Hereby, I raise concerns regarding the work done so far and report deficiencies in this regard. The third attempt at sealing the windows once again does not comply with the guidelines and requirements of a prescribed three-level sealing. The agreed removal of the windows was carried out only for one bathroom window, the two terrace windows, and the windows in the attic. Despite my objections, the second and third levels were filled with foam from the outside. This foam now protrudes so much that it can only be cut off, which causes the pores to be exposed, which is not allowed. The exterior window sills were also secured with foam. The agreement was: remove the windows, remove the adhesive, clean the frame, seal the windows according to the three-level sealing, and reinstall them. What has happened now does not correspond to that. As can be seen here in the photos from today, the windows were not removed. Sealing of the middle and outer levels was done from outside and only with foam. As already mentioned, there is mold in the drywall in both apartments. Since the cause is unclear, I want to point out that the roofing membrane, despite contractual agreement, was not replaced, although it had already been on the roof for seven months at the time of roofing and showed damage. This was justified by stating that even at that time, this membrane was of better quality than the one that would be newly installed. The vapor barrier had cracks and localized damage after installation, which was taped over. Whether this was done completely is unknown to me. The insulation between the attic and the upper floor does not have the thickness specified in the contract and is not continuous (see gable exterior wall), as is now evident from the opening of the drywall following the water damage. Along the gable sides on both sides of the house and the dormers, there are gaps up to 12 cm wide and spanning both sides between the masonry and the roof rafters. The building seal is virtually non-existent here. You can even see the wooden slats under the roof. It is completely incomprehensible to me why these openings have not been closed long ago. On the front side of the house, this was apparently concealed by the (improper) exterior plaster. Why do we even need the tiler in the house if the shell isn’t even sealed??? The last two photos also show the condition of the old roofing membrane being reused, which I assess as porous. The drywall in the two stair entrances does not meet the requirements in any way. Panels are loose and hang down, there are offsets of up to 2 cm. The required double boarding is to be checked. Drywall and interior plaster show such serious defects that the craftsman commissioned by you for the spackling work refuses to start work. Despite repeated demands, there is no secure access to the two rooms in the attic. Therefore, ventilation on this floor is not possible in both halves of the house. It must be checked why the screed in the corners is springy. The electrical work is not completed. The connections of the wall lamps in the stairwell show a significant offset. Connections were forgotten. The sink connection in one kitchen is not in the correct place. Drains were plastered over or forgotten. Installation work is incomplete. I would like to name a trade that has done proper work in our house since your commissioning, but unfortunately, I cannot find any. To the roofer, from whom I assumed that the work was okay, aside from the fact that it is still not finished, I blame leaving the old roofing membrane in place. I am already in contact with a publicly appointed and sworn expert, who is also admitted to court, because I see no other way than to settle this whole mess legally. I would like to draw your attention again to the pressure loss of the external heating unit detected today, which suggests another failure is imminent.
Since I continued to exercise my right of retention due to defects, he then commissioned TÜV Nord for an inspection in coordination with me. This took place on 20.11.20. The actual completion date according to the contract. The TÜV inspector was very thorough and took a lot of time (he certainly gets well paid for that). At the end of the inspection, we no longer talked about continuing construction but about gutting and renovation. That was of course severe. The report came quite promptly and stated as a conclusion: It is assessed that significant defects exist in the construction execution, which require partial dismantling, additional planning, and professional reconstruction. Acceptance readiness and readiness for occupancy are not given.
The cost of defect correction was estimated at around €100,000. A precise cost specification would have cost at least another day rate, so it was initially waived.
The next evening, I received an email from GU2, for whose publication in the previous thread I had already received heavy criticism here in the forum, so only briefly here: He threatened suicide if I continued to make demands on him.
That naturally hit hard. I didn’t know what else to do but write to him that this could not be a solution because then he would only pass on his debts to his heirs. Although this sounds quite unfeeling now, I had to somehow convince him of the futility. Previously, I had tried to reach the construction consultant so that he could possibly intervene helpfully, but as always, he was unreachable.
The next day, GU2 called me and asked for a conversation.
