Hello everyone, I hope this is the right place for my question:
We have an uneven screed. It rises by 35cm (14 inches) over a distance, dropping more than 10mm (0.4 inches) towards the wall. Assuming this defect is undisputed. The floor covering was installed on the uneven surface. Although the uneven floor was noticed, it was not recognized as a construction defect (lack of knowledge about the situation).
After realizing the issue, the defect was reported to the construction company (by email). However, the company refused to fix the problem, stating that nothing could be done since the floor covering was installed without first checking the floor.
Is this correct? Is the company no longer responsible for repairing this defect? Or is it possible that the company must fix the defect but is not obliged to cover the costs of reinstalling the floor covering?
We have an uneven screed. It rises by 35cm (14 inches) over a distance, dropping more than 10mm (0.4 inches) towards the wall. Assuming this defect is undisputed. The floor covering was installed on the uneven surface. Although the uneven floor was noticed, it was not recognized as a construction defect (lack of knowledge about the situation).
After realizing the issue, the defect was reported to the construction company (by email). However, the company refused to fix the problem, stating that nothing could be done since the floor covering was installed without first checking the floor.
Is this correct? Is the company no longer responsible for repairing this defect? Or is it possible that the company must fix the defect but is not obliged to cover the costs of reinstalling the floor covering?
churichek schrieb:
In our construction project, unfortunately, the defects only became apparent later, and by that time the construction company was already insolvent. Well, we were out of luck...You are addressing one of the core issues. This is why involving an independent expert early on is so important. Most construction defects can be detected at a very early stage and can still be corrected (because otherwise the contractor, in the best case, does not receive payment). When errors accumulate across a contractor’s sites, insolvency often becomes THE way to free themselves from these liabilities and start over in a different form (there are always relatives, friends, and others involved).
U
Username_wahl7 May 2015 18:05Bauexperte schrieb:
@Passivhaus
The four-eyes principle applies here as well. Additionally, it gives you an initial, solid assessment of whether your choice of architect was a good one or less so.
Regards, Bauexperte from the trade fair in Neuß
Bauexperte He is unfortunately not enthusiastic about the idea of bringing an expert on board... Does this happen often?
B
Bauexperte7 May 2015 18:25Passivhaus schrieb:
He is unfortunately not enthusiastic about the idea of bringing an expert consultant on board... Does this happen often? If users have experience with this, they will surely let you know; my opinion on the matter is well known. Also, how I would handle such a reaction from the architect’s side.
Why wouldn’t similar reactions occur? Architects are only human, after all.
Best regards, Bauexperte
Passivhaus schrieb:
He is unfortunately not enthusiastic about the idea of involving an expert... Does this happen often?Who likes to have their work scrutinized? This is often met with a furrowed brow. It's not really surprising, since the contract usually does not specify that one’s own actions need to accommodate the architect’s mood.
U
Username_wahl10 May 2015 15:50I hope he will swallow that bitter pill. But seriously, if I’m investing around €400,000 (about $420,000) and paying off the debt over 30 years, I’d rather be a little overprotected than underprotected. Trust or no trust.
Similar topics