Building without work plans

Good day Mr. Tunsch,

Before I come up here with numbers and more in-depth arguments ...

As I have written elsewhere, *I* would not *want* to conduct a comparable dispute in a public forum. The mutual positions are clearly entrenched, emotions and counterstatements alternate; no consensus is in sight.

The moderated forum is intended to enable a first step towards rapprochement; to lay the groundwork for objectivity and thereby subsequently enable personal conversations. To give a criticized provider the opportunity to describe their view of the situation. Under no circumstances should the moderated forum be used exclusively as an exchange platform for mutual accusations. If you and are unable to communicate on a factual and reasonable level, I again recommend putting the matter in the hands of a lawyer.

... I would like to know whether this is in the interest of the moderators.

As long as you continue to argue factually, I will approve every post; the same applies to . As a moderator, I only decide which wording is published insofar as the content must be composed according to the forum rules and be factual. How much you want to disclose about the business relationship with your customer is therefore entirely up to you.

Rhenish greetings

You should have made a reasonable offer for exiting the contract, then everyone would have been helped. #Assumption deleted; construction expert. Crediting €1450 for the approval planning, but then wanting to keep €16,500 yourself, then €10,000, and finally €6,500 is as unprofessional as everything I have experienced with you.

Appointment proposal by email to the client with the request to return the order sheet for the garage planning signed

In this regard, I quote from the email dated 5.2.2016 that I received from the Norddeutsche Planungsgesellschaft:
Dear Mr. G.,
regarding an appointment with Mr. K. on the construction site, I would like to offer you Friday, February 12, 2016, at 1 p.m..
Please confirm this appointment.
Furthermore, I would like to inform you that you have given us the approval for the building application, and with the handover of your building application to you, we have initiated all necessary steps for your building request.
No further appointments after the planning discussion are scheduled, which is why we have to charge for this additional effort.
In your favor, we are charging you for the garage planning as an additional service instead of the planning service based on hourly billing.
This is what your architectural services look like!
The garage, which was planned from the beginning in our plan and whose foundation is part of the construction contract, is being put forward to have an argument, #Assumption deleted; construction expert.

The double garage was planned from the beginning. Your architect said that one would have to get the construction description and structural analysis from the manufacturer (it is a prefabricated garage) and if we now only provide proof of one parking space, the processing would go faster. All nonsense! Mr. K. just wanted to pocket 450 € plus VAT if he filed the garage application afterwards. I submitted the construction description and structural analysis later and then I learned from the architectural office that they were not necessary.

I cannot for the life of me see at what point we are supposed to have anything to do with your garage. You ordered it directly from a garage provider. The correspondence also clearly proves that you very well knew that garage planning was not part of our planning task:

On December 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM you wrote to the architectural office
"Dear Ms. K.,
where the two parking spaces are drawn in the building application, a double garage is to be built. It will be a prefabricated concrete garage. In Baden-Württemberg, a building permit is required for this. What costs would I have to expect if I asked you (or npg) for the building application? The structural analysis and construction description will be provided by the garage company."

On December 16, 2015, you were offered a quote of 450 € for the application of a prefabricated garage.

Thank you very much for your statement. We are very reluctant to take the dispute public, but we would like to comment on the allegations. Actually, there is no reason for this, as the matter is already in the hands of lawyers. However, as long as our client continues to raise new issues here, we have to respond to them (are allowed to). Of course, this is not enjoyable for us. We would gladly like to put an end to it in order to be able to devote ourselves to our actual work.

You should have made a reasonable offer to exit the contract, then everyone would have been helped. #Speculation deleted; construction expert. Crediting €1450 for an approval plan, but then wanting to keep €16,500, then €10,000, and finally €6,500 yourself is as unprofessional as everything I have experienced with you

This statement is not quite correct. You yourself know that our last offer was made at Mr. H.'s initiative. You did not agree to cancel the contract because, I quote, "I would get into trouble myself, as it will probably be difficult to find a company soon that can step in." I may point out that Mr. H. even named a construction company for you that would have built you a closed shell.

To quote from the email dated 5 February 2016, which I received from the Norddeutsche Planungsgesellschaft:
Dear Mr. G.,
regarding an appointment with Mr. K. on the construction site, I am pleased to offer you Friday, 12 February 2016 at 1 p.m..
Please confirm this appointment.
Furthermore, I would like to inform you that you have given us the approval for the building application and that with the submission of your building application to you, we have initiated all necessary steps for your building request.
No further appointments are planned after the planning discussion, which is why we have to charge for this additional effort.
To your benefit, instead of planning services billed by the hour, we charge you for the garage planning as an additional service.

I consider it dishonest to cite an email taken out of context. Why should you have made an inquiry about the building application if the garage planning had been agreed upon?

You must know that if you make this claim.

You will be able to tell us who the man was that you visited together with the architect to discuss the building application. Or do you want to make us believe now that this "meeting" did not take place?