ᐅ Who is responsible for restoring the height of the garage/parking space?
Created on: 27 Sep 2023 15:54
D
darksun
Hello,
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
A brief update:
B has sought legal advice (which is understandable, as a layperson might not be able to assess the situation properly).
The lawyer’s opinion is that A is responsible for ensuring that the existing garage is not damaged by the backfilling work on the side.
(The garage at the rear will be ordered to withstand earth pressure).
Hmm.
I can only explain such a statement from a lawyer (with construction law experience) by assuming that not all details and the initial situation are known to them:
For example, the situation from four months ago, when the entire area was still covered with 3 meters (10 feet) of soil.
And the fact that the now “open area” next to the garages and parking space was necessary working space for the garage installation.
Furthermore, B has known for 10 months (email exchanges, sketches) that the area behind our parking space was going to be refilled with soil...
B has sought legal advice (which is understandable, as a layperson might not be able to assess the situation properly).
The lawyer’s opinion is that A is responsible for ensuring that the existing garage is not damaged by the backfilling work on the side.
(The garage at the rear will be ordered to withstand earth pressure).
Hmm.
I can only explain such a statement from a lawyer (with construction law experience) by assuming that not all details and the initial situation are known to them:
For example, the situation from four months ago, when the entire area was still covered with 3 meters (10 feet) of soil.
And the fact that the now “open area” next to the garages and parking space was necessary working space for the garage installation.
Furthermore, B has known for 10 months (email exchanges, sketches) that the area behind our parking space was going to be refilled with soil...
ypg schrieb:
To clarify again: is B also backfilling?Yes, at his garage, but only at the back (since that area is protected against soil pressure).W
WilderSueden30 Sep 2023 07:50The crucial point of the question is whether the excavation has legally created a new terrain profile. If this is the case, your backfilling would alter the terrain and trigger an obligation to implement safety measures.
I am also just an amateur, but I could imagine that this counts as a joint construction project and therefore, without a written partnership agreement, all costs are simply divided by two, or each party pays for their own land, with costs related to the shared boundary split evenly.
I find it hard to believe that A would have to cover the costs of securing the shared boundary alone.
But every case is different, especially in practice and in court...
I find it hard to believe that A would have to cover the costs of securing the shared boundary alone.
But every case is different, especially in practice and in court...
schubert7930 Sep 2023 10:39What kind of costs are we actually talking about? L-shaped retaining walls and backfilling, right? You are neighbors, and the construction workers will come with their machines anyway. Or is it about the well-known “principle” again?
Similar topics