did they say?Nida35a schrieb:
The expert will classify this missing waterproofing in the report as a major defect that must be corrected.Unfortunately, the report does not include an evaluation. Feedback will take some time.
If anyone has assessments or opinions on this, I would be very interested.
Myrna_Loy schrieb:
In our case, it was not installed immediately either. The reason given was that it could easily be damaged by subsequent work.This issue is definitely resolved. The execution plan also shows exactly what has now been implemented.Hello,
It’s quite simple – waterproofing must be carried out according to the standards. If this is not the case, it constitutes a technical defect. There is no concept of "proportionality." In my opinion, connecting it later is rather difficult due to overlaps. I would also be cautious with waterproofing using bitumen thick coating. There is a ruling from the Higher Regional Court Hamm where this method was not recognized as a generally accepted engineering practice.
Of course, all conditions and the actual execution need to be assessed visually first.
A defect notice should definitely be issued, requesting remediation. If you need assistance, I can support you within the limits allowed by the distance.
Best regards,
Jann
It’s quite simple – waterproofing must be carried out according to the standards. If this is not the case, it constitutes a technical defect. There is no concept of "proportionality." In my opinion, connecting it later is rather difficult due to overlaps. I would also be cautious with waterproofing using bitumen thick coating. There is a ruling from the Higher Regional Court Hamm where this method was not recognized as a generally accepted engineering practice.
Of course, all conditions and the actual execution need to be assessed visually first.
A defect notice should definitely be issued, requesting remediation. If you need assistance, I can support you within the limits allowed by the distance.
Best regards,
Jann
H
hanghaus20006 May 2021 12:34Just to cause some confusion.
Where did you get the pictures from? In my opinion, the first picture shows a basement. But you mention a strip foundation. Then it must be the second picture. In that case, it is not a defect.
Who omitted the caption of the second picture?
Where did you get the pictures from? In my opinion, the first picture shows a basement. But you mention a strip foundation. Then it must be the second picture. In that case, it is not a defect.
Who omitted the caption of the second picture?
H
hanghaus20006 May 2021 12:51Jann St schrieb:
Hello,
it’s quite simple – a waterproofing must be installed according to standards. If this is not the case, it is considered a technical defect.
There is no concept of “proportionality.” Connecting it later, in my opinion, is rather difficult due to overlaps.
I would also be cautious with waterproofing using bituminous thick coating. There is a ruling from the Higher Regional Court Hamm stating that this is not classified as a generally accepted engineering practice.
Now, it is certainly necessary to consider all conditions and the actual execution as a whole.
A defect notice should definitely be issued, requesting a correction. If support is needed, I can assist within the limits set by the distance.
Best regards, Jann You are a bit late here and mistaken about the execution. The original poster clearly stated: "This issue is definitely resolved. The execution plan also shows it exactly as it has been implemented."
As explained in post #9, and probably correctly so.
I understand this differently – the issue of "immediate installation" is definitely resolved since it has already been carried out.
However, I agree with your comment #9; I didn’t examine it closely enough. My intention was more to address the fundamental point that if there is a deviation from the standard in the case of waterproofing (which the expert apparently has certified), this always constitutes a technical defect, and there is no proportionality in this regard.
I have not verified whether the statement that a technical defect exists here is correct – after all, there are no pictures available for that.
However, I agree with your comment #9; I didn’t examine it closely enough. My intention was more to address the fundamental point that if there is a deviation from the standard in the case of waterproofing (which the expert apparently has certified), this always constitutes a technical defect, and there is no proportionality in this regard.
I have not verified whether the statement that a technical defect exists here is correct – after all, there are no pictures available for that.
Similar topics