A question for any legal experts or people who have had similar experiences.
We have a U-shaped reinforced concrete staircase (double turn without an intermediate landing) from the basement (at street level on the street side) up to the ground floor.
“Behind” the staircase is a window to let in more light in the stairwell, so the lights don’t have to be on during the day.
The window is fixed, meaning it is not designed to open (no handle or anything).
So far, so good. We recently considered installing a partially frosted glass pane to reduce visibility of the staircase from outside. At that point, we realized the glass would likely never be removable because the staircase extends all the way to the wall.
The question now is, is it considered a (hidden) defect if a windowpane cannot be replaced without either seriously damaging the staircase or chipping away part of the interior plaster and masonry?
This is not about the other glass for now, since you could use a film in the basement window. But I wonder who would cover the additional costs if the pane, for example, breaks at some point. As mentioned, the wall above the window would have to be partially opened up to pull the pane out upward.
Thank you very much for any answers, opinions, or possibly similar rulings or legal references...
We have a U-shaped reinforced concrete staircase (double turn without an intermediate landing) from the basement (at street level on the street side) up to the ground floor.
“Behind” the staircase is a window to let in more light in the stairwell, so the lights don’t have to be on during the day.
The window is fixed, meaning it is not designed to open (no handle or anything).
So far, so good. We recently considered installing a partially frosted glass pane to reduce visibility of the staircase from outside. At that point, we realized the glass would likely never be removable because the staircase extends all the way to the wall.
The question now is, is it considered a (hidden) defect if a windowpane cannot be replaced without either seriously damaging the staircase or chipping away part of the interior plaster and masonry?
This is not about the other glass for now, since you could use a film in the basement window. But I wonder who would cover the additional costs if the pane, for example, breaks at some point. As mentioned, the wall above the window would have to be partially opened up to pull the pane out upward.
Thank you very much for any answers, opinions, or possibly similar rulings or legal references...
P
Peanuts747 Mar 2016 07:13Bauexperte schrieb:
@Peanuts
I find your attitude toward my work—putting it mildly—quite presumptuous! It’s like you see me as the poor sheep being led to the slaughter.
People are not machines; they make mistakes and can’t always think of everything at once. Your construction plans clearly show where and which window is installed in the townhouse; there is probably even a note saying "no roller shutter." I’m sure you also discussed the lighting of the townhouse. If I recall some of your earlier posts correctly, you weren’t exactly the easiest person to communicate with. So, there are two possibilities: your planner assumed you were smart enough to understand the drawbacks of that window solution without explicitly pointing them out, or they simply forgot. Neither of these scenarios qualifies as a defect.
And since you came up with a change after the windows were installed—one you could have requested in time, which would have only added the cost of a film or frosted glass—you are now looking for someone to blame for the additional costs? I’m sure you have a mirror.
Best regards, Bauexperte
BauexperteI did not judge your work but your attitude.
As I said, most people build a house only once in their life, and according to you, they simply haven’t thought things through enough if they don’t spot every detail or pitfall on the plan?
I didn’t complain that there is no roller shutter on the window or that it obviously can’t be opened behind the stairs.
I also emphasized that this is less about the change of the glass itself and more about what happens when it breaks and MUST be replaced!
The architect or planner should at least mention in passing that this would not be possible without chipping work.
Calling the layperson unable to notice this on the plan because they (in your view) can’t think is, in my opinion, very arrogant—though people will see this differently.
No one said nobody makes mistakes, quite the opposite. But if mistakes happen, one should take responsibility for them.
P
Peanuts747 Mar 2016 09:30Is that a regulation? You would really have to mess up badly here, and even then, you wouldn’t fall more than a meter (about 3 feet) outside.
Peanuts74 schrieb:
Is that required? If there is no railing inside, I would assume so.
The tiler asked me whether a railing would be installed there or if the glass is safety glass.
Since no railing was planned, I double-checked our building documents to see if the window is safety glass. In our case, the continuous window strip is divided, and the lower part is safety glass.
P
Peanuts747 Mar 2016 10:09OK, that would be a different question... But as I said, apart from possible cutting injuries, I don’t see any danger here...
B
Bauexperte7 Mar 2016 11:11Peanuts74 schrieb:
I did not judge your work, but your attitude. One is based on the other.
Peanuts74 schrieb:
As I said, most people build a house once in their life, and in your opinion, they simply did not think enough if they don’t recognize every detail on the plan? No one expects — not even I from you — that you identify real planning errors; however, from what you write, no planning error is apparent to me. You discussed your townhouse and its lighting with your planner; so you were aware that the staircase would be placed in front.
Peanuts74 schrieb:
I also emphasized that this is less about changing the glass pane itself, but what happens if it breaks and MUST be replaced! Then initially it would be the window manufacturer’s problem to figure out how to replace the window. Again — that is not difficult; it just takes longer, as I already explained.
Peanuts74 schrieb:
That this cannot be done without chipping work... Who says?
Peanuts74 schrieb:
I find it very arrogant that a layperson does not notice it on the plan because they (in your eyes) cannot think, but I suppose some see it differently. I am already annoyed by your introduction, “A question to possible lawyers or people with similar experiences,” because it’s typical. You do not ask for solutions, much less did you initially talk to your planner; which would be the best approach. At the same time, you express outrage and portray yourself as the poor homeowner being taken advantage of. If you want to describe my interpretation of your description as arrogant, fine. I have been called worse.
For me, it looks like you want to create a defect secondarily because you “might” decide on frosted glass and because the possibility of broken glass in the future does not seem sufficient to you. Meanwhile, you approved the execution and certainly noticed that the staircase is located next to the window band. And, as is also typical, you bring up a hearsay example to reinforce your opinion, which actually does nothing to clarify the matter but supposedly serves the goal of blaming a “bad” planner.
By the way, a concealed defect means what is stated in the description: hidden and _not_ visible to the eye.
Regards, Bauexperte
Similar topics