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?
And, a small addition, I informed the neighbor kindly via messenger in December 2022 that 2-meter (6.6 feet) L-shaped retaining walls are necessary there, so it was not a surprise. However, maybe he never responded to my message due to certain intentions...
This completely contradicts his lawyer’s statement that they had "mutually agreed" on the new height level (meaning the "lower" level) as the new standard...
And somewhere I don’t know, as much as I am interested in maintaining a good relationship with the neighbor (he is not technically skilled, and I have already helped him a lot and given advice during the construction phase... for example, he could have taken a telecommunication cable connection for €1000 instead of a free fiber optic connection, etc.),
I wonder if you should just give in to people like that... (especially if you are 99% certain you are right — if I’m wrong, no problem, I’ll pay for the L-shaped retaining walls!)
This completely contradicts his lawyer’s statement that they had "mutually agreed" on the new height level (meaning the "lower" level) as the new standard...
And somewhere I don’t know, as much as I am interested in maintaining a good relationship with the neighbor (he is not technically skilled, and I have already helped him a lot and given advice during the construction phase... for example, he could have taken a telecommunication cable connection for €1000 instead of a free fiber optic connection, etc.),
I wonder if you should just give in to people like that... (especially if you are 99% certain you are right — if I’m wrong, no problem, I’ll pay for the L-shaped retaining walls!)
C
Costruttrice3 Oct 2023 18:58The lawyer is writing down what the neighbor is telling him. Since it has already come to this point and he is sending you lawyer’s letters, I would not respond to the letter yourself or provide any counter-evidence on your own, but leave that to your lawyer. Unfortunately, it seems that it is no longer possible to communicate with him in a normal way. Otherwise, for the sake of peace, I would have suggested a 50/50 split. You can still do that, but I would only do it through your lawyer and without acknowledging any legal obligation.
W
WilderSueden3 Oct 2023 20:22I would like to remind you of my comment.
His lawyer has probably told him something similar, which is why this is now the approach being taken. The new challenge is to resolve the matter without becoming lifelong enemies.
WilderSueden schrieb:
The key issue is whether the excavation has legally created a new terrain profile. If that is the case, adding fill would alter the land and trigger the obligation to secure it.
His lawyer has probably told him something similar, which is why this is now the approach being taken. The new challenge is to resolve the matter without becoming lifelong enemies.
H
hanghaus20235 Oct 2023 12:29What did the neighbor reply to that back then?
He didn’t respond to this information; he had written two pieces of information/things back then… he only answered the other one.
I can only repeat that it was actually clear to everyone that soil would be added there again, which is why both garages are designed to resist earth pressure (at the back), and our L-shaped concrete blocks are used at the parking space, with the always 2m (6.5 feet) L-shaped blocks on the sidewall of his garage shown in the drawings (which I also sent to him)….
I can only repeat that it was actually clear to everyone that soil would be added there again, which is why both garages are designed to resist earth pressure (at the back), and our L-shaped concrete blocks are used at the parking space, with the always 2m (6.5 feet) L-shaped blocks on the sidewall of his garage shown in the drawings (which I also sent to him)….
So, as you describe it here, he seems to have tried to deceive you from the very beginning. I would be upset about that too. Although our understanding of the law and sense of justice align in this case, as I said, it’s better to seek professional advice, especially since some aspects of building law are not handled the way you might expect with common sense. See the letter from his lawyer, although I also think he may have presented the situation differently or omitted the beginning of the story.
Similar topics