Advertisement by construction company on the property fence

It wouldn't be so bad if the two companies hadn't made some planning mistakes that we now have to pay for dearly. They are always quick with new additional costs. So why not throw their advertising into the discussion as well?

Whether I can recommend the companies in the end is rather unlikely. I know that building without problems is rarely possible. But for me, the competence and trustworthiness of the construction company are also measured by whether they are willing to solve problems. But I don't want to discuss our problems here, I just wanted to know something about the advertising signs.

By the way, only the house-building company has house rights stipulated in the contract. There is nothing comparable in the contract with the heating company.

I also don't know if one even needs a permit from the city for advertising.

Hello,

It wouldn’t be so bad if the two companies hadn’t made some planning errors that we now have to pay for dearly. They are always quick with new additional costs. Why not also throw their advertising into the discussion?

Because this behavior characterizes the search for the so-called “stone to throw at the dog” and won’t get you any step forward? Pressure creates counterpressure, so it would be counterproductive to demand some kind of compensation for temporary construction errors for a – by the way legitimate – signage; a construction project must only be free of defects upon complete handover, thus the contractor can remedy defects within a reasonable period.

No reputable contractor closes himself off from problem-solving; a disharmony in the relationship with his client brings him several disadvantages, which in the worst case could cost him twice the fee of his lawyer in court; not to mention the negative publicity. Arrange a meeting at the shell construction stage and discuss on site the works you consider to be defective. If no agreement can be reached, you still have the option to consult an independent expert, even though this will rightly not be free. All of this is better – albeit associated with some annoyance – than a years-long legal dispute in court where you may at best get a judgment, but never be right.

It all reads as if your anger is still relatively fresh; therefore, I can currently understand your resentment well. However, if you lean back calmly and think about your home construction project, you will come to the conclusion that the highest priority is the completion of your single-family house.

Kind regards

Hello,

....; in Deinem Werkvertrag findest Du sicher den Hinweis, dass der Vertragnehmer das Hausrecht ausübt?

Who signs such a contract? This makes it possible, among other things, for the contractor to prohibit the client from entering their own property.

Best regards

Hello,

Who signs such a contract? This makes it possible, among other things, for the contractor to forbid the client from entering their own property.

Almost every client. Anyone who has experienced how clients have expelled a craftsman from the construction site will understand this clause. It is not only the bad contractors who put our industry in a bad light. Moreover, it also has advantages for the clients, namely the transfer of risk to the contractor => "open risk allocation."

Serious contractors will only exercise their house rights as a "last resort." Basically, they do not refuse their clients access to the construction site; why would they?

Kind regards

Hello,

...Almost every builder.

I can only strongly warn against that!

Anyone who has witnessed the client dismissing a craftsman from the construction site will be able to understand this passage.

Why should the client resort to such measures when their priority is timely and professional completion?

Besides, it also has advantages for the clients, namely the risk transfer to the contractor => "open risk allocation".

I really cannot see any advantage for the client. Anyone who believes that a general contractor will put a bridle on themselves is probably far from reality.

Best regards.

Hello,

I can only strongly warn against that!

You should stop disqualifying contractors across the board as "malicious rip-off artists" and instead take a look at your own contract design. When your colleagues (you?) calculate a heating system, there are also one or two exclusions in the fine print from which they exempt themselves – based on experience; and certainly not out of bad intention toward the customer! Experience makes you wise.

Why should the client resort to such measures when their priority is timely and proper completion?

You are mistaken if you assume that all clients think and react rationally. Similar to the multitude of probable coaches in football, there are quite a number of "hobby site managers" in home construction who believe – after reading various websites, forums, and books – to be better trained than, for example, a trained master mason or heating engineer.

I really cannot see any advantage for the client here. Anyone who believes that a general contractor will put a bridle on themselves is probably far from reality.

That sounds like the argument of the consumer advice center. Again: no reputable contractor completely excludes the client. The reference to the householder’s rights is based on years of experience and is only used as a last resort. In this respect, reputable contractors also welcome that in the future, surveyors should/must accompany construction projects as a neutral party; whether based on the requirements of the Energy Saving Ordinance, the Renewable Energy Act, or the client’s desire for additional security.

If you are of a different opinion due to lack of experience with human extremes, spend a morning as a visitor at the AG or LG. Then your view of the intentionally "ripped-off" client will quickly adjust to reality. In my experience, the "bad" guys on both sides balance each other out and gradually, the highest court rulings also reflect this recognition.

Kind regards