If a building expert finds defects, the client as a layperson does not necessarily have to see them, that was our experience. I am therefore convinced to have a better house.
If a building surveyor finds defects, the client as a layperson does not necessarily have to see them, that was our experience. I am convinced that is why we have a better house
that sounds good.
So I suspected correctly: you consider a surveyor less urgent if the contractor is not a known rogue?
No, it’s not about the general contractor, but about clients who have very good experiences with them.
So it’s about the fact that those clients gave us a feeling of "you can trust them".
Or nevertheless proceed according to the principle "trust is good - control is better".
The question is, can the clients as laymen adequately assess the work of the general contractor? and even if so, does the general contractor really always work with the same good subs... do the subs always have the same good craftsmen on board? I would not build without a building savings contract and wish I had already had one before signing the contract.
The question is, can the clients as laypersons adequately assess the work of the general contractor? and even if so, does the general contractor really always work with the same good subs... do the subs always have the same good craftsmen at hand? I would not build without a building savings contract and wish I had already had one before signing the contract.
That's true, it might also be that they didn't even recognize possible mistakes. The general contractor does many trades with his own employees and the subs he works with, according to statements, he has been working with them for a very very long time... I will take care of getting a building savings contract.