We built on a plot without a development plan and according to § 34 of the Building Code in a mixed old stock area. [...] Primarily, it is therefore about eliminating the pure disadvantages caused by the construction error. Afterwards, I can inquire at the building authority to see what they say about it.
You can save yourself the trip to the building authority as long as your building does not massively differ from the other buildings in the area. A 20 cm height difference is not enough for that. Of course, it might be noticed during the building acceptance, but I would bet that it simply won’t be noticed and no one will care.
For remedying the issue, it is much more interesting here what was agreed upon with the executing companies and, above all, what can be proven in writing.
Wouldn't it be wiser to first ask the building authority whether what is there now would be allowed?!
In a §34 area, everything is allowed that is present in the immediate neighborhood. 20 cm is rather irrelevant here; you only get into trouble if, for example, you build three stories and the neighbors have only two. Above all, it is not even said that his house absolutely surpasses the neighboring houses – and even if that were the case by 20 cm, it will hardly lead to a withdrawal of the building permit. That would have to be an extremely serious case or there would have to be a clear instruction from the building authority that a maximum ridge height must not be exceeded.
In the end, you agree on a few euros because of the stones and the authority then says no, but you already signed a waiver for the stones and consequential costs.
If it comes to that, you grab the architect by the feet and the executing construction companies
again. Then it’s no longer about a few stones but about an unauthorized construction. However, the builder is also involved in that.
Changing the height of a finished house is not reasonable and certainly no one will do it.
Sometimes I wonder why I am even writing here!? Changing the height on site is daily business because sometimes it’s reasonable and not in contradiction with the building permit/development plan. Most of the time, the builders don’t even notice.
The big question remains, why ~500€ was spent on the measurer during the squaring out. The result here is really quite sad.
Who told you that the staking out was done incorrectly? If on site the decision is made that the house should stand 20 cm higher, then the foreman sets the construction zero 20 cm higher on the level gauge and that’s it. The reference point is still the correct staking out; the execution is just different.
That takes 5 seconds.
Of course, this can result from an error. But whose fault it was can only be found out if you look at the planning and the various execution steps in detail. Without much thought, there are about 10 sources of error, only one of which is the surveyor’s staking out.
For example, it starts with an insufficient soil excavation. The surveyor usually cannot be blamed for that if he comes beforehand and is not asked to check again after excavation. And so forth and so on...
However, I do not suspect an error here but rather an intentional desired change of the construction height by the executing companies and/or the architect. It may have even been sensible; only it was not considered that the reference to the neighboring house would no longer be given.
It happens, but it doesn’t look dramatic here.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe