Hello everyone,
I hope I’m posting my questions in the right place.
The first question is whether we simply have to accept the increased costs for the foundation slab without consultation. At first, we were told that 40 cm (16 inches) of excavation would be needed. After the soil report, it was 70 cm (28 inches), and during excavation, it turned out to be 92 cm (36 inches)... all without prior notice. The whole foundation slab is now about 9,000 euros more expensive than initially quoted. What bothers us is that we were presented with a fait accompli.
Then there is the telecommunications provider. The road will have to be reopened for this connection, and of course, we are expected to pay for that as well. The basic connection also costs around 700 euros. The civil engineer who opens the road for the telecom provider invoices separately, and we don’t understand why all these tasks have to be done multiple times instead of being better coordinated.
The surveyor or the architect—we’re not quite sure—also made a mistake. Our house was planned 37 cm (14.5 inches) too low and now has to be set higher. This means we’ll have to bring in more soil in the garden to maintain the planned ground-level access to the terrace. Again, more costs that were not anticipated. Do we just have to accept this as well?
We checked with our local utilities about what applications are required to connect a new build to the supply network. They sent us applications for electricity and water, costing nearly 7,000 euros. Then, last week, we heard from several neighbors (in a complete new development) that the drainage work must be done by a subsidiary of the utilities. One neighboring property had to pay an extra 11,000 euros on top of the house connections for this—and the invoice came from the utilities, not the subsidiary. We feel quite taken advantage of. For us, this means about 8,500 euros more on top.
Do we just have to accept all of this, or what can we do? At the moment, we’re quite desperate, and the cost spiral keeps turning. We are not in a position to judge whether all this is justified or what’s still coming. We thought we had planned well. We even consulted various advisors and friends with building experience... but right now, we really feel lost, and more financing is looming.
Best regards
I hope I’m posting my questions in the right place.
The first question is whether we simply have to accept the increased costs for the foundation slab without consultation. At first, we were told that 40 cm (16 inches) of excavation would be needed. After the soil report, it was 70 cm (28 inches), and during excavation, it turned out to be 92 cm (36 inches)... all without prior notice. The whole foundation slab is now about 9,000 euros more expensive than initially quoted. What bothers us is that we were presented with a fait accompli.
Then there is the telecommunications provider. The road will have to be reopened for this connection, and of course, we are expected to pay for that as well. The basic connection also costs around 700 euros. The civil engineer who opens the road for the telecom provider invoices separately, and we don’t understand why all these tasks have to be done multiple times instead of being better coordinated.
The surveyor or the architect—we’re not quite sure—also made a mistake. Our house was planned 37 cm (14.5 inches) too low and now has to be set higher. This means we’ll have to bring in more soil in the garden to maintain the planned ground-level access to the terrace. Again, more costs that were not anticipated. Do we just have to accept this as well?
We checked with our local utilities about what applications are required to connect a new build to the supply network. They sent us applications for electricity and water, costing nearly 7,000 euros. Then, last week, we heard from several neighbors (in a complete new development) that the drainage work must be done by a subsidiary of the utilities. One neighboring property had to pay an extra 11,000 euros on top of the house connections for this—and the invoice came from the utilities, not the subsidiary. We feel quite taken advantage of. For us, this means about 8,500 euros more on top.
Do we just have to accept all of this, or what can we do? At the moment, we’re quite desperate, and the cost spiral keeps turning. We are not in a position to judge whether all this is justified or what’s still coming. We thought we had planned well. We even consulted various advisors and friends with building experience... but right now, we really feel lost, and more financing is looming.
Best regards
P
Peanuts7410 Jun 2016 10:47Exactly, that’s what I mean—you can’t just say "use the excavated soil for backfilling" as a general rule. Especially in NRW, there are all kinds of soils, from rock to clayey to sandy.
I just wanted to point this out before the original poster decides to save money by filling the foundation pit with clay. Depending on the soil type, it’s better to dispose of it at a landfill and bring in cheap sand, or to use the deeper excavated soil under the house as crushed stone.
I don’t quite understand how the mentioned €28,000 are calculated here—is the construction company filling everything with concrete and pouring a 100 cm (39 inches) thick slab?
I just wanted to point this out before the original poster decides to save money by filling the foundation pit with clay. Depending on the soil type, it’s better to dispose of it at a landfill and bring in cheap sand, or to use the deeper excavated soil under the house as crushed stone.
I don’t quite understand how the mentioned €28,000 are calculated here—is the construction company filling everything with concrete and pouring a 100 cm (39 inches) thick slab?
