ᐅ Living area approximately 8 m² smaller in the permit drawings compared to the design (general contractor)
Created on: 16 Apr 2025 11:23
I
ITSM2025
Hi everyone,
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
Unfortunately, I thought I was smarter than everyone else here in the forum (I have been a quiet reader for a while) and believed I could rely on the general contractor’s planning. Now, right from the start, things are becoming "interesting." I’m not sure whether my frustration is justified or if this is just standard practice in the construction industry. Here’s the situation:
Based on the preliminary design from the general contractor, we awarded the contract (signed the agreement) with the expectation that the room sizes would match the preliminary design. The house is planned as a KfW 40 energy-efficient building with sand-lime brick, insulation, and brick veneer. This was included in the offer along with additional requests, and the design was adjusted accordingly, if necessary. So, it’s not like the general contractor was unaware of our KfW 40 project. Now we have received the building permit drawings showing roughly 8 m² (86 sq ft) less living space due to suddenly thicker walls, both external and internal. The exterior walls were increased from 42.5 cm (17 inches) to 49 cm (19 inches) thickness. And this was done inward, not outward. In other words, each side has lost 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior living space. Calculated in euros, that’s about €22,000 less living area based on the price per square meter. Or, in other words: the general contractor now has to buy fewer sand-lime bricks and build with less material, with less plastering, tiling, screed, underfloor heating, pipes, etc. However, there was no price reduction.
Is this common practice? Should one accept something like this?
Additionally, the attic floor has lost 13 cm (5 inches) in width and 6.5 cm (2.5 inches) of interior height due to the knee wall being shifted further inward. We had planned to convert this space later, which now seems hardly worthwhile. The general contractor knew about this in advance and even planned wiring and such in the attic/roof space.
How do you assess this situation, and how would you proceed?
Thank you very much in advance!
wiltshire schrieb:
You say you feel misled, but even when asked, you don’t provide any evidence—neither regarding the "colorful pictures" you refer to as the basis for your decision, nor any specific clause in your contract guaranteeing the living area you expected. No one can help you if they only get upset and write things like "oh, that’s terrible," or propose demands they don’t have to support or that cannot be enforced. I believe it would be harmful to encourage someone in false assumptions, and I don’t want to cause harm here in the forum.
You didn’t want to understand, or didn’t understand, what I wrote. We both know that already.I have uploaded all the sketches and copied all relevant sections from the offer and the scope of work description here. There is no fixed living area guaranteed in the contract. However, there are the sketches—prepared according to DIN standards—that I received before signing the contract, including room areas. Those can’t just be disregarded, right? What else should I base my decision for or against on? If I see a campervan with a roof attachment in the brochure before buying at VW, I certainly wouldn’t accept one without it upon delivery.
M
MachsSelbst17 Apr 2025 11:51wiltshire schrieb:
You didn’t want to understand, or didn’t understand what I wrote. We both know that already.Yes, I do understand. You consider it normal to reduce the interior space by increasing the thickness of the exterior walls, as anything else would be an unreasonable effort for the builder.
And that is nonsense.
I want to see the clause in the contract that states the promised square meters will be reduced if thicker exterior walls are requested.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
I’m speechless. Sure, if a wall is already in place and it’s 2cm (about 0.8 inches) too far left or right, or the window is 5cm (about 2 inches) off to one side, well, that can be overlooked and can’t be changed easily without a major effort.
But if the planning suddenly reduces the living area by 6% just because they don’t want to recalculate the structural engineering?
I would look for a new building partner; this has nothing to do with fairness. They simply don’t want to, and you’ll run into problems like this repeatedly during the construction process. That’s exactly how I see it as well, thank you. I still don’t quite understand what could be unclear about my situation or what details are missing here that would prove I’m just a bad person trying to trick the general contractor. I have described everything as it happened. I haven’t hidden anything.
H
hanghaus202317 Apr 2025 12:03From your perspective, you are right.
The general contractor (GC) obviously sees it quite differently. Their goal is to save costs—either to maximize profit or minimize losses.
Therefore, understandably, they kept the exterior dimensions unchanged.
It’s suspicious to think this happened by accident.
Does the plot and the zoning plan allow for enlarging the house?
In my opinion, by commissioning the additional costs for KfW40, you agreed to a change in wall thickness. But you definitely did not agree to a reduction in living space.
You can claim a cost reduction due to the decrease in living space. The GC, on the other hand, would (or will) claim additional costs because of the increase in exterior dimensions. The dimensions were declared binding in the contract, but in my opinion, not the living space.
I am curious to see how this will turn out.
The general contractor (GC) obviously sees it quite differently. Their goal is to save costs—either to maximize profit or minimize losses.
Therefore, understandably, they kept the exterior dimensions unchanged.
It’s suspicious to think this happened by accident.
Does the plot and the zoning plan allow for enlarging the house?
In my opinion, by commissioning the additional costs for KfW40, you agreed to a change in wall thickness. But you definitely did not agree to a reduction in living space.
You can claim a cost reduction due to the decrease in living space. The GC, on the other hand, would (or will) claim additional costs because of the increase in exterior dimensions. The dimensions were declared binding in the contract, but in my opinion, not the living space.
I am curious to see how this will turn out.
W
wiltshire17 Apr 2025 12:14ITSM2025 schrieb:
However, there are the sketches that were created for me before signing the contract, including the room areas according to DIN standards. Those shouldn’t just be invalid, right? That’s exactly the point. Were these sketches created specifically for YOU, or are they sample sketches that are generally used when deciding on the house type or floor plan? In connection with the contract clause you quoted, "prevailing over drawings," it is precisely this distinction that determines whether you can make a claim or not.
ITSM2025 schrieb:
that I’m simply a bad person trying to deceive the general contractor. It is definitely not my intention to judge you in any way. You won’t find a single word from me doing so—you can check that. I do not want to encourage you to head into a dead end out of anger and disappointment. That wouldn’t be fair. Some things are easy to say when you don’t bear any risk yourself. However, the situation between you and your builder is tense in such a way that the outcome can determine whether you experience the construction process positively or not.
If it’s clear that the colorful drawings you refer to were individually created for you and were therefore an essential part of the consultation, you have a chance to assert something or withdraw from the contract. If you don’t know this, you can find out. If these images were not created specifically for you, there may have been a communication mistake, but disputing that would do more harm than good. This is a subtle but important difference.
hanghaus2023 schrieb:
In my opinion, by commissioning the additional costs for KfW40, you approved a change in wall thickness, but in no way agreed to a reduction in living space. That seems to be the case. The question is whether prior consent for the change in living space regarding the “colorful drawings” was necessary. That determines whether there is an actual “reduction of living space” or whether comparing the living space shown on the colorful drawings to the contractual drawings is relevant at all.
hanghaus2023 schrieb:
From your perspective, you are right.
The general contractor (GC), of course, sees it very differently. Their goal is to save costs—either to maximize profit or minimize losses.
Therefore, understandably, they kept the exterior dimensions the same.
Only a cynic would believe something like this happened by accident.
Does the plot and the zoning plan allow for enlarging the house?
In my opinion, by commissioning the additional costs for KfW40, you agreed to a change in wall thickness. But you certainly did not consent to a reduction in living space.
You could claim a price reduction due to the smaller living area. The GC would also (and likely will) claim extra costs for the increased exterior dimensions. The contract declared the dimensions as binding, but in my opinion, not the living space.
I am curious to see how this will turn out. Thanks for your comment!
Yes, the plot and zoning plan definitely allow for it. That cannot be the issue.
Similar topics