D
DanielaSG29 Jul 2009 12:56Hello,
Last year, we had our house completely renovated inside (water pipes, bathroom, heating) by a professional craftsman. During this process, we also had all the tiles and wallpaper redone. We moved in December, and in January, a leak was discovered under the bathtub on the first floor. This leak caused the plaster in the toilet to become so damp that it had to be removed. Our wallpaper now shows water stains in many places. Since January, we have been working to have the defects fully repaired by the craftsman. Drying devices were provided to us but did not help much. Then, a specialized company came and installed a fan heater under the bathtub two weeks ago. My question now is, since we have not yet fully paid the invoice, are we allowed to reduce the payment? If yes, by how much.
Last year, we had our house completely renovated inside (water pipes, bathroom, heating) by a professional craftsman. During this process, we also had all the tiles and wallpaper redone. We moved in December, and in January, a leak was discovered under the bathtub on the first floor. This leak caused the plaster in the toilet to become so damp that it had to be removed. Our wallpaper now shows water stains in many places. Since January, we have been working to have the defects fully repaired by the craftsman. Drying devices were provided to us but did not help much. Then, a specialized company came and installed a fan heater under the bathtub two weeks ago. My question now is, since we have not yet fully paid the invoice, are we allowed to reduce the payment? If yes, by how much.
6
6Richtige29 Jul 2009 22:24Hello DanielaSG,
Why hasn’t the contractor been fully paid after all, even though it has been 8 months? If the services were provided around October/November last year and you moved in December, the invoice should have been due by December at the latest, right?
Why hasn’t the contractor been fully paid after all, even though it has been 8 months? If the services were provided around October/November last year and you moved in December, the invoice should have been due by December at the latest, right?
D
DanielaSG30 Jul 2009 21:02Hello 6Richtige,
We have made progress payments. We received the final invoice from the contractor in February and have made payments as well, but not for the full amount. We withheld part of the payment with the note that the invoice will only be paid in full once all defects (which, as mentioned before, have still been outstanding since January) have been corrected. Unfortunately, with this contractor, we constantly have to follow up and beg for appointments to get anything done. We are slowly getting tired of this, which I hope is understandable. We had everything newly renovated and still have an ongoing construction site, so we are now considering whether, if we can reduce the invoice, to hire another contractor to fix the defects promptly.
We have made progress payments. We received the final invoice from the contractor in February and have made payments as well, but not for the full amount. We withheld part of the payment with the note that the invoice will only be paid in full once all defects (which, as mentioned before, have still been outstanding since January) have been corrected. Unfortunately, with this contractor, we constantly have to follow up and beg for appointments to get anything done. We are slowly getting tired of this, which I hope is understandable. We had everything newly renovated and still have an ongoing construction site, so we are now considering whether, if we can reduce the invoice, to hire another contractor to fix the defects promptly.
6
6Richtige31 Jul 2009 00:19Hello DanielaSG,
Until now, clients were allowed to withhold up to three times the estimated cost of defect remediation. Since January, this excessive surcharge has been discontinued. The Act on Securing Claims generally permits only up to double the cost to be withheld. If a defect is identified in the contractor’s work after acceptance, the client has a right to withhold payment (= right of retention) under § 320, paragraph 1 of the Building Code to secure their claim for defect remediation against the contractor’s claim for payment.
Considering that the client has accepted the work, it would not be justified to deny the contractor full payment. For this reason, the right of retention applies only up to an amount necessary to compel the contractor to correct the defect. This amount cannot be limited to the simple cost of defect remediation, as that would not exert sufficient pressure on the contractor. Rather, it is generally appropriate to set the retention amount above the actual cost of defect remediation. If the contractor wants to avoid significant deductions from their payment claim, they will thus be (indirectly) forced to eliminate the defects.
With the Act on Securing Claims, which came into effect on January 1, 2009, the legislator set the surcharge at “generally twice the cost necessary to remedy the defect” (§ 641, paragraph 3 of the Building Code).
Until now, clients were allowed to withhold up to three times the estimated cost of defect remediation. Since January, this excessive surcharge has been discontinued. The Act on Securing Claims generally permits only up to double the cost to be withheld. If a defect is identified in the contractor’s work after acceptance, the client has a right to withhold payment (= right of retention) under § 320, paragraph 1 of the Building Code to secure their claim for defect remediation against the contractor’s claim for payment.
Considering that the client has accepted the work, it would not be justified to deny the contractor full payment. For this reason, the right of retention applies only up to an amount necessary to compel the contractor to correct the defect. This amount cannot be limited to the simple cost of defect remediation, as that would not exert sufficient pressure on the contractor. Rather, it is generally appropriate to set the retention amount above the actual cost of defect remediation. If the contractor wants to avoid significant deductions from their payment claim, they will thus be (indirectly) forced to eliminate the defects.
With the Act on Securing Claims, which came into effect on January 1, 2009, the legislator set the surcharge at “generally twice the cost necessary to remedy the defect” (§ 641, paragraph 3 of the Building Code).
Similar topics