Building without work plans

just a question: what is it actually about in the end?! what is the real problem? any clauses and stuff don't matter as long as everything goes its way. from what I've read so far, the paperwork war with the authorities was carried out, a permit was approved, albeit delayed due to errors in the application. the soil exchange was done, the basement was professionally constructed in the right place. the only problem I've read so far is that the light wells are too high. but to keep the whole forum entertained with dozens of posts and threads is really tough. site managers are at best legally self-taught. they are naturally master craftsmen or similar, but legally have at best picked up a few laws here and there. don't let them fool you and be better informed. site managers have also heard everything and believe the customers NOTHING, even if you can prove your expertise. overall, it all seems like the whole story is completely getting out of hand because of trivialities. probably from the first problem the full program with lawyer and co was launched, and the business partner now has no desire anymore. maybe it's time to look each other deeply in the eyes, make up, and just let the company do the job. the construction company will certainly also have an interest in getting the whole thing over with quickly. the way things are going so far, it won't end well.

I have nothing more to add on this topic. I can only congratulate all other construction companies for not having alter0029 as a client. Everyone should get their rights and everyone has the right to receive proper service for paid money. But when I see how much the administrative effort has increased for small and medium-sized businesses in the last 15 years, no one should be surprised that construction is becoming more and more expensive. Wages and material costs hardly rise, and huge profits are currently not possible due to price competition in the trade (except possibly for prefabricated house manufacturers, due to the order situation). Everyone reads something on the internet or uses their legal expenses insurance, and just as much time is spent with lawyers as on the construction site. My father said (and still does today): never build for doctors and professors. They have plenty of time and are always right anyway. This also often applies to retirees, fortunately they are less common as clients.

When we searched the forum for posts by our builder the day before yesterday, we wanted to take a stance. A mudslinging match is and was never our goal. We wanted to correct the claims with facts. In many points it is indeed the case that only parts of the contractual agreements were quoted and thus the facts were presented completely differently. We could and did not want to let that stand.

We tried to remain factual, although we must admit that in some places we may have given too much room to our frustration. Many thanks Bauexperte for deleting these entries in the meantime.

This is our first construction project where the correspondence is now handled through lawyers. Nevertheless, we will do everything to complete the agreed construction services with the necessary care.

I would like to clarify a few things and will do so as objectively and unemotionally as possible. The purpose of such a forum, as far as I can tell, is to avoid mistakes in building and also to obtain information about various companies and their business practices, which may then make the decision easier. My wife and I had concrete ideas about how we wanted the house. The entire planning sprang from our ideas to which we sent sketches to the building consultant who then presumably recorded them with his program and calculated the price for us. These drawings look exactly like the ones we later received from the architect for the building application, except for one exception. Unfortunately, we could not assign some of the information on the building application. We did not understand the significance of the height specifications and also did not know that they are binding and that the house cannot simply be built higher. There definitely was no consultation, and if Mr. T. claims this: it is not true; he was not present at any of the discussions, and his informants apparently are not very truthful. Later it turned out that the height specifications on the plan did not correspond to what was discussed during the appointment with the architect. It would also have made no sense. One example: in the first building application, the height of the finished floor was given as 214.54 m above sea level. The terrain at the northeast corner of the house is at an elevation of 214.68 m above sea level. Now someone tell me that this is not a planning error. But regardless, we asked the architect to come to us again and advise us on the issue of the height classification. His response: "If I came to you, I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about it either." Then we were told that we (which is correct) had signed the building application and now had no claim to further consultation. I then found an architect with the help of a tennis friend who advised me. Thus, there was the first dispute with NSK. So much for the background.

Emotional excursus of the original poster deleted; building expert

Currently, there are still a few statements by Mr. T. to refute. It is not true that we have a basement for which we have not yet paid a cent. The first installment immediately after receiving the plans amounted to €16,515.20, and I paid it promptly. I also do not have to sign a new payment plan because the old one still applies (as the opposing lawyer correctly wrote). Unfortunately, Mr. T. made a mistake on his last invoice, and I first had to consult my lawyer on how to proceed. I received this answer today and made a payment to NSK. I have thus fulfilled my obligations and now it is NSK's turn. By the way, I can prove everything written based on the correspondence.

Meanwhile, NSK, through their lawyer, demands from me the granting of a security mortgage on the building plot.

The reason given is my behavior. However, I have made all payments correctly. According to the payment schedule, 5% of the contract sum was due after receiving the documents for the building application. The contractually agreed sum was originally €330,304.00 and I immediately paid €16,515.20. It was agreed that it is possible to subsequently assign trades oneself. I did that and now the contract sum is only €245,456.95. According to the payment schedule, a total of 25% of the construction price is due upon completion of the basement ceiling (5% after completion of the approval planning, 4% after completion of the excavation, 6% after completion of the base slab, 10% after completion of the basement floor ceiling). That would be €61,364.24. Since NSK has not yet agreed to hand over the guarantee, according to the lawyer's advice I am entitled to withhold the corresponding amount as security until the guarantee is handed over to me, and according to the law (even if one may have a different opinion), it is based on the original contract sum. For this reason, I initially withheld €16,515.20 and transferred €28,333.84 to NSK.