ᐅ Is it useful to hire a building inspector just before final inspection?

For defects that are still being found now, yes.
But drawing conclusions about other trades from this... why would the concrete contractor have done a poor job if the electrician installed the outlets crooked?
Such "extrapolations" only work when the entire job is done by one company, but are very limited when judging 25 different companies based on the work of the last four trades you can still see.

By the way, it also doesn’t help with peace of mind to convince yourself that the wrong reinforcement steel may have been used in the foundation slab just because the screed installer ruined two windows with splashes.
You can’t change it anymore anyway, even if there are two reinforcement mats missing in the reinforced concrete.

What kind of serious defects are we talking about that can still be found during the preliminary acceptance and corrected within two months?
It surely can’t be that the windows were installed incorrectly or that the bitumen membrane under the first layer of masonry is missing.

What’s the point of having a house if you start doubting whether the foundation was properly executed according to the structural engineer and geologist?

There is this person called the site manager who is actually responsible for preventing defective work or immediately reporting it. If there are defects remaining at the handover, it means the site manager has not done their job, and it can be assumed that defective work in other trades was also not addressed.

WilderSueden schrieb:

There is this person called the site manager, who is actually supposed to prevent poor workmanship or report it immediately.

This job description, however, applies only to YOUR site manager (architect or independent expert).
The "site manager" OF the general contractor has a completely different job description:
1. using the same title to mislead the client into believing they have the same responsibilities;
2. mediating between subcontractors;
3. responding to delivery delays or incorrect shipments and accordingly reorganizing workers;
4. covering up substandard work in a way that does not harm profits or hiding it until the warranty period expires.
As you can see, apart from the title, these two roles have nothing in common.

WilderSueden schrieb:

If poor workmanship remains at handover, the site manager has not done their job, and it can be assumed that defects in other trades were also not addressed.

For a client-aligned site manager, poor workmanship is already properly fixed by the time of handover. In contrast, the "site manager" employed by the general contractor fails to meet expectations exactly when the defects become obvious to non-experts. The caught subcontractor is expected to fix defects at their own expense without interrupting operations; the caught employee of the contractor is expected to do so in unpaid overtime and with materials deducted from their wages.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

P.S.: It is intentional and unfortunately unavoidable that clients confuse the general contractor's "site manager" with a customer satisfaction officer.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Allthewayup schrieb:

600€ is not even worth considering – just do it!
Definitely hire an independent expert to get involved.

Hello everyone,
thank you very much for your assessment. It has helped me with my decision. I will report back on how it turned out.

11ant schrieb:

However, this job description applies only to YOUR site manager (architect or accompanying expert).
The "site manager" employed by the general contractor has a completely different job description:
1. Using the same title to mislead the client into believing they have the same role;
2. Mediating between subcontractors;
3. Responding to delivery delays or partial shipments and reallocating workers accordingly;
4. Covering up poor workmanship without affecting profits or hiding it until the warranty period expires.
As you can see, the overlap is basically zero—apart from the job title, the two roles have nothing in common.

For the client’s representative site manager, defects are long fixed by the time of handover. In contrast, the "site manager" on the general contractor’s payroll fails to meet expectations precisely when defects become obvious to non-experts. The caught subcontractor is expected to fix defects at their own expense without disrupting progress; the caught employee of the contractor is expected to do so effectively as unpaid overtime and with materials deducted from their wages.

You speak my mind. This is exactly the kind of "site manager" we encountered. I have already reported the outcome: a 3-month delay just before the planned move-in and a 4-page defect list in quality level SG 10 that is still incomplete.
It’s a good thing we insisted on a proper final payment.