ᐅ Housebuilding Company Isn’t Doing What I Asked – Feedback Welcome!
Created on: 10 Oct 2018 06:22
4
4k2ml32343m3
Hello forum community,
I would like to get your opinion on the following two issues. My house construction company is frustrating me.
Topic Patio Doors. In the approved planning documents, patio doors with a height of 2.32m (7 ft 7 in) were drawn in at my request. There will be no roller shutter above them, as the lintel is 25cm (10 inches). The patio doors will be made of white uPVC, with soundproof glazing rated at 39dB, RC2N security class, and triple glazing. The width is not a problem, approximately 85cm (33 inches) each. However, the height is an issue. I contacted the window company (hired by the construction company) to ask if the height was a problem. I was then told that only patio doors up to a maximum height of 2.26m (7 ft 5 in) can be installed. After early consultation with the construction company, I was verbally assured that the height would not be an issue, and if necessary, the window company could be changed. The selection appointment took place at the above-mentioned window company in the good faith of the site manager, believing that the taller patio doors would be installed. At the selection, the window company took the position that only 2.26m (7 ft 5 in) high doors would be installed, stating no other company installs patio doors that large. The site manager also tried hard to convince me to accept the 2.26m height. After consulting four other window companies, all confirmed that the dimensions I requested would not be a problem, as the door weight is calculated and not just the height alone. Now I want the windows and doors credited back to me so I can handle it myself. Alternatively, could I insist on the patio door dimensions from the approved planning?
Topic Interior Walls. Around the guest bathroom on the ground floor, two walls were planned with a thickness of 17.5cm (7 inches) by the architectural firm as a precaution for structural reasons. The "main wall," located elsewhere and bordering the living room, was also planned with 17.5cm (7 inches) thickness. However, I would have preferred the walls around the guest bathroom to be 11.5cm (4.5 inches) thick to avoid a cramped bathroom and to provide more space for the refrigerator in the adjacent room. I informed the construction company of this before submitting the building permit/planning permission application, again at its submission, and once more shortly before permit approval during the shell construction selection appointment, asking that the static calculations use 11.5cm walls around the guest bathroom. I was told it was not a problem. Apparently, the structural calculations were commissioned only after the permit was granted. One month later, the construction company informs me that changing the guest bathroom wall thickness from 17.5cm to 11.5cm is no longer possible because the structural calculations and precast ceiling planning are completed and cannot be changed. Do I have to accept this nonsense?
Best regards
I would like to get your opinion on the following two issues. My house construction company is frustrating me.
Topic Patio Doors. In the approved planning documents, patio doors with a height of 2.32m (7 ft 7 in) were drawn in at my request. There will be no roller shutter above them, as the lintel is 25cm (10 inches). The patio doors will be made of white uPVC, with soundproof glazing rated at 39dB, RC2N security class, and triple glazing. The width is not a problem, approximately 85cm (33 inches) each. However, the height is an issue. I contacted the window company (hired by the construction company) to ask if the height was a problem. I was then told that only patio doors up to a maximum height of 2.26m (7 ft 5 in) can be installed. After early consultation with the construction company, I was verbally assured that the height would not be an issue, and if necessary, the window company could be changed. The selection appointment took place at the above-mentioned window company in the good faith of the site manager, believing that the taller patio doors would be installed. At the selection, the window company took the position that only 2.26m (7 ft 5 in) high doors would be installed, stating no other company installs patio doors that large. The site manager also tried hard to convince me to accept the 2.26m height. After consulting four other window companies, all confirmed that the dimensions I requested would not be a problem, as the door weight is calculated and not just the height alone. Now I want the windows and doors credited back to me so I can handle it myself. Alternatively, could I insist on the patio door dimensions from the approved planning?
Topic Interior Walls. Around the guest bathroom on the ground floor, two walls were planned with a thickness of 17.5cm (7 inches) by the architectural firm as a precaution for structural reasons. The "main wall," located elsewhere and bordering the living room, was also planned with 17.5cm (7 inches) thickness. However, I would have preferred the walls around the guest bathroom to be 11.5cm (4.5 inches) thick to avoid a cramped bathroom and to provide more space for the refrigerator in the adjacent room. I informed the construction company of this before submitting the building permit/planning permission application, again at its submission, and once more shortly before permit approval during the shell construction selection appointment, asking that the static calculations use 11.5cm walls around the guest bathroom. I was told it was not a problem. Apparently, the structural calculations were commissioned only after the permit was granted. One month later, the construction company informs me that changing the guest bathroom wall thickness from 17.5cm to 11.5cm is no longer possible because the structural calculations and precast ceiling planning are completed and cannot be changed. Do I have to accept this nonsense?
Best regards
MayrCh schrieb:
Dimensioning a patio door in the planning permission is at least unusual. Then door frames, and so on, would also have to be dimensioned separately. Honestly, I can hardly imagine that. I rather guess it’s a rough opening measurement. Thanks for the explanation. They do seem to be rough opening measurements. That also makes sense.
kaho674 schrieb:
Practice area calculation:
500cm (197 inches) x 6cm (2.4 inches) = 3000cm² (465 square inches) = 0.3m² (3.2 square feet)?!Oh, silly me. I meant to write 6. But I meant 0.3m² (3.2 square feet).4k2ml32343m3 schrieb:
Now I want to have the windows and doors credited to me and take care of them myself. Problem: Based on experience, the credit your general contractor (GC) will offer for the windows will likely not be sufficient for a direct contract. Have them provide you with offers, black out the prices if necessary, and forward the quotes to your site manager.
On one hand, I don’t quite understand this: The rough opening dimension is supposed to be 2.32 m (7 ft 7 in), while the height of the elements is 2.26 m (7 ft 5 in). That would be the same without underfloor heating, and with underfloor heating the elements would actually be too tall for the clear installation height.
Secondly, I wonder what the general contractor actually does professionally if they cannot source windows with the desired height (up to 2.40 m (7 ft 10 in) should not be a problem).
If any furnishing requirement fails due to just 12 cm (5 inches) of space, then there has been a planning mistake. I also don’t agree with generally sizing interior walls at 17.5 cm (7 inches) – but making them only 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) just to regain some lost room width at the wall is nonsense (and also without any advantage).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Secondly, I wonder what the general contractor actually does professionally if they cannot source windows with the desired height (up to 2.40 m (7 ft 10 in) should not be a problem).
If any furnishing requirement fails due to just 12 cm (5 inches) of space, then there has been a planning mistake. I also don’t agree with generally sizing interior walls at 17.5 cm (7 inches) – but making them only 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) just to regain some lost room width at the wall is nonsense (and also without any advantage).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics