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!
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!
B
bastian-124 Jan 2015 15:22Hello, I wouldn’t just accept that. I am planning a pitched roof but am getting a flat roof. This facade protection also has its purpose. The intended 30 cm (12 inches) were significantly undersized. To me, this is a construction defect. The architect is responsible here.