ᐅ Adding a Base Extension and Forgetting the Expansion Joint – Who Is Responsible?

Hello,

Here is our situation: We are currently interested in a 6-year-old solid brick house, to which a concrete base for the terrace was added afterward. Now, during the cold season, the exterior wall at this spot is cracking open, exposing the insulation. Apparently, this has happened several times before. It is suspected that an expansion joint was forgotten when the base was added.

According to the real estate agent, this "defect" will be repaired and everything is fine. However, we have since learned that a legal fact-finding procedure has been ongoing in court since this year, and the defect still needs to be officially confirmed and recognized by the court.

We are now wondering whether the installation of an expansion joint in this case is actually required according to DIN standards or similar regulations, and whether this reflects current best practices, making the court’s defect recognition likely?

Alternatively, we would like to know what a professional repair of the issue might cost in order to deduct these costs from the purchase price.

Pictures sometimes say more than a thousand words.

I wouldn’t know what kind of concrete base would be added afterwards.

And you can only comment on the costs if you know the scale of the project.

As a possible idea for the purchase contract: for example, withhold 5% of the purchase price until all ongoing procedures and defect repairs are completed.

From a technical standpoint, I would basically trust the assessment of a publicly appointed expert, and since this is already before the court, I assume the technical issue will also be addressed in the case.

You are paying a lot of money for a notary (and even a real estate agent) to handle your purchase contract. Make them do something for that money.

Osnabruecker schrieb:


As a possible idea for the purchase agreement: for example, retain 5% of the purchase price until all ongoing procedures and defect repairs are completed.

Technically, I would basically trust a publicly appointed expert’s assessment, and since this is already being handled in court, I assume the technical issue will also be addressed during the proceedings.

You are paying a lot of money for a notary (and even a real estate agent) to handle your purchase contract. Make sure they do something for their money.

Our bank and also the savings bank both calculate a risk of up to €50,000 (just under 10%) because the defect has not yet been described in detail, and we bear the risk that the court case will have an unfavorable outcome.
In this situation, you can no longer claim a defect that was fraudulently concealed, so we are carrying a significant risk.

The two banks have now independently valued the achievable market price of the property. For a defect-free property, it is almost €70,000 (20%) less than what we are paying. So the house is already overpriced.

If you then add the €50,000 risk on top, we reach a point where the bank advises against the purchase or financing—although we could still obtain it thanks to a high down payment.

The savings bank recommends a trust account with a €50,000 payout upon repair, while the house bank demands an immediate price reduction. Again, the same applies: we could do that, but they advise against it.

The real estate agent wants to explain this to the owners... Uff^^