Good evening,
as the title says, our new build (shell construction) was completely botched in autumn 2018 and now needs to be repaired. In the course of this renovation, we are considering changes to the staircase (which should be carried out by a third party).
1. In June 2019, the basement was flooded with nearly 50 cm (20 inches) of groundwater in the solid concrete basement for about 2 weeks.
2. Bricks not laid according to Wienerberger guidelines (instead of thin-bed mortar, 5 mm (0.2 inches) or wider joints).
3. Flat roof was executed incorrectly – tapered insulation not installed according to the installation plan and then cut afterwards to create a slope.
4. Basement was excavated over 50 cm (20 inches) too shallow – consequence: the house is too high according to the allotment garden law and is not consolidated.
Suing the company is not an option – costs for legal proceedings would be enormous and lengthy – lasting for years – and the company could file for bankruptcy at any time. The result would be that we would still be stuck with the court costs. We have already consulted six construction law attorneys. We cannot afford to demolish and rebuild the house, although we will always be uncertain about water leakage in the basement. We live near a river, and high groundwater is a recurring issue every spring after the snow melt. We are completely desperate.
The building authority does not help: despite the clearly wrong height. According to a new submission plan by the construction company, it is supposedly approved, even though it is clearly too high (according to recent surveying by a certified surveying office). It all sounds like a bad movie, but it is true.
The defects became apparent starting in summer 2019, and since then we have had an expert involved.
Our only option is to play along and reach a consensus with the construction company. We have already paid about 250,000 EUR (approximately) for the shell construction.
The floor plan is an external dimension of 8.3 m x 6.15 m (27.2 ft x 20.2 ft).
The staircase from the ground floor to the basement is about 4 m (13 ft) long and 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) wide, very uncomfortable concrete steps. (26 cm (10 inches) tread, 18 cm (7 inches) riser).
We are considering hiring an architect again to change the staircase to possibly a 2 x 2 m (6.5 ft x 6.5 ft) half-turn or slightly rotated. We have no joy with the whole house anymore. The stair width should also be a maximum of 90 cm (3 ft), not 130 cm (4 ft 3 in).
On one short side there is a 4 m (13 ft) kitchen and a 1.5 m (5 ft) WC. Then the dining area faces the long side and the living area is there. There would be a 3 x 2.2 m (9.8 ft x 7.2 ft) lift-and-slide door on the other short side.
In the middle of this whole mess, doubts arise about the floor plan and the staircase. We have two schoolchildren and a toddler and wanted to be living in the house since last autumn.
Sorry for the long post. I can only upload the plan next week.
Please share your opinions on changing the staircase (this would involve demolition of the existing one and widening but shortening the stairwell).
as the title says, our new build (shell construction) was completely botched in autumn 2018 and now needs to be repaired. In the course of this renovation, we are considering changes to the staircase (which should be carried out by a third party).
1. In June 2019, the basement was flooded with nearly 50 cm (20 inches) of groundwater in the solid concrete basement for about 2 weeks.
2. Bricks not laid according to Wienerberger guidelines (instead of thin-bed mortar, 5 mm (0.2 inches) or wider joints).
3. Flat roof was executed incorrectly – tapered insulation not installed according to the installation plan and then cut afterwards to create a slope.
4. Basement was excavated over 50 cm (20 inches) too shallow – consequence: the house is too high according to the allotment garden law and is not consolidated.
Suing the company is not an option – costs for legal proceedings would be enormous and lengthy – lasting for years – and the company could file for bankruptcy at any time. The result would be that we would still be stuck with the court costs. We have already consulted six construction law attorneys. We cannot afford to demolish and rebuild the house, although we will always be uncertain about water leakage in the basement. We live near a river, and high groundwater is a recurring issue every spring after the snow melt. We are completely desperate.
The building authority does not help: despite the clearly wrong height. According to a new submission plan by the construction company, it is supposedly approved, even though it is clearly too high (according to recent surveying by a certified surveying office). It all sounds like a bad movie, but it is true.
The defects became apparent starting in summer 2019, and since then we have had an expert involved.
Our only option is to play along and reach a consensus with the construction company. We have already paid about 250,000 EUR (approximately) for the shell construction.
The floor plan is an external dimension of 8.3 m x 6.15 m (27.2 ft x 20.2 ft).
The staircase from the ground floor to the basement is about 4 m (13 ft) long and 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) wide, very uncomfortable concrete steps. (26 cm (10 inches) tread, 18 cm (7 inches) riser).
We are considering hiring an architect again to change the staircase to possibly a 2 x 2 m (6.5 ft x 6.5 ft) half-turn or slightly rotated. We have no joy with the whole house anymore. The stair width should also be a maximum of 90 cm (3 ft), not 130 cm (4 ft 3 in).
On one short side there is a 4 m (13 ft) kitchen and a 1.5 m (5 ft) WC. Then the dining area faces the long side and the living area is there. There would be a 3 x 2.2 m (9.8 ft x 7.2 ft) lift-and-slide door on the other short side.
In the middle of this whole mess, doubts arise about the floor plan and the staircase. We have two schoolchildren and a toddler and wanted to be living in the house since last autumn.
Sorry for the long post. I can only upload the plan next week.
