ᐅ Flat Roof – Facade Protection

Originally, we had agreed on a pitched roof with the general contractor/architect. In the end, it became a flat roof. The general contractor/architect then recommended a "canopy" as facade protection, which is clearly shown in the plans attached to the general contract (see attachment: Extract from cross-section plan according to attachment to the general contract). There is actually nothing documented in writing regarding the roof.

According to the attached cross-section plan, the canopy was supposed to extend 30cm (12 inches). Yesterday, the metal cladding was installed. Instead of the planned 30cm (12 inches), it now only extends 5-6cm (2-2.5 inches). I immediately raised an objection. The general contractor/architect just said that no "canopy" was agreed upon. How relevant are the plans? Can the general contractor/architect just do whatever they want?

Thank you again!

The contract must clearly specify in writing which construction services are to be performed, including their type and quality. Construction drawings are usually considered supplementary or represent one possible execution method, which must be agreed upon in writing.

Contracts often include a hierarchy that determines the order of precedence and relevance of all documents (plans, written agreements, standards, etc.). It typically reads something like this:
"In case of disputes or contradictions, the following documents apply in order of priority:
1. Construction description
2. Technical contract specifications
3. Construction drawings..."
Do you have a similar clause in your contract? It might be helpful if the “construction drawings” were placed at the top of the list.

This is often heard—that agreed-upon services are simply not delivered. In the case described, this is clearly true. There is really a feeling that they can do whatever they want. I just find this unbelievable.

I also find it quite bold what the architect has done here. Just changing from a gable roof to a flat roof would have driven me crazy. Then reducing the facade insulation from 30 cm (12 inches) to 6 cm (2.4 inches) is also quite extreme in my opinion.

I wouldn't accept that. He must provide reasons explaining why the gable roof was changed to a flat roof. The issue with the porch roof is a classic case of poor workmanship. That’s why a lawyer is needed here.

The sketch does not show this clearly. At this point, the general contractor/architect completely failed. It is difficult to assess whether this can be corrected now.