Bauexperte
2014-07-02 10:29:37
- #1
Hello €uro,
You are free to do so, it does not change my attitude towards such types of programs.
Taken individually, this statement is correct ... initially. From my point of view, it would have been desirable if you had also named the reason – which is clear. "On many construction sites, a host of subcontractors of unclear qualifications keep handing over the keys to one another. Although this initially makes housebuilding cheaper on paper, construction defects and building faults are often a direct consequence." Furthermore: "The quality of construction is deteriorating," observes Thomas Penningh, chairman of the Association of Private Building Owners (Verband Privater Bauherren). The association’s building advisors have observed for some time now a worrying trend: many construction services are no longer carried out by trained craftsmen, and accordingly, the workers lack basic technical knowledge. "Especially on construction sites with numerous small subcontractors," explains the head of the Association of Private Building Owners.
I therefore dare to assume that if and insofar as building owners follow your and my recommendation—sales-independent construction supervision—construction defects would be reduced to a minimum. The consequence would also naturally be that there would be fewer building disputes because many building owners simply would not be able to build. Which I would welcome, because then courts would have less to do, private insolvencies would simultaneously decrease and—for my subjective view—the best argument: it would finally no longer be said, “the evil construction industry”!
€uro – you may be an expert and have not seen, but you seem naive as well. I know two of these productions from the inside and therefore know that there is massive "helping along." After all, something must be offered to the viewer. It starts with actors as supposed buyers and ends with dismantling a flawlessly completed assembly of a prefabricated house because the assembly did not come across as "dangerous" enough. Even the real estate agents of another production are not who they are presented to be; as I learned at our last trade fair, where I had the dubious pleasure of meeting one of these blonde idiots.
So you are sounding the same horn.
How about instead continuing to educate that it is precisely not the bargain hunters who get the contract? Certainly not—as was just boastfully called "cheaper" in another thread—to rely on travel subcontractors from the East? Also writing more often—especially as an expert, which you currently like to do—that there are more good than bad main contractors/general contractors/subcontractors than public opinion apparently reflects? That not every willing interested party necessarily "must" be able to build? That there must also be tenants?
My job is getting increasingly exhausting because there are people like you who cannot/will not differentiate? Whereas a first consultation still took a good 1.5 hours one year ago, I now often sit for 3 hours to refute all the supposed arguments of so-called advisors (whether online or forums is irrelevant) or to explain how they came about. Only to answer the long list of the so-called Protection Association some days later—which I can (still) find amusing; for the most part anyway. Because the "ratings" of this group are usually ludicrous, and in my view, it should voluntarily refund its fees. But even this shows that many potential building owners save everywhere just to be able to call a house their "own four walls." I have never received such nonsense from a lawyer specializing in contract/construction law; there it was at most 1 or 2 formulations, and that was it. The clients who hire a lawyer, to be fair, are a different caliber and much prefered by me.
We work exclusively with main contractors who have been active on the market for a very long time; the oldest company was founded in 1946. I can provide references from all of them dating back to 1996; I have been working in this job since then. That and consulting with existing customers or building owners on ongoing construction sites should suffice; we also advise every potential interested party to check the contractors and us. Of course, we have sometimes "missed the mark." There are numerous references on the net about that and how we dealt with it (after all, the internet is apparently the bible of the potential building owner today) and the building owners at the time are available to provide information.
I absolutely dislike it when the bad contractor/main/general/subcontractor is fundamentally and indiscriminately badmouthed, because it always takes two to tango. And—I increasingly feel—it is unfair to lump the serious contractors in with the bargain builders!
Rhenish greetings
That should be differentiated. Substantively, one can sometimes hold a different opinion.
You are free to do so, it does not change my attitude towards such types of programs.
One thing is certain: construction defects tend to increase significantly. Therefore, external, sales-independent construction supervision is urgently recommended to building owners, instead of complaining afterward.
Taken individually, this statement is correct ... initially. From my point of view, it would have been desirable if you had also named the reason – which is clear. "On many construction sites, a host of subcontractors of unclear qualifications keep handing over the keys to one another. Although this initially makes housebuilding cheaper on paper, construction defects and building faults are often a direct consequence." Furthermore: "The quality of construction is deteriorating," observes Thomas Penningh, chairman of the Association of Private Building Owners (Verband Privater Bauherren). The association’s building advisors have observed for some time now a worrying trend: many construction services are no longer carried out by trained craftsmen, and accordingly, the workers lack basic technical knowledge. "Especially on construction sites with numerous small subcontractors," explains the head of the Association of Private Building Owners.
I therefore dare to assume that if and insofar as building owners follow your and my recommendation—sales-independent construction supervision—construction defects would be reduced to a minimum. The consequence would also naturally be that there would be fewer building disputes because many building owners simply would not be able to build. Which I would welcome, because then courts would have less to do, private insolvencies would simultaneously decrease and—for my subjective view—the best argument: it would finally no longer be said, “the evil construction industry”!
I completely disagree. Nothing is faked there for sure, a bold claim from you!
€uro – you may be an expert and have not seen, but you seem naive as well. I know two of these productions from the inside and therefore know that there is massive "helping along." After all, something must be offered to the viewer. It starts with actors as supposed buyers and ends with dismantling a flawlessly completed assembly of a prefabricated house because the assembly did not come across as "dangerous" enough. Even the real estate agents of another production are not who they are presented to be; as I learned at our last trade fair, where I had the dubious pleasure of meeting one of these blonde idiots.
Critical building owners are certainly advised to ask the executing contractors to show the policies and declarations! Also the latest premium evaluation.
So you are sounding the same horn.
How about instead continuing to educate that it is precisely not the bargain hunters who get the contract? Certainly not—as was just boastfully called "cheaper" in another thread—to rely on travel subcontractors from the East? Also writing more often—especially as an expert, which you currently like to do—that there are more good than bad main contractors/general contractors/subcontractors than public opinion apparently reflects? That not every willing interested party necessarily "must" be able to build? That there must also be tenants?
My job is getting increasingly exhausting because there are people like you who cannot/will not differentiate? Whereas a first consultation still took a good 1.5 hours one year ago, I now often sit for 3 hours to refute all the supposed arguments of so-called advisors (whether online or forums is irrelevant) or to explain how they came about. Only to answer the long list of the so-called Protection Association some days later—which I can (still) find amusing; for the most part anyway. Because the "ratings" of this group are usually ludicrous, and in my view, it should voluntarily refund its fees. But even this shows that many potential building owners save everywhere just to be able to call a house their "own four walls." I have never received such nonsense from a lawyer specializing in contract/construction law; there it was at most 1 or 2 formulations, and that was it. The clients who hire a lawyer, to be fair, are a different caliber and much prefered by me.
We work exclusively with main contractors who have been active on the market for a very long time; the oldest company was founded in 1946. I can provide references from all of them dating back to 1996; I have been working in this job since then. That and consulting with existing customers or building owners on ongoing construction sites should suffice; we also advise every potential interested party to check the contractors and us. Of course, we have sometimes "missed the mark." There are numerous references on the net about that and how we dealt with it (after all, the internet is apparently the bible of the potential building owner today) and the building owners at the time are available to provide information.
I absolutely dislike it when the bad contractor/main/general/subcontractor is fundamentally and indiscriminately badmouthed, because it always takes two to tango. And—I increasingly feel—it is unfair to lump the serious contractors in with the bargain builders!
Rhenish greetings