Bommeraner schrieb:
The surveyor or the architect—we’re not exactly sure—also made a measuring mistake. Our house was planned 37cm (15 inches) too low, so it has to be "raised." This means we’ll need to add more soil in the garden to maintain the planned level access to the terrace. This again leads to additional costs we hadn’t budgeted for. Do we just have to accept this?Payday schrieb:
That is, to put it mildly, nonsense. You hire professionals for a lot of money. Their sole responsibility is not to just take the blame for mistakes. If I sign off on the accuracy of the work, I might as well set out the house myself! You pay the surveyor 600€ for 30 minutes of measuring not so that they do the work, but because they will be held accountable if they mess it up. The signature is only to confirm the job was done and an invoice can be issued. The signature never releases the contractor from their duty of care and liability. That’s simply nonsense. The client is a layperson and cannot verify the accuracy. No contractor would ever get away with this in court.Hello @Payday, @Bommeraner,
in fact, a few points have to be clarified/distinguished before anybody gets blamed:
- Who recorded the elevations before the building permit application, or what is the source of the elevation data?
- Who prepared the site plan for the building permit application—architect or surveyor?
- Who performed the setting out of the building? (This does not necessarily have to be the surveyor!)
- Is there a setting out sketch?
- If not—why not? Did the architect or client request one afterwards?
- If yes—does it include elevation information from the batter boards and/or manhole covers or other reference points?
- If yes—do these elevation figures differ from the information given in the building permit application?
Additionally: with such a significant discrepancy of 37cm (15 inches), this should have been roughly checked and should have been noticed by the other parties involved in construction. This is a substantial deviation, so in case of a regulated damage claim, liability would likely be shared between three or four parties, namely the surveyor, architect, civil engineer/site contractor, and the client. I strongly suspect the elevations do not come from the surveyor—the surveyor would have had to be completely asleep at the wheel. Not impossible, but rather unlikely.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
Dirk Grafe schrieb:
Regarding this: with such a significant difference of 37cm (15 inches), it should have been roughly checked and noticed or at least cause suspicion among the different parties involved in the construction. This is indeed such a large deviation that in the case of a regulated claim, responsibility would likely be divided among three or four parties, namely:
Surveyor, architect, civil engineer/construction contractor and client, although I strongly suspect here that the elevation issue did not originate from the surveyor – they would have had to be completely asleep. Not impossible, but rather unlikely.I fear that might be the case here as well. Until this is resolved, it will probably take a lot of time. All parties will almost certainly start throwing "it’s not my fault" blame back and forth. Time is money... (plus nerves).
Most likely, the cheaper solution is to fill in... (with *suitable* material). Or simply to build a nice small set of steps or a ramp to the terrace.
Of course, one can simultaneously try to make one of the parties allegedly responsible for the mess cover (part of) the costs. A matter of hopeful thinking.
Yes – 37 cm (15 inches), that is quite a bit, but looking at it from a distance: definitely a solvable problem and not a total disaster.
Best regards
Thorsten
T21150 schrieb:
I am afraid the same in this case. Until this is clarified, it will probably take a lot of time. All parties involved will surely be busy blaming each other, passing the "not my fault" ball back and forth. Time is money... (+ nerves).
Probably cheaper to fill in... (with *suitable* material). Or just build a nice small staircase or ramp to the terrace.In this case, it is completely harmless because construction can continue. Theoretically, it is also possible that a mistake happens and you initially have a work stoppage – here, although a mistake probably occurred, it does not delay construction but only causes additional costs.
The question of whether the responsible party pays for the material or the ramp is ultimately irrelevant.
Best regards,
Dirk Grafe
P
Peanuts7410 Jun 2016 11:47I’m wondering how large the plot is or if I understood correctly. Does the (assumed) 200 - 400 m² (2150 - 4300 sq ft) need to be raised by 37 cm (15 inches)? With cheap backfill sand, that would still be in the low four-figure range... It hardly seems worth all the trouble, and you at least benefit from sitting a bit higher...
Payday schrieb:
With the basement, removal, and disposal? We also had 110cm (43 inches) and ended up with additional costs of €5,500. We spread the soil over the plot, and later the landscaper took some of it to neighbors who needed more.
For €28,000 just for a bit of earthwork, I would seriously reconsider whether it’s worth reusing the small amount of clay and just covering it with 10-15cm (4-6 inches) of nice soil on top. That easily saves €15,000-20,000 of your €28,000 with no real downsides. In the end, everyone has to decide for themselves, but for €20,000, you can do your whole garden instead of just adding some new soil.€28,000 is entirely civil engineering work. So there are some other minor things included as well. The basement makes no difference for us since we build directly on the site.
As mentioned, clay is not suitable for anything; you also can’t use it for filling. When it gets wet, it behaves like jelly. I didn’t want to believe it either but I trust the experts on that.
Similar topics