Construction company halts work despite overpayment

If it doesn't bother anyone else. I haven't written anything bad about this company. The rest will show. And honestly, if you look at my topics, you can figure out the rest, and that's intended that way. Somehow, people have to be warned.

I see it the same way... when you google the name, you come to a page northdata - that links names. I find that very useful, because then you are immediately warned about possible connections.

Now it’s getting exciting what will happen next week. The BU (or rather ex-BU, as one must say now) sent a date in December for a construction progress inspection and acceptance for next week, we agreed to the date for the construction progress inspection, but rejected the acceptance on the grounds that we do not accept his termination. Now the question is whether he will even show up, since he has left the sold company. And I really don’t believe that someone from the new [company] will come.

The ex is not doing anything anymore. There is probably a legal successor. You have no personal claims against [den x]. Only against the company. He is actually doing that quite smartly. Let's see what the new one does. Maybe he will send people who botch it up. Sorry, but I think the ex has won for now. What might come next would be a possible criminal complaint for maybe fraud. I cannot assess that from here given the comprehensive circumstances. It will be difficult civil-law-wise. Especially if the dispute value is six figures. As you know, you will be advancing all costs. And in case of doubt, he will go into personal bankruptcy and that's the end of it. I again advise, especially after the sale, to consult a lawyer for civil law.

It would be good if there were a fund for victims of builders, you have to pay for every little thing, but when it comes to something like this, everyone is let off the hook.

This is not the first case, legalities aside, it is obvious, a company is shut down and continued under someone else’s name, the law is being mocked.

Construction companies should also pay an amount to the state, which should then appoint inspectors for the construction company to monitor every step they take.

Wishing you good luck!!

It’s not the first case, legal matters aside, it is obvious, a company is shut down and continued by someone else, the law is being mocked.

That is not true at all in this case. The company still exists.

There is a contract with the company, a legal entity, not with the managing director. In the discussion, one should move away from the idea that it is about/against "him". That is not true, or at least not in the first step. It is about the company and it exists and apparently even has value.