Good morning,
there is an article in Handelsblatt titled "Construction water and site electricity are not provided by the client" available on Google. Existing clauses are also invalid.
In your opinion, should the connection costs be paid by the construction company as well, or only the consumption?
Thank you
there is an article in Handelsblatt titled "Construction water and site electricity are not provided by the client" available on Google. Existing clauses are also invalid.
In your opinion, should the connection costs be paid by the construction company as well, or only the consumption?
Thank you
X
xMisterDx23 Oct 2023 13:09No. The professional must approve the scaffolding at the end; anyone can assemble it. Please don’t tell me that the "scaffolders" you find on large construction sites, and increasingly also in single-family home construction, whose language you can’t understand, are all trained scaffolders. Even among German crews, there are always helpers who are only semi-skilled.
It’s like with electrical work. A layperson can install and connect everything independently, as long as a certified electrician does the testing and signs off on the report at the end. You just have to find someone who will sign it. This usually isn’t a problem within your network.
And even then, the professional does not always take responsibility if someone falls. It’s like with a vehicle inspection. The inspector signs off on the condition as it was on the day of inspection. What happens three days later because someone tampered with it is no longer the inspector’s problem.
In our case, the bricklayers already removed several scaffold planks or placed them loosely somewhere after two days because it gave them better access. No scaffolding supervisor can be held liable if the bricklayer falls two floors down because of that.
It’s like with electrical work. A layperson can install and connect everything independently, as long as a certified electrician does the testing and signs off on the report at the end. You just have to find someone who will sign it. This usually isn’t a problem within your network.
And even then, the professional does not always take responsibility if someone falls. It’s like with a vehicle inspection. The inspector signs off on the condition as it was on the day of inspection. What happens three days later because someone tampered with it is no longer the inspector’s problem.
In our case, the bricklayers already removed several scaffold planks or placed them loosely somewhere after two days because it gave them better access. No scaffolding supervisor can be held liable if the bricklayer falls two floors down because of that.
X
xMisterDx23 Oct 2023 13:17se_na_23 schrieb:
Then we can safely heat the screed with construction electricity for 48 cents. I was already thinking of renting a trailer with heating oil. How do you come to that conclusion? The contractor is responsible for arranging the construction electricity. Specifically, the ruling addresses the common practice of shifting the construction electricity cost onto the client and then saying, “No construction power? Then we can’t start, and the fixed price is at risk because you are not providing your services on time.”
The ruling does not automatically mean that the contractor must also cover the electricity costs.
Moreover, there is no automatic process behind this. Although there is now a precedent, each client still has to enforce this individually through legal action.
se_na_23 schrieb:
There is an article in Handelsblatt titled "Construction water and site electricity are not provided by the client," which can be found on Google. Existing clauses are also invalid. In your opinion, are the connection fees to be paid by the construction company or only the consumption costs? se_na_23 schrieb:
Or first point out the facts and see how the builder behaves… At least the connection fee, I see as the client’s responsibility. A Bavarian builder can remain very relaxed in light of a judgment by a Northern German higher regional court, even though it cites the building code in its reasoning. This ruling will likely only serve to inspire your local magistrate judge but nothing more at first. The case involved a defect where the contractor argued they were prevented from delivering a defect-free service because a power connection was necessary for proper execution and that its provision was the client’s responsibility. The court rejected this and declared this obligation invalid. The consumer law question about who should bear which costs was not addressed at all. The contractor’s general terms and conditions were not challenged in this case.
In your situation, it primarily depends on the subject of your claim. As mentioned, the magistrate judge does not need to be concerned with the northern ruling. If, for example, you were contesting the passing on of costs to you, only the contract between you and your builder would apply. If the judge’s view aligns with reality as I see it, it would even be the opposite: connection fees would be seen more as an included service rather than consumption costs (but again, if your contract is valid and assigns site electricity costs to you, you would have to pay both parts).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
X
xMisterDx23 Oct 2023 18:40You can give it a try, it doesn’t cost anything. However, you should expect that heating won’t be activated initially, at 48 cents/kWh, if you ask your building owner to cover the electricity costs.
Similar topics