Please share your opinions on changing the staircase (this would involve demolition of the existing one and widening but shortening the stairwell).
Oh no, everything seems to be going wrong.
Is the general contractor working for the shell builder or for you?
Has the expert prepared a list of defects with suggested corrections and deadlines? I assume you also have a right to rectification, and the proposed corrections need to be reasonable.
The roof can be replaced.
The basement can be waterproofed.
The height is problematic but not a disaster, as long as the building authority approves it.
Do you have a sloped site, or how is the basement being ventilated or illuminated?
Did you make any payments before the final inspection without a retention of funds? Or is there no retention requirement in your case?
Is the general contractor working for the shell builder or for you?
Has the expert prepared a list of defects with suggested corrections and deadlines? I assume you also have a right to rectification, and the proposed corrections need to be reasonable.
The roof can be replaced.
The basement can be waterproofed.
The height is problematic but not a disaster, as long as the building authority approves it.
Do you have a sloped site, or how is the basement being ventilated or illuminated?
Did you make any payments before the final inspection without a retention of funds? Or is there no retention requirement in your case?
Laurasstern schrieb:
The problem is, unfortunately, that you have to sue to enforce the warranty...
Unfortunately, suing is almost pointless because the company can declare bankruptcy at any time. That would mean additional court and attorney fees for us. So what? That’s what courts are for. I honestly can’t imagine a company just being able to declare bankruptcy whenever they want. Austria is not some third-world country where anything goes.
Laurasstern schrieb:
The problem might be that the company will aim for the cheapest renovation, which isn’t necessarily the safest for us. Whether it’s cheap or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the basement has to be waterproof given the local conditions. How they achieve that doesn’t matter to me, as long as an independent expert also approves it.
Laurasstern schrieb:
2. Structural integrity – there were also long horizontal cuts (for pipes) made into a 20cm (8 inch) Wienerberger Porotherm brick. All cuts should have been vertical. That should be according to DIN EN 1996-1-1. From what you describe, it doesn’t seem to comply with best practice, but the building definitely won’t collapse because of it. That’s my least concern.
Yes, I am aware of the other thread, and yes, I also know that this does happen. Unfortunately, it still occurs too often. However, here it is often portrayed as if there is a quick way to the authorities and then you are out of the mess and can happily start over. To go through something like this, you first have to be quite unscrupulous. Then the circumstances within the company have to be right, and even then you still have access to other assets of the company/the owner, or similar.
Besides, the entire shell of the building is not necessarily ruined, provided an expert has determined that the defects can be corrected through proper remediation. This is generally much cheaper than starting over. Otherwise, I would be much more concerned that the company would drift into insolvency.
In any case, this is mostly unnecessary because the company usually wants to carry out the remediation themselves, but the original poster seems to have lost trust. I can understand that, but it would be sensible to accept the remediation and involve appropriate professionals to supervise the process.
Besides, the entire shell of the building is not necessarily ruined, provided an expert has determined that the defects can be corrected through proper remediation. This is generally much cheaper than starting over. Otherwise, I would be much more concerned that the company would drift into insolvency.
In any case, this is mostly unnecessary because the company usually wants to carry out the remediation themselves, but the original poster seems to have lost trust. I can understand that, but it would be sensible to accept the remediation and involve appropriate professionals to supervise the process.
L
Laurasstern13 Feb 2020 06:34haydee schrieb:
Oh dear, everything seems to be going wrong.
Is the main contractor working for the shell builder or for you?
Has the expert prepared a defect list with recommendations for repair and deadlines? I assume you also have a right to rectification, and the proposed solutions must be reasonable.
The roof can be replaced.
The basement can be waterproofed.
The height is unfortunate but not critical, as long as the building authority agrees.
Do you have a sloped site or how is the basement illuminated?
Did you pay before the handover without withholding any security? Or is that not standard where you are? Our expert did create a defect list. The remediation plan will only follow once the authorities have legally confirmed it.
The construction company was only hired for the shell construction.
We are not familiar with security retainage in that form. Only the final payment remains open after defects are acknowledged. We paid according to progress.
The basement is on a slight slope (only 1.5 m (5 feet) difference in elevation) and is illuminated by two floor-level light wells.
L
Laurasstern13 Feb 2020 06:36danixf schrieb:
Yes, I know the other thread and yes, I’m aware that it does happen. Unfortunately, still too often. But it’s often presented here as if there’s a quick way to the authorities and then you’re out of trouble and can happily start over. To pull something like this off, you first have to be pretty ruthless. Then the circumstances within the company have to be right, and even then, you still have access to other assets of the company/the owner or similar.
Also, the entire shell of the building isn’t necessarily ruined—assuming an expert has determined that the defects can be fixed with proper remediation. Usually, that’s much cheaper than starting from scratch. In that case, I’d actually be more worried that the company might slide into insolvency.
This whole issue usually becomes irrelevant anyway because the company wants to carry out the repairs themselves, but apparently, the original poster has lost trust. I can understand that, but it would be sensible to accept the remediation and bring in the appropriate specialists to oversee it. That’s exactly what we have to do. We really have lost trust. But the relevant specialists, construction supervision, experts, etc., will be at our expense.
Similar topics