ᐅ Is the prohibition of deterioration under the energy saving regulations also applicable in case of construction defects?
Created on: 30 Apr 2014 00:46
G
GWeberDear readers,
Ten months after moving in and eight months after the acceptance of the common property, the insulation in the underground parking garage of our newly built multi-family building already needs to be replaced. The reason: EPS with a thickness of 140 mm (5.5 inches) was installed as ceiling insulation, but the legally required fire protection rating B1 only applies to horizontal installations up to a thickness of 80 mm (3.1 inches).
The developer now wants to reduce the 140 mm (5.5 inches) to 80 mm (3.1 inches) and claims that the energy saving regulation requirements for the transmission heat loss of the entire building envelope are still met. That may be true, but what about the prohibition of deterioration according to the energy saving regulation? After all, the building has been occupied for almost a year and has been fully accepted for more than six months (at that time the missing fire protection of the insulation was not yet noticed) – so it is probably considered an “existing building.”
I take – admittedly not completely neutral – the position that the insulation value of the 140 mm EPS must definitely be maintained, even if this means using a significantly more expensive insulation material like mineral wool.
What do the experts think? Many thanks in advance for all suggestions!
Ten months after moving in and eight months after the acceptance of the common property, the insulation in the underground parking garage of our newly built multi-family building already needs to be replaced. The reason: EPS with a thickness of 140 mm (5.5 inches) was installed as ceiling insulation, but the legally required fire protection rating B1 only applies to horizontal installations up to a thickness of 80 mm (3.1 inches).
The developer now wants to reduce the 140 mm (5.5 inches) to 80 mm (3.1 inches) and claims that the energy saving regulation requirements for the transmission heat loss of the entire building envelope are still met. That may be true, but what about the prohibition of deterioration according to the energy saving regulation? After all, the building has been occupied for almost a year and has been fully accepted for more than six months (at that time the missing fire protection of the insulation was not yet noticed) – so it is probably considered an “existing building.”
I take – admittedly not completely neutral – the position that the insulation value of the 140 mm EPS must definitely be maintained, even if this means using a significantly more expensive insulation material like mineral wool.
What do the experts think? Many thanks in advance for all suggestions!
I would see it the same way. From the perspective of the contractor’s contractual obligations. They have certainly committed to meeting the agreed-upon thermal insulation requirements. At the same time, they are not allowed to override other regulations, so they should have known from the start that while the insulation they used is sufficient to achieve the thermal protection, it is still too thick for fire safety. Now, they “should” comply with both the law and the contract. How they manage to satisfy both is their problem. In my opinion, it is unreasonable to expect the client to be aware of this.
But the legal complexities are sometimes unfathomable. And I’m not familiar with your contract with your contractor. 🙂
But the legal complexities are sometimes unfathomable. And I’m not familiar with your contract with your contractor. 🙂
B
Bauexperte30 Apr 2014 10:49Hello,
In what context was this discovered? Normally, if KfW 70 or lower is the target, there should be a follow-up verification after completion to confirm that the building actually meets the specified KfW standard. In my view, this verification should have been done earlier.
As mentioned above, I assume he can make many claims; he must provide proof.
More insulation does not necessarily mean better; the proportional aspects also matter, especially since the multi-family building is already occupied.
Regards, Bauexperte
GWeber schrieb:
Ten months after moving in and eight months after acceptance of the common property, the insulation in the underground parking garage of our new multi-family building already needs to be replaced. Reason: 140 mm (5.5 inches) thick EPS was installed as ceiling insulation, but the legally required fire protection rating B1 only applies to up to 80 mm (3 inches) thickness when arranged horizontally.
In what context was this discovered? Normally, if KfW 70 or lower is the target, there should be a follow-up verification after completion to confirm that the building actually meets the specified KfW standard. In my view, this verification should have been done earlier.
GWeber schrieb:
The developer now wants to reduce the 140 mm (5.5 inches) to 80 mm (3 inches) and claims that the energy saving regulation requirement for the transmission heat loss of the entire building envelope is still met.
As mentioned above, I assume he can make many claims; he must provide proof.
GWeber schrieb:
I take the – admittedly not entirely neutral – position that the insulation value of the 140 mm (5.5 inches) EPS should definitely be maintained, even if this requires using a significantly more expensive insulation material like mineral wool.
More insulation does not necessarily mean better; the proportional aspects also matter, especially since the multi-family building is already occupied.
Regards, Bauexperte
Thank you for the responses. Contractually, nothing else is regulated except for compliance with the basic requirements of the Energy Saving Ordinance. This is unavoidable anyway. Even with significantly poorer insulation of the garage ceiling (and thus the apartments above), the builder will likely still meet the minimum requirement for transmission heat loss.
However, if one takes the position that a building transitions to existing building status as of the date of handover (=existing building), then with every subsequent construction measure—regardless of the reason—the prohibition of deterioration according to the Energy Saving Ordinance must of course be observed.
The interesting question is whether there is another, more reasonable point in time that can be used to define "existing building," one that occurs later.
However, if one takes the position that a building transitions to existing building status as of the date of handover (=existing building), then with every subsequent construction measure—regardless of the reason—the prohibition of deterioration according to the Energy Saving Ordinance must of course be observed.
The interesting question is whether there is another, more reasonable point in time that can be used to define "existing building," one that occurs later.
Similar topics