Building without work plans

Good day everyone,

It is becoming increasingly difficult for us to respond to the many accusations here because I am not sure if this forum is the right place for it.

So before this escalates any further:
Any reader interested in this matter can review the documents related to the construction project and the correspondence of the lawyers with us. Only in this way can one get an accurate picture of the facts.

The issue concerning the elevation of the construction project is somewhat more complicated and is difficult to explain without drawings and photos. The same applies to the payments and the provision of securities as well as to the current contractual arrangements.

What is noticeable is that the facts are distorted here and also in previous posts, creating the impression that this is not about an attempt at clarification but rather about disparaging the parties involved. To what extent we will take legal action against the unfounded accusations made here will be decided in the coming weeks.

In my opinion, you were allowed to withhold 5% of the 61,364.24 euros => so just 3,068.21 euros.

No, 5 percent of the total contract amount/the total price is correct and usual. This withholding is then due simultaneously upon acceptance, unless otherwise agreed.

How high the total price that can be assumed here is, I cannot say! I’ll stay out of that!

Mr. T.'s claim that the facts were presented in a distorted manner is not correct, and I reject this. The fact and starting point of the dispute is that the architect commissioned by NSK was not able to implement our wishes regarding the location of the house, and how NSK was willing to solve the problem, I do not need to write again. If Mr. T. believes that the figures I mentioned are wrong, he should please specify this. I would also appreciate it if you would specifically indicate what in my presentation of the facts was distorted, instead of making such a general allegation. The forum has the correspondence between the lawyers. Thus, the truthfulness of my statements should be examined. How exactly you deal with the truth can be seen, for example, from your email of January 25, 2016, in which you wrote: Furthermore, Mr. K. was personally with you including a sketch at the local advisory council. Here, the height classification was presented and subsequently also found to be acceptable. Unfortunately, this is completely incorrect, and there would have been no time for that anyway, as Mr. K. said goodbye after 2 1/2 hours and never showed up again. That is how your architectural service looks. And the result can be seen from the initially presented plans, which you call execution plans and which are also faulty. To this day, I have not received the requested plans.

This is not about disparaging individuals, but about giving those who plan the construction of a house insight into the business practices of various companies. Before I signed the construction contract with your company, I searched the internet for experiences with your company and unfortunately found nothing. Had I known how things really look, this contract would never have been made.

Elsewhere, you claim that I called NSK an incompetent company. That is not correct, as I had looked at a house of yours and found nothing to criticize about it. However, a different architect was responsible at that time. I now have to bite the bullet and endure the construction project with you and rely on your statement that you will exercise the necessary care. As a precaution, an expert will monitor the process, and since you announced that the TÜV is also involved, this should work out.

Furthermore, Mr. K. personally visited the local advisory council with you, including a sketch. Here, the height alignment was presented and subsequently also found to be acceptable.

Then please explain to the forum and me what role this man had, whom you visited with the architect at your request to discuss the building application. It may be that it was not the local advisory council, but an employee of the building authority. In addition, after submitting the building application, you requested and received a statement from the building authority. It states: "After an initial rough review, the location of the house and the garage is approvable."

The fact is therefore that the building application was indeed approvable and also buildable. You know as well as I do that the shape of the property is anything but optimal. In any case, the property must be modelled in certain areas. In your interest, the most cost-effective version was chosen, in which as little earth as possible had to be moved. It was quite clear that in the area where the house would have been too low, earthworks would have been necessary.
Thus, the question is of course not fully explained. Before I come up with numbers and more in-depth arguments here, I would like to know if this is in the interest of the moderators.

So much in advance:

14.11.2015
Planning meeting

20.11.2015
1st draft sent to the builders by email

23.11.2015
Building position changed at the request of the builders and site plan sent by email

24.11.2015
Approval of the 1st draft from the builders received by email. Written information that the builders have submitted the current planning to the district office for preliminary review

25.11.2015
Feedback from the district office that the planning is approvable

27.11.2015
Dispatch of building application documents to the builders

01.12.2015
Builders have received documents for the building application
- Building position and parking spaces to be changed (as an addendum to the building application)
- Only in this email is the height position addressed; the property is to be filled; however, there is no explicit request that this should be changed in the drawings
- Sending of the revised site plan by email and approval

02.12.2015
Submission of the building application documents to the municipality by the builders

16.12.2015
Inquiry from the builders about offer "Planning of a double garage"
- Builders have received the corresponding order form by email

25.01.2016
Telephone information from Mr. B. that the builders are not satisfied with the height alignment,
Soil survey received via Mr. B.

27.01.2016
Construction site appointment with builders & construction manager
Result:
- Height alignment of the building application can be maintained,
- Builders received an ultimatum to decide whether heights should be changed

28.01.2016
Telephone inquiry at the office regarding consequences and processing times expected with an addendum. At that time, the builders had already spoken with the office and agreed on a deadline until 04.02.2016 without passing this on to us.
Telephone conversation between architect and builders. Builder admitted that the height plan we have is old. The surveyor has already been re-commissioned.

01.02.2016
Receipt of current height survey
Sending of two variants of height alignment (one view each) by email to the builders
Builder wanted to discuss these with the neighboring property owner behind to reach an agreement on the necessary retaining wall; representation of the garage is shown in these plans after telephone consultation.
First request for another on-site appointment

02.02.2016
Sending of a renewed complete draft of the height position on request of the builders, asking if there is a middle way between both possibilities, as he cannot decide between the variants.

03.02.2016
Another telephone conversation between architect and builders
- Proposal on heights discussed:
Garage will be set at the neighbor's level = 215.42m above sea level
Planned terrain through the building will start 50cm above the street = 214.80m above sea level

04.02.2016
Sending of the 3rd proposal for height alignment by email to the builders
Response from the builders by email: Planning is not according to their expectations with a renewed request for an on-site appointment

05.02.2016
Appointment proposal by email to the builders with the request to return the signed order form for garage planning

08.02.2016
Email from the builders stating they will contact us once they have found a solution
Cancellation of the appointment proposal by email from the builders
Renewed email from the builders with a proposal for height alignment similar to the first variant of 01.02.2016

And this should not remain unmentioned:
"Before I signed the building contract with your company, I searched the internet for experiences with your company and unfortunately found nothing. Had I known how things really look, this contract would never have come about."
It remains to be noted that you yourself admitted to Mr. H. in an email that the previous correspondence was too emotional. Mr. H. mirrored the entire correspondence to you and also offered to first look for solutions with you before you gave space to your emotions. This would have been more helpful than stirring up a discussion here in the forum, which is hardly comprehensible for third parties.

Then please explain to the forum and to me what role this man had, whom you visited with the architect at your request to discuss the building application.

You must know that if you make this claim. I had offered to organize a confrontation, then it would have become apparent that Mr. K. was lying to you to somehow cover up his mistake.

Request from the client for an offer "Planning of a double garage" - Client has received the corresponding order form by email

The double garage was planned from the beginning. Your architect said that the construction description and structural analysis from the manufacturer (it is a prefabricated garage) would be needed and that if we only provided proof of one parking space now, the processing would be faster. Nonsense! Mr. K. just wanted to pocket €450 plus VAT if he applied for the garage retrospectively. I provided the construction description and structural analysis afterwards and then learned from the architectural firm that they were not necessary.