ᐅ Who is responsible for restoring the height of the garage/parking space?
Created on: 27 Sep 2023 15:54
D
darksun
Hello,
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
Costs estimated by the earthworks contractor: 4000 euros (for the 2m (6.5 feet) length section of Garage B only).
This isn’t about principles, or what do you think?
Why would someone want to contribute to something if it is “clearly” (if that’s the case!) the responsibility of someone else?
This isn’t about principles, or what do you think?
Why would someone want to contribute to something if it is “clearly” (if that’s the case!) the responsibility of someone else?
B
Benutzer 100130 Sep 2023 11:27WilderSueden schrieb:
The key issue is whether the excavation has legally created a new terrain profile. If that is the case, your fill would alter the land and trigger an obligation to secure it. Why should that have happened? If the new profile is not higher than the old one, it is definitely not your problem. Talk to your neighbor and tell them you will fill up to the old terrain profile and that they have a reasonable amount of time to respond. If nothing happens, go to your lawyer, send a written deadline of 2 weeks, and charge them for any additional costs caused by the delay—otherwise, some people just don’t get it.
C
Costruttrice30 Sep 2023 11:31I haven’t read closely who is A and who is B.
But if the excavation was carried out jointly and both parties knew from the start that after building the garage and parking space, the original ground level on both sides would be restored, then I wonder why B, knowing this, did not build a garage on the side that is protected against earth pressure and instead passes the responsibility on to A now. Maybe this is more complicated from a legal perspective.
If the process and excavation had been independent of each other, it would be clear to me (warning, just a layperson’s opinion!): If B had excavated first and built a garage, B would have needed to secure the garage against lateral earth pressure, since A’s ground level would then be higher. If A had excavated first, A would have had to secure plot B during the work and then fill it back to the original level as usual. If B later built a garage below ground level, B would then have needed to make it earth-pressure resistant on the sides as well.
But if the excavation was carried out jointly and both parties knew from the start that after building the garage and parking space, the original ground level on both sides would be restored, then I wonder why B, knowing this, did not build a garage on the side that is protected against earth pressure and instead passes the responsibility on to A now. Maybe this is more complicated from a legal perspective.
If the process and excavation had been independent of each other, it would be clear to me (warning, just a layperson’s opinion!): If B had excavated first and built a garage, B would have needed to secure the garage against lateral earth pressure, since A’s ground level would then be higher. If A had excavated first, A would have had to secure plot B during the work and then fill it back to the original level as usual. If B later built a garage below ground level, B would then have needed to make it earth-pressure resistant on the sides as well.
Honestly? 4,000 in opportunity costs are negligible compared to the total construction costs if they help clarify the relationship with the neighbor. Even a difficult person is easier to deal with when there is peace. Be wise like King Solomon and offer to split this 4,000 effort amicably. Frame the deadline for his consideration as “practically to place the order if he accepts the offer within two weeks.” Sometimes you need a cup of flour, a jump start, or a snow shovel. Leave it up to him to decide how wisely he uses this offer.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Received new "information" from the neighbor and their lawyer...
> ... after the soil was previously removed by mutual agreement ...
Sounds good, but actually only the necessary excavation for the garage foundations and space for the parking spot was done.
What is especially unclear to me is where we "formally and mutually agreed on the current ground level."
The soil was excavated accordingly, but no "agreement" between us regarding a "new height" or anything similar was discussed or made...
> ... after the soil was previously removed by mutual agreement ...
Sounds good, but actually only the necessary excavation for the garage foundations and space for the parking spot was done.
What is especially unclear to me is where we "formally and mutually agreed on the current ground level."
The soil was excavated accordingly, but no "agreement" between us regarding a "new height" or anything similar was discussed or made...
Similar topics