Built-in windows do not match the window plan. Objection?

Hello everyone,

in the attachment you can see our problem. We have a corner glazing with a corner support cladding support in the living room (ground floor). On the front garden side in the living room (ground floor) we have two larger fixed floor-to-ceiling window elements. Above that is the children's room with two smaller window elements with tilt-and-turn function. The windows on the ground floor and upper floor and their middle window frames are aligned with each other. At least according to the window plan.

Now, the fact is that the rough openings correspond to the floor plan in reality. However, the windows are not centered with each other. I do not like the exterior appearance because the middle frames are not centered with each other and do not correspond to the elevations or the window plan. From the outside, it looks poorly planned and simply not nice. In the floor plan it says next to the corner glazing in the living room (ground floor), "corner support cladding support depending on statics." Does this designation let the developer off the hook? So do the upper and lower window elements not have to correspond to the window plan or the elevations because the corner support cladding support is the decisive factor or are the elevations and the window plan decisive?

Shouldn't the window manufacturer or the developer have taken the elevations into account during the measurement of the rough openings (for window production) and had the windows made accordingly so that the appearance of the window plan/elevations is maintained? The statics of the corner support cladding support were already fixed at that time, right?

To put it differently: Would you insist on the consistency of the two windows or am I hopeless in this regard?

Thanks in advance!!!

Best regards Manuel

Hello Manuel,
have you spoken to the window installers and GÜ/BT about it? What do they think about it?

Put differently: Would you insist on the consistency of the two windows, or am I hopeless?

No idea - personally, I wouldn’t even have noticed if you hadn’t described it. For outsiders (at least for me), it’s not a "flaw." I don’t think it’s bad – I wouldn’t call your house ugly because of it.

Hello Manuel,

In the floor plan, next to the corner glazing in the living room (ground floor), it says "corner support cladding support depending on the static engineering." Does this designation mean the developer is off the hook?

This is a note that the static engineering at this point is the decisive factor; nothing more and nothing less.

Shouldn't the window manufacturer or the developer have taken into account the views during the measurement of the shell openings (for the window production) and had the windows made accordingly, so that the appearance of the window plan/views is maintained? At that time, the static engineering of the corner support cladding support was already determined?

As I see it, the window dimensions match the specifications of the working drawings; therefore, the window manufacturers are not at fault. To me, it looks like the shell builders made an 8 cm mistake when creating the window opening above the corner glazing on the ground floor.

To ask differently: Would you insist on the consistency of the two windows or am I hopeless?

At first, it is a visual error; correcting it is quite complex, and I do not know—I am not familiar with the attitude of your contracting partner, whether he will be willing to undertake this effort. The window and the beam must be shifted by 8 cm; one side must also be extended by 8 cm. From my point of view, it is more economical—of course, only if the shell builder (your contracting partner?) cooperates—to install a window 12.5 cm wider. The intriguing question is what he will do with the obsolete window then.

As you can see from Wastl’s response, it is not a visual misjudgment for him; it will therefore be interesting to see the opinion of your contracting partner. Effort and benefit should always be balanced.

Rhineland greetings

Effort + benefit should always be in balance.

I have to disagree there. Fixing defects can sometimes really hurt, maybe then the miserable botched work on the construction will improve and people will finally use their brains beforehand to do it right the first time, instead of afterwards trying to pray it healthy..

I have to disagree.

I thought so....

Fixing defects can really hurt sometimes; maybe then the dreadful botched work in construction will improve and people will finally use their brains beforehand to do it right the first time, not afterwards, trying to pray it healthy…

How many times? It would only be a defect _after_ acceptance of the construction; up until now, it is a simple error that needs to be corrected. Either by replacement in full consequence or by credit. In court – I am sure it would come down to the latter because a court always considers proportionality. People work on a construction site and people make mistakes, or do you think they deliberately build in errors? Can you walk on water? The fact that you have so many problems with your construction project does not necessarily mean that everything is just botched. So take it easy with sweeping judgments Rheinische Grüße