Hello everyone,
Unfortunately, the structural contractor has incorrectly positioned the basement slab by about 20 cm (8 inches). The building authority came to inspect and has now temporarily stopped the construction.
There are two possible solutions to this problem:
1. Tear down the slab including the two walls that have already been poured and have everything redone correctly.
2. Submit a variation request and accept the situation as is.
Option 1 would be an extreme measure, which we naturally do not favor for practical reasons. So, basically, option 2 remains.
How should we approach this? The 20 cm (8 inches) error is significant because there are only 4 m (13 feet) left until the property boundary, where a carport is planned. It still fits, but there is much less "space" remaining. What would be a fair solution here (e.g., financial compensation from the construction company?), since a correction is no longer possible without demolition?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
Unfortunately, the structural contractor has incorrectly positioned the basement slab by about 20 cm (8 inches). The building authority came to inspect and has now temporarily stopped the construction.
There are two possible solutions to this problem:
1. Tear down the slab including the two walls that have already been poured and have everything redone correctly.
2. Submit a variation request and accept the situation as is.
Option 1 would be an extreme measure, which we naturally do not favor for practical reasons. So, basically, option 2 remains.
How should we approach this? The 20 cm (8 inches) error is significant because there are only 4 m (13 feet) left until the property boundary, where a carport is planned. It still fits, but there is much less "space" remaining. What would be a fair solution here (e.g., financial compensation from the construction company?), since a correction is no longer possible without demolition?
Thanks in advance for your advice!
O
Octrineddy24 Jun 2020 11:06If there is a construction contract, the result is essentially "guaranteed." If the goal is to build a slab foundation of quality X at location Y, then both X and Y need to be clearly defined. Of course, it is understandable that the structural engineer may have a different perspective on this...
I see it the same way as Octrineddy, especially if the 20cm (8 inches) of space was already allocated for other purposes (for example, a carport). The fact that the carport ends up being "only" 20cm (8 inches) narrower doesn’t really matter. However, saying "the effort is not proportional to the ‘suffering’" doesn’t really hold. And when exactly does it become "real suffering"? Simply threatening the structural builder with a lawsuit (regardless of whether you want to do that or whether it’s the polite way to handle it) will likely prompt them to correct their mistake. So, in a way, they “have to” – maybe not voluntarily or legally, but it is highly unlikely that the builder will risk leaving it as is.
TE was able to resolve it, which would have been the only solution for me as well.
TE was able to resolve it, which would have been the only solution for me as well.
In my experience, almost no one does this voluntarily... I was quite surprised to see that the neighbors managed to have the contractor repave the driveway because it was uneven.
We always only heard things like:
- This is how we always do it
- That’s just how it is
- It complies with DIN standards
In the end, we really lost interest and ended up fixing many things ourselves.
We always only heard things like:
- This is how we always do it
- That’s just how it is
- It complies with DIN standards
In the end, we really lost interest and ended up fixing many things ourselves.
Matthew03 schrieb:
...for us, it was just 50cm (20 inches)That's just not possible. That would be a violation of Article 3 of the Rhineland Basic Law.It has always worked out well so far
N
neutronbx25 Jun 2020 01:14Ben-man schrieb:
He has to. He received the plans beforehand but did not follow them.Yes. He even decided on his own. He said he prefers that over arguing with the general contractor and the client.
Ben-man schrieb:
Threatening the structural contractor with a lawsuit alone (whether one wants to do that or not, and whether it’s the right approach or not is another matter) will prompt them to correct their mistake. I would advise against threats!
Ben-man schrieb:
So, in a way, he "has" to – maybe not voluntarily or by law, Having the right and actually getting it enforced are two different things.
It is great and a matter of course for homeowners if the contractor corrects the issue on their own.
But the reality is, if the contractor had called the bluff and the matter had been legally reviewed, that authority would weigh the damage, distress, effort, and so on.
In that case, the original poster (OP) would most likely have to build on the existing foundation slab but would receive financial compensation.
The decision might be different if the height was 2.80 meters (9 feet 3 inches). Then it wouldn’t just be about the OP’s distress, but also a violation of general regulations.
But as said: ifs, buts, and maybes.
It’s great that the contractor responded positively.
Similar topics