Hello everyone, I hope this is the right place for my question:
We have an uneven screed. It rises by 35cm (14 inches) over a distance, dropping more than 10mm (0.4 inches) towards the wall. Assuming this defect is undisputed. The floor covering was installed on the uneven surface. Although the uneven floor was noticed, it was not recognized as a construction defect (lack of knowledge about the situation).
After realizing the issue, the defect was reported to the construction company (by email). However, the company refused to fix the problem, stating that nothing could be done since the floor covering was installed without first checking the floor.
Is this correct? Is the company no longer responsible for repairing this defect? Or is it possible that the company must fix the defect but is not obliged to cover the costs of reinstalling the floor covering?
We have an uneven screed. It rises by 35cm (14 inches) over a distance, dropping more than 10mm (0.4 inches) towards the wall. Assuming this defect is undisputed. The floor covering was installed on the uneven surface. Although the uneven floor was noticed, it was not recognized as a construction defect (lack of knowledge about the situation).
After realizing the issue, the defect was reported to the construction company (by email). However, the company refused to fix the problem, stating that nothing could be done since the floor covering was installed without first checking the floor.
Is this correct? Is the company no longer responsible for repairing this defect? Or is it possible that the company must fix the defect but is not obliged to cover the costs of reinstalling the floor covering?
EarlyBird schrieb:
The uneven floor was noticed but not identified as a construction defect (lack of knowledge of the situation).Basically, this clarifies the situation. You saw the defect, noticed the uneven floor, and then accepted this floor. This allowed the contractor to assume that you agreed with the execution of the work and that the required result had been delivered by them.
I would like to echo what the building expert said (once again) and also point out (again) that saving money on an expert is a mistake. Most people have no knowledge of construction and mainly rely on the statements of the tradespeople involved, believing the work has been done properly and satisfactorily. This leads to the absurd situations where work that looks good but is defective is overlooked, while work that looks poor but is properly executed is criticized. Both circumstances provide plenty of reasons for disputes.
So: Always, always include the costs for professional expert supervision when you are not a specialist. Defects are almost always found, and fixing them later will be more expensive (not to mention legal fees).
U
Username_wahl26 Apr 2015 10:36Hello, may I join this discussion? We are building a timber frame house with an architect who is managing design phases 1 through 8. Would you still recommend additional construction supervision by an independent expert?
B
Bauexperte26 Apr 2015 10:41@Passivhaus
The four-eyes principle also applies here. Additionally, it gives you a first, solid assessment of whether your choice of architect was a good one or less suitable.
Regards, Bauexperte from the trade fair in Neuß
Bauexperte
The four-eyes principle also applies here. Additionally, it gives you a first, solid assessment of whether your choice of architect was a good one or less suitable.
Regards, Bauexperte from the trade fair in Neuß
Bauexperte
S
Sebastian7929 Apr 2015 10:22Building expert, no offense, but that doesn’t make sense—the architect is the expert, and you would be paying twice. If you don’t trust the architect, you can bring in another expert as a second opinion.
Of course, you can always seek multiple confirmations, but you should also consider that there are people working on the construction who might be unnecessarily offended by this.
If you are unsure, simply skip the relevant service phase of the architect and pay another expert instead. Whatever that is supposed to achieve.
Of course, you can always seek multiple confirmations, but you should also consider that there are people working on the construction who might be unnecessarily offended by this.
If you are unsure, simply skip the relevant service phase of the architect and pay another expert instead. Whatever that is supposed to achieve.
B
Bauexperte29 Apr 2015 11:03Hello,
When an independent expert is brought into a construction project, it’s not primarily about distrust, but rather that four eyes see more than two. Then there is the fact that established structures – in your example, mostly the long-term collaboration between architect and tradespeople – are much more prone to errors. This is because the tradespeople in such setups are used to working together and rely on each other implicitly; not necessarily deliberately, but they do not always check the predecessor’s work as thoroughly as they should (this applies, by the way, to every contractor with a fixed team of tradespeople). “They just know each other.”
In addition, the collaboration between architect and expert is also beneficial. If the architect delivers good work, the expert will certainly recommend them in the future. If a problem arises during the project – and it will, as surely as night follows day – the architect will be glad, depending on the kind of problem, to have an impartial mediator between the client and themselves.
For me, that is the crucial point: the expert is typically more current in their work than the architect. The well-employed ones regularly attend training, often know more about alternatives than the architect; and in any case have seen more.
And to clear up another misunderstanding: the vast majority of architects and general contractors, construction managers, and project supervisors in Germany are dedicated professionals (even if forums sometimes suggest otherwise) and have – it might surprise some – a single goal: to deliver a proper construction project. They too live – oh surprise – from recommendations. That does not mean they walk on water or are infallible. Many of these people, like you and me, have had their backs saved by experts, and from my – certainly subjective – point of view, that is worth every dollar because it always benefits the client.
Regards, Bauexperte
Lexmaul79 schrieb:I’m not upset, just somewhat disappointed once again...
Bauexperte, don’t be upset, but that doesn’t make sense – the architect is the expert and you would be paying twice. If you don’t trust the architect, you can also bring in another expert to the expert.
When an independent expert is brought into a construction project, it’s not primarily about distrust, but rather that four eyes see more than two. Then there is the fact that established structures – in your example, mostly the long-term collaboration between architect and tradespeople – are much more prone to errors. This is because the tradespeople in such setups are used to working together and rely on each other implicitly; not necessarily deliberately, but they do not always check the predecessor’s work as thoroughly as they should (this applies, by the way, to every contractor with a fixed team of tradespeople). “They just know each other.”
In addition, the collaboration between architect and expert is also beneficial. If the architect delivers good work, the expert will certainly recommend them in the future. If a problem arises during the project – and it will, as surely as night follows day – the architect will be glad, depending on the kind of problem, to have an impartial mediator between the client and themselves.
For me, that is the crucial point: the expert is typically more current in their work than the architect. The well-employed ones regularly attend training, often know more about alternatives than the architect; and in any case have seen more.
Lexmaul79 schrieb:Who put that idea in your head? Why should the architect or tradespeople feel offended if an expert carefully checks the critical handover dates? I don’t know of any case where commissioning an expert – unless they come from my favorite club – has led to tensions; on the contrary.
Of course, you can always play it safe a hundred times over – but you should also consider that the people working on the construction might be unnecessarily offended by that.
Lexmaul79 schrieb:You have posted 331 times here; I’m sure you’ve read about as much. If you can’t answer that question yourself, then reasoned arguments won’t help you.
... Whatever it’s supposed to achieve
And to clear up another misunderstanding: the vast majority of architects and general contractors, construction managers, and project supervisors in Germany are dedicated professionals (even if forums sometimes suggest otherwise) and have – it might surprise some – a single goal: to deliver a proper construction project. They too live – oh surprise – from recommendations. That does not mean they walk on water or are infallible. Many of these people, like you and me, have had their backs saved by experts, and from my – certainly subjective – point of view, that is worth every dollar because it always benefits the client.
Regards, Bauexperte
S
Sebastian7929 Apr 2015 11:51That much is clear to me—why you would bring in an expert and that no one intends harm. My point is simply that when building with an architect, hiring an expert is generally unnecessary since they assess the same aspects as the appointed architect. If you don’t trust the architect, you can simply avoid contracting certain service phases—but as a layperson, you usually aren’t in a position to judge that.
By “causing offense,” I didn’t mean the tradespeople—far from it. I was referring only to the architect. Initially, you don’t trust them to do their job properly (to inspect the construction). Of course, you can insist on a “better safe than sorry” approach, but fundamentally, this procedure is taken to an extreme when the architect is fully contracted.
My architect is constantly attending further training—I don’t want to speak for everyone, but you explicitly mentioned that an expert is usually more up-to-date. For whatever reason, that may be...
When building with a general contractor / main contractor or construction management, an expert is mandatory because no one else works for you as the client. In an architect-led build, the architect works for you and only for you. That is one of the fundamental principles of this type of building... but why am I telling you this?
And yes, I still don’t understand what benefit this is supposed to bring—it has nothing to do with the number of posts or contributions I’ve seen. At that point, it would be possible to respond with factual arguments—so why get emotional?
By “causing offense,” I didn’t mean the tradespeople—far from it. I was referring only to the architect. Initially, you don’t trust them to do their job properly (to inspect the construction). Of course, you can insist on a “better safe than sorry” approach, but fundamentally, this procedure is taken to an extreme when the architect is fully contracted.
My architect is constantly attending further training—I don’t want to speak for everyone, but you explicitly mentioned that an expert is usually more up-to-date. For whatever reason, that may be...
When building with a general contractor / main contractor or construction management, an expert is mandatory because no one else works for you as the client. In an architect-led build, the architect works for you and only for you. That is one of the fundamental principles of this type of building... but why am I telling you this?
And yes, I still don’t understand what benefit this is supposed to bring—it has nothing to do with the number of posts or contributions I’ve seen. At that point, it would be possible to respond with factual arguments—so why get emotional?
Similar topics