ᐅ Shell construction company builds basement smaller than in the approved building plans
Created on: 28 Jan 2023 21:18
D
domino55
Hello everyone,
A shell construction company was commissioned to build the basement with in-situ concrete according to the existing factory plan (14.0 x 6.66 m (46 ft x 21.8 ft)). However, the company missed the dimensions and built the basement about 4 cm (1.6 inches) smaller. This applies to both the exterior and interior measurements.
Dimensions according to factory plan
Target house width: 6.66 m (21.8 ft)
Target width of basement concrete walls exterior: 6.525 m (21.4 ft)
Target width of basement concrete walls interior: 6.025 m (19.8 ft)
Actual width of basement concrete walls exterior: 6.48 m (21.3 ft) (-0.04 m (-1.6 inches))
Actual width of basement concrete walls interior: 5.96 m (19.6 ft) (-0.06 m (-2.4 inches))
I measured myself using various tape measures and a laser distance meter.
What should be done in this situation?
Price reduction due to smaller total area? If so, how much? Are there any standard tables or guidelines for this?
It is especially unfortunate that the house was built smaller on the narrow side (maximum size restricted by the zoning/land-use plan), where every centimeter counts.
This also has consequences such as the possible need to adjust the factory plan (staircase, adjacent walls, support columns no longer fit).
Best regards
A shell construction company was commissioned to build the basement with in-situ concrete according to the existing factory plan (14.0 x 6.66 m (46 ft x 21.8 ft)). However, the company missed the dimensions and built the basement about 4 cm (1.6 inches) smaller. This applies to both the exterior and interior measurements.
Dimensions according to factory plan
Target house width: 6.66 m (21.8 ft)
Target width of basement concrete walls exterior: 6.525 m (21.4 ft)
Target width of basement concrete walls interior: 6.025 m (19.8 ft)
Actual width of basement concrete walls exterior: 6.48 m (21.3 ft) (-0.04 m (-1.6 inches))
Actual width of basement concrete walls interior: 5.96 m (19.6 ft) (-0.06 m (-2.4 inches))
I measured myself using various tape measures and a laser distance meter.
What should be done in this situation?
Price reduction due to smaller total area? If so, how much? Are there any standard tables or guidelines for this?
It is especially unfortunate that the house was built smaller on the narrow side (maximum size restricted by the zoning/land-use plan), where every centimeter counts.
This also has consequences such as the possible need to adjust the factory plan (staircase, adjacent walls, support columns no longer fit).
Best regards
A
Allthewayup30 Jan 2023 07:41domino55 schrieb:
My question in the thread about concrete cover was of a technical nature: which repair option should be preferred. The answers went in a different direction. The fact that the answers went in another direction was probably because you had to extract the information from people bit by bit. Accordingly, the posts in your thread became more direct shortly after. But let’s leave it at that for now.
domino55 schrieb:
The expert did not provide written evaluations, but stated that the basement can be repaired and that the structural contractor should carry it out. You should agree on the appropriate solution.
The basement can be made suitable. But a black tank (damp proofing or tanking) is simply inferior to the ordered white tank (not as durable, etc.).
And it is smaller than ordered. In addition, the wall towards the neighbor cannot be inspected or repaired from the outside. No, you should not just agree on one option here; rather, you should take charge and specify exactly what needs to be done. I am not a lawyer, but here’s how I see it: the contractor has the right to fix defects first. However, in this case, they can’t simply deepen the reinforcement in the concrete. That means you’re facing a repair that will deviate from the agreed qualities. Since you are not obliged to accept this and could insist on contract fulfillment, you hold the leverage now. Your contractor will try to convince you that the cheapest solution is technically fine. That’s exactly why you need to hire an expert who can lay out the best possible solution for you. This expert will also assess the remaining defects technically and professionally, so with this information a lawyer can consider possible compensation claims. You will either be demanding too little or too much from your contractor, with corresponding consequences.
domino55 schrieb:
I want to try to resolve this with the structural contractor without involving an expert.
Is the burden of proof on him if I officially and in writing point out a defect? Or can he just reply “no, the dimensions are correct”? I want him to bear the cost of proof himself. That is a big mistake you are making. The contractor initially lied to you and denied everything. Do you seriously believe he will treat you as an equal during discussions? He has been in this business for years and knows exactly when a client is unsure. If you tell him that the structural frame deviates by 6cm (2.4 inches), he will naturally investigate the matter first. If he comes to a different conclusion than you (whether that’s really true or not is another question), he will communicate that to you, and you’re back at square one. So yes, he could simply reply like that, maybe just to buy time.
The “costs for proof” that he refuses to accept will then also be included by your lawyer in the demand letter. Why should you have to bear those costs? After a car accident where you are not at fault, who pays the expert and lawyer costs? Obviously, the party at fault. This means you don’t even need to inform him in advance that you plan to charge him these costs.
In your case, working with an expert and a lawyer is basically a no-lose situation if what you found is accurate.
A
Allthewayup30 Jan 2023 07:55domino55 schrieb:
I will add the recommendation regarding insurance. You can save yourself the trouble, because defects in trades carried out by yourself are not insurable. Otherwise, any construction company could do poor work as they please and then claim coverage through insurance. Their general liability insurance would cover damages caused to other trades, but not to their own workmanship.
This is what my expert assessor told me.
One more addition on how to determine the extent of the damage:
1. Assessment of the financial loss based on the asset balance
2. Assessment of the financial loss based on the contract price
3. Assessment of the financial loss based on the actual repair costs
When you have the chance, take a look at the Federal Court ruling from 27.03.2003 – VII ZR 443/01 –, BGHZ 152, 301-305. The reasoning behind the verdict is really interesting and might answer some of your questions. However, in your case, for example, a small deviation could mean the situation is completely different. In construction law, there are basically no precedent cases that can be applied one-to-one to other building projects.
domino55 schrieb:
How are answers to those questions supposed to help with my problem? I honestly can’t see it.
That’s why I’m ignoring them. A forum is about give and take. If you want a one-sided question-and-answer session, you should hire someone who offers their time for that purpose.
It helps identify the causes. Things don’t just happen by chance. Bad luck in construction can happen to anyone, but if patterns emerge, you need to take action. You’re still at the beginning of the building phase, so there’s still something that can be done. But if you want to exclude yourself from the equation, fine, but then...
domino55 schrieb:
My question in the thread about concrete cover was technical in nature: which repair method is preferable. The answers went in a different direction. ...don’t try to freeload expert knowledge here.
G
Gerddieter29 Aug 2023 20:36Hello -
interesting story - how did it continue?
interesting story - how did it continue?