ruppsn
2017-11-17 12:00:04
- #1
Hi,
Yes, that happens and that’s just how it is and cannot be changed. Then there is no other way. I don’t think I claimed that there is always and everywhere an option to have materials supplied by the client installed. So I don’t really see where we differ. My point was only that under certain circumstances there are alternatives and good plumbers who would be willing to install client-supplied materials. Possibly Reuter.de’s database could bring up such a tradesman. CAN, not necessarily MUST.
You can certainly do that, but it wouldn’t be my way, because I wouldn’t see much sense in investing in things that I already know I will throw away later.
Or was the motivation to take the standard and replace later rather to avoid endangering the construction schedule (and thus the move-in date), because removing the trade would have caused delays?
I would certainly consider that, because if the delay leads to costs exceeding the standard and subsequent replacement, that would be for me a reasonable and conceivable approach.
If that wasn’t the motivation, I don’t quite understand why standard was installed at all and not just the evening handyman used for the porcelain from the start. Or did the general contractor say it was either everything (i.e., pipe installation, bowls, fittings) or nothing at all (i.e., no pipe installation either)?
In the latter case, I would indeed consider whether the general contractor is the right way for me—depending on how important individuality is to me. We had exactly that back then: the general contractor said, if individuality is desired, then only if the sanitary trades (including pipe installation) and also heating (because the same subcontractor does it) are removed. The “credit” was too low for us, to say the least ridiculous (I think it was 23k for both!). Similar with the electrician and flooring. Ergo we ended up with the architect, because it fits better with our wishes and we have the impression that everything can be better and more finely controlled/influenced. But of course not everyone will see it that way, that’s clear. If you definitely want to build with a general contractor—and there are certainly good reasons for that—the path you described (standard first, then new later) can be an option. It would hurt me as wasted money in that case, but if it pays off for others, why not?
Are we really that far apart? I have the impression we’re not...
Son-in-law, built 200 m next to us, was annoyed by the sanitary surcharge just like you. He also wanted to supply the materials himself. Information from the sanitary company: I only install if you buy from me. No ifs or buts. No reason, apology, excuse. I won’t do it. Period.
Yes, that happens and that’s just how it is and cannot be changed. Then there is no other way. I don’t think I claimed that there is always and everywhere an option to have materials supplied by the client installed. So I don’t really see where we differ. My point was only that under certain circumstances there are alternatives and good plumbers who would be willing to install client-supplied materials. Possibly Reuter.de’s database could bring up such a tradesman. CAN, not necessarily MUST.
Solution: the kids took the standard, moved in in January, then replaced in October, installed by a handyman in the evening hours paid in cash. – Again: it doesn’t matter how you would like it. But rather what way is available, in the situation that now exists. Karsten
You can certainly do that, but it wouldn’t be my way, because I wouldn’t see much sense in investing in things that I already know I will throw away later.
Or was the motivation to take the standard and replace later rather to avoid endangering the construction schedule (and thus the move-in date), because removing the trade would have caused delays?
I would certainly consider that, because if the delay leads to costs exceeding the standard and subsequent replacement, that would be for me a reasonable and conceivable approach.
If that wasn’t the motivation, I don’t quite understand why standard was installed at all and not just the evening handyman used for the porcelain from the start. Or did the general contractor say it was either everything (i.e., pipe installation, bowls, fittings) or nothing at all (i.e., no pipe installation either)?
In the latter case, I would indeed consider whether the general contractor is the right way for me—depending on how important individuality is to me. We had exactly that back then: the general contractor said, if individuality is desired, then only if the sanitary trades (including pipe installation) and also heating (because the same subcontractor does it) are removed. The “credit” was too low for us, to say the least ridiculous (I think it was 23k for both!). Similar with the electrician and flooring. Ergo we ended up with the architect, because it fits better with our wishes and we have the impression that everything can be better and more finely controlled/influenced. But of course not everyone will see it that way, that’s clear. If you definitely want to build with a general contractor—and there are certainly good reasons for that—the path you described (standard first, then new later) can be an option. It would hurt me as wasted money in that case, but if it pays off for others, why not?
Are we really that far apart? I have the impression we’re not...