Bathtub in front of window, railing too low, contractor is obstructing

First of all, thanks for all the answers.

Even though many of them do not deal with the actual question of who has to pay for an additional safety measure if one is required there, I will still try to respond.

How do you secure children’s rooms? How quickly is a stool, small table, toy box, etc. pushed in front of it

that your children will not be any safer, even if you now install a gate or comply with all the building regulations.

If accidents happened there and in the way we fear, it would be simple. I wouldn’t even use a lockable handle there.

Aside from the, in my opinion, exaggerated fear, children do eventually get old enough.

Apart from the actual question, I think you are worrying for the "wrong reasons" or from the wrong perspective.

From your initial post, I understand you have been worried since you (or your expert) read the guideline for (supposed) child protection. Without knowing the guideline, you thought the bathtub in front of the window with this railing was okay.

In my opinion you are exaggerating a bit here. I consider the probability of something happening here very low.

Whether it is sensible to install a railing or something else at the window, I neither wanted nor want to discuss. I am aware that there is no 100% safety. But that is not my topic at all; what concerns me is the question of who has to pay for an additional measure if it is required under building regulations.

So it’s not a particularly pragmatic solution, even if your emotions initially demand it.

That has nothing to do with emotions. I just want to avoid being the one to get the short end of the stick if (which I don’t hope for) someday a neighbor’s child falls out of this window because I didn’t secure it properly.

Then you wouldn’t be allowed to have any small tables, chairs, or stools in any rooms where the window can be fully opened.

No, building code relevant are only means of climbing fixed under the window (see ministry examples in the initial post), not furniture.

Otherwise, under a flat-rate contract (“fixed-price contract” not further classified here), a changed service still results in additional remuneration. Installing a railing is a classic changed service and therefore must also be remunerated additionally.

It’s not about an additional service that I want, but the question of who bears the costs for remedying a defect. Because if the building authority says the railing is too low because of the bathtub, that is obviously a defect. And before acceptance, in my view, the general contractor must pay for that to hand over a defect-free house to me.

What could be disputed is if you actually would have chosen a solution before that is no longer possible at the current construction stage and you only choose a railing due to this construction stage that actually doesn’t meet your expectations.

That is exactly the point! If we had known in planning that this would lead to having to put a grate, a glass panel, or something else in front of the window or only be able to tilt it, we would have planned differently, of course.

So please, let’s not forget the saying about not looking a gift horse in the mouth and apply the same demands to a GC-Zeichenknecht “planning” as a private patient with chief physician treatment in a single room according to HOAI.

Regarding planning quality, I agree with you. Legally, however, it makes no difference to me; I am entitled to expect a house that complies with legal requirements from both a GC and an architect, right?

Say goodbye to the delusion that the guy owes you a free redesign as the ultimate result, I am entirely on @Jann St’s side here.

I don’t want a redesign either; that would be utterly disproportionate at this stage of construction. I just want that if the building authority considers a railing or other device required there, the GC installs and pays for it.

Have the window made tilt-only.

You have another window in the room anyway. Why all the worry? There are many solutions in the 50-100€ range...

@OP don’t you have a ventilation system?

Unfortunately, the other window is only a tilt window. We do have a central controlled living space ventilation system. But since we also have a sauna in the bathroom (sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier), I at least want to be able to fully open one window. The GC already knew during planning that a sauna would be installed in the bathroom. What inexpensive solutions are there besides a railing that still allow me to fully open the window?

If the child is old enough to climb on the bathtub and has the strength to open the window from the most unfavorable position, then it should also be mature enough so that you can talk to the child beforehand. Just like you talk to it not to climb on the chair to open the window.

As said, this is not the topic of this thread, but our 3-year-old can do that without any problem. And 3-year-olds are unfortunately sometimes quite resistant to advice. Especially since here the window position is quite convenient for the little rascals because they can stand on the ledge next to the window, i.e., they don’t stand in their own way when opening it.

The bathtub doesn’t stand fully in front of the window but only about 20–30 cm over the corner. The window would have to be fully open and then you would also have to climb on the edge of the bathtub.

That is precisely (part of) the problem; the ledge is not only directly under the window but also to the right of the window, which in my view rather facilitates opening.

That would be a complete own goal if acceptance and moving in were delayed because of this. The authority also does not give any recommendation on who pays.

I don’t think asking the building authority will delay acceptance. The point will be recorded as a defect in the acceptance protocol, and that’s it. And if the building authority subsequently gives its OK, the point will be ticked off; if not, something has to be done. The building authority is not supposed to tell me who pays, but whether an additional safety measure is necessary...

Since you don’t want the solution with the lockable olive, I would negotiate a deal with the GC.

I already have the lockable olive (of course, that is not standard but was included at our expense during planning). I would like to make a deal with the GC. But if the GC says he sees no need for action because the lockable handle would suffice, that’s difficult. Hence the idea that someone other than my expert (the building authority) tells him the lockable handle is not sufficient.

My suggestion is to reorder the window from single-leaf one-piece DK DIN left to single-leaf two-piece DK DIN right with a fixed bottom part, i.e., fixed glazing for say the lower 20 cm, so that the safe height against falling is given up to the opening leaf. Before window installation, the additional costs of this measure would be an example of a reasonable contribution by the GC to an amicable settlement.

Is that still possible at the current stage without further ado? The windows, as mentioned, are installed, the walls plastered, the screed is drying. Of course, you could have done that before the window installation if we had noticed it then, but unfortunately, that train has left the station.

Whether bathing, showering, or steam sauna, manual ventilation has never been necessary.

Especially considering that you have a ventilation system, as the general contractor I would at most replace the hinge with a tilt-only version. Apart from the fact that the glass parts are ugly, expensive, and impractical.

That has nothing to do with emotions. I just want to make sure that if (which I hope never happens) a neighbor's child ever falls out of this window, I'm not the one at fault because I didn't properly secure the window.

You have a concrete imagination of the damage occurrence and the consequences and act accordingly. I think that's right. Your description is pure emotion. Based on that, you establish logical causal relationships between risk occurrence and possible consequences. That is nothing wrong.

I would like to make a deal with the general contractor. But if the general contractor says he doesn't see any need for action because the lockable handle would be sufficient, that's difficult.

Contradicts my experience and my career path. It doesn't matter who is right or to blame. Don't dwell on that. Define your negotiation goal and give him a good reason to want to accommodate you. Tip: Use the emotion of your counterpart. I'm starting to see a market here for negotiation seminars for builders.

What exactly is your goal?
Do you want a solution that can be approved by the building authority (e.g., glass fall protection)?
Do you want a solution that does not comply with the regulation but still works (e.g., lockable handle and wait until the children are older)?
Do you want a discount and leave everything as it is in the end?

What exactly is your goal? Do you want a solution that can be approved by the building authority (e.g. fall protection made of glass)? Do you want a solution that does not comply with the regulation but still works (e.g. lockable handle and wait until the children are older)? Do you want a price reduction and in the end leave everything as it is now?

The first. I already have the second, the third does me no good... I also fear that the general contractor will choose the cheapest solution, i.e. replacing the hinge with a tilt one. Well, we'll see, I will report. Thanks for your input, even if it wasn’t what I wanted to hear! :rolleyes:

You will hit a brick wall there, that's my assessment. Because as has been stated multiple times, the regulation regarding parapet heights is oriented towards adults. And since the bathtub only extends slightly in front of the window and a bathtub is not a standing area, this will have been planned correctly. I would also change the stop. Otherwise, you have to stretch over the bathtub to operate the handle. Then the window would also act as a safeguard.