ᐅ Prefabricated House: Ceiling Height Lower Than Agreed – Points of Reference for Damage Assessment

Hello,

we built a prefabricated house with 144 sqm (1550 sq ft) of living space. The contract specifies a ground floor wall height of 2.68 m (8 ft 9.5 in). The floor construction is 16 cm (6.3 inches) high. We wanted to place a cupboard and found that including the tiled floor, the ceiling height is only 2.42 m (7 ft 11.3 in) instead of 2.52 m (8 ft 3.3 in). So there is a difference of 8.5 cm (3.3 inches), even after subtracting the 1.5 cm (0.6 inch) tile thickness. The ceiling cannot be changed anymore. Are there any guidelines on how much the credit should be in such a case?

Thanks and best regards

Have you already had the house inspected and approved?

No, the inspection has not taken place yet. That’s why I want to be prepared.

For defects that cannot be fixed, I would estimate 3-5% of the total price.
The cabinet that doesn’t fit now would be on top of that.

A completely different question: why did this only come to light now and not during the construction phase through your inspector?

Thank you for your post. Are there any reliable data, court rulings, practical experiences, etc., that support how you arrive at the 3-5% figure? A Google search didn’t yield much useful information.

This has only become apparent now because we didn’t have an expert assessor during the shell construction phase.

SchreinerKl schrieb:

Thanks for the post. Are there any reliable practical experiences, court rulings, or similar sources that support how you arrived at the 3-5% figure?

I would consider that as a commercial depreciation in the context of a property appraisal (compared to a house with a standard ceiling height—242 cm (95 inches) is not a normal or typical height nowadays).
I had to search for court rulings myself (I haven’t read their contents, just passing on the rulings I found). These are all single-case decisions related to specific situations.
OLG Celle 7.12.2017 - 14U105/17
OLG Munich 09/23/2001
OLG Naumburg 01/16/2011 5U185/10
BGH 02/22/2018 VII ZR46/17 (This is a Federal Court of Justice ruling stating that the defect should not be settled based on hypothetical repair costs, but rather that an estimated depreciation can be applied (how much less the house is worth because of the lower ceiling) ==> and that’s where I would apply my percentage figures.)

One could also consider the aspect of "missing enclosed volume." However, I wouldn’t go that route, as in my opinion the permanent visual and perceived impairment due to lower ceilings carries significantly more weight.