Construction progress: Duplex with WU basement and developed attic

  • Erstellt am 2021-01-04 14:44:59

Hausbau0815

2021-01-07 20:51:13
  • #1


You see, that’s exactly what I aim for with this thread. It’s nice when you can save others from avoidable mistakes. I have no knowledge of construction either; when something seems strange to me, I dive in and read everything I can get my hands on. With the screed, I had absolutely no reason to do that. By now I know that the screed is poured evenly as standard. If you have different thicknesses with the future floor coverings, you have to clarify that beforehand, then it will be poured accordingly. But now we are taking parquet, which is glued firmly with the same thickness as the tiles plus adhesive. That works too, and there are worse things.
 

Joedreck

2021-01-07 20:55:28
  • #2
It is better for underfloor heating anyway than to lay it floating
 

Hausbau0815

2021-01-07 20:56:00
  • #3


Exactly. We just wanted slightly thinner parquet because of the underfloor heating, but now it will be 13mm.
 

Baubaubau

2021-01-07 21:00:56
  • #4


Wow, I've never heard that before. But if they are nice, why not....
 

Hausbau0815

2021-01-08 06:48:20
  • #5
GU had informed me that there were no alternatives and once again threatened a construction stop if I did not agree to the height difference in writing. This once again proves his ignorance. I am curious whether he will inform me of a decision today. He had an appointment with his lawyer yesterday. If the lawyer advised him to risk it, it will get really "funny."
I also received mail yesterday from my lawyer regarding the lawsuit against GU1: an invoice for the application for enforcement of the settlement, €1,600. This means we have to pay for this document, which is worthless (GU1 should have paid us €130,000 for completion if he hadn’t dissolved his GmbH), as well as the resulting court costs because the successor company that should actually pay this is untraceable. What was that about concrete boots? For GU1, not for the lawyer. Although???? The decision was dated 12.02.2020; if the lawyer had applied for enforcement 2 months earlier or the decision had been issued before 31.12.2019, GU1 would have had to pay. Yes, yes, could have .... would have ....
There was also another matter: During the settlement negotiations, which dragged on from May 2019 to September 2019, I naturally dealt a lot with the legal situation and informed myself. For example, I found out that for construction contracts after 01.01.2018 the contractor must provide a performance bond. Our contract did not include one. So I informed our lawyer about this. He initially denied it. I provided him with the relevant documents and was right. Providing a performance bond became part of the settlement. When it was then to be drawn in 2020 due to non-fulfillment of the contract and the settlement, the lawyer said he was now retired and basically does nothing anymore, but he would still take care of it. ....... And we received an invoice for €1,300. I just don’t know what for.
 

Hausbau0815

2021-01-08 18:52:53
  • #6
I have just taken another look at the timeline: The comparison was closed on 19.09.2019. It soon became clear that GU1 would not comply with it. On 17.12.2019, Anwalt1 filed an application for enforcement and advance payment of nearly €130,000 in additional completion costs at the district court.

On 15.01.2020, there was supposed to be a construction progress and defect assessment on site with the participants GU1 and his lawyer, myself, and our construction consultant. Of course, GU1 did not show up. His lawyer informed us that GU1 had sold the company, which was now called xyz Bauunternehmung, and a representative of the new company would come to the appointment, which did not happen.

On 20.01.2020, GU1's lawyer requested an extension from the district court for the deadline expiring on 20.01.2020 for a statement by three weeks until and including 10.02.2020, which was granted. On 10.02.2020, GU1's lawyer informed that she had withdrawn her mandate.

On 12.02.2020, the district court of Leipzig issued the order that the company xyz has to pay us €129,062.00 as an advance payment.

When RA1 conveyed this information to me and I did not burst into jubilation, he said he had expected a bit more enthusiasm. I wonder why. We both knew by then that this was now worthless.

Now comes this bill. After a year!

Looking at the sequence of events now, as I have gone through the documents again, I get so angry. We have been completely fooled here.
 

Similar topics
29.02.2016Height difference / Level tile - parquet27
13.08.2014Underfloor heating grooving - experiences?19
10.05.2015Screed uneven - defect removal refused52
03.01.2016surprising bill, no cost estimate12
03.11.2017Parquet in new constructions and more and more questions39
27.05.2016Plastic fittings/water pipes and insulating underfloor heating beneath screed?40
07.08.2016Upper floor without screed - only concrete floor15
08.06.2016Questions about underfloor heating - new subfloor/screed/granite tiles14
29.07.2016Combination of tiles and parquet14
11.01.2019Underfloor heating in the shower?14
27.12.2017Underfloor heating heating demand with at least 60 mm screed30
26.02.2018Parquet on underfloor heating - thermal resistance problem?21
08.03.2018Invoice for water connection despite payment through property price?35
24.02.2019Underfloor heating beneath floorboards49
03.03.2021Floating solid wood parquet flooring installation, any experiences?79
09.11.2021Black 2cm thick tar layer instead of screed??18
26.12.20213-layer parquet instead of solid wood planks in the offer13
10.02.2022Screed heating program incorrectly set and heating coil loosened18
26.02.2022Concrete floor without screed on the upper floor/attic, what to do?24
25.11.2022Mill underfloor heating or apply new screed?17

Oben