Defective expansion joint in clinker facade

Where do you see such a gigantic effort there?

The damaged stones on both sides of the fool's joint scar must be chiseled out. Replacing them is more difficult to fit flush than in the continuous masonry process. The adjustment is basically similar to wall tiling. And if you then need to take replacement stones from a different batch, more by luck than judgment, this "trace" will later stand out from a few meters away – worse than when standing right in front of it – due to color tone differences. That is why I recommend letting a pedantically meticulous painter apply a light misting. Of course, this must be done before re-pointing. Accident damage is always more elaborate to repair color-wise inconspicuously than a series paint job in production. This joke by the expert already adds up to a few working days.

I find that a bit exaggerated. You probably can't expect the general contractor to just cut open the facade somewhere.

Of course you have to: if you throw the lay client-contractor the fragment without explanation that there should have been an expansion joint there, then of course he thinks: oh no, my bricks are protruding into the no-parking zone, I now have to quickly have a groove cut. That is why it is negligent to say something like that without planning the concrete execution. Of course fear leads to activism, a specialist must be that clear-headed.

I could imagine that a good painter can get rid of it. So scan the paint, mix it, and paint over it. [GU zahlt].

So scan the color, mix it, and repaint.

This would theoretically work here if one were satisfied with matching the color of the joint (which I would consider undeservedly kind to the culprit). However, when replacing the stones, "mixing" a solid color coat is out of the question, as the mottled appearance, especially of the rough clinker, prevents that.

I am still not convinced that the blame lies with the expert (let alone that it can be sued for). If he notes that, from his perspective, an expansion joint is generally necessary for this wall length, that does not necessarily mean such a disfigured wall. I see the mason and accordingly the general contractor as responsible here, who carried out the detailed planning and execution (something like: shall we just use the angle grinder here?).

Regarding the projected costs, I have now read quite a wide range here. Receiving 2000-3000€ per joint (so about 10,000€) from the general contractor seems unrealistic to me. So we will probably have to find a more cost-effective solution somehow. Either just replacing the particularly prominent cuts on the street side or concealing them. I have heard that instead of regular paint, one could also use a mass made from ground stones (however this is to be made). We still have many old stone pieces... Regarding the color deviations in a replacement, I am still hopeful. We have already had situations where larger parts of the walls were built from different batches and fortunately this is invisible. The bricks therefore seem relatively "color stable."

Many thanks again for your numerous comments. When the house acceptance is coming up soon (hopefully before Christmas), I at least feel somewhat strengthened not to let the general contractor off the hook so easily.

I am still not convinced that the fault lies with the expert (let alone that it can be sued). If he points out that, in his view, an expansion joint is fundamentally necessary for this wall length, that does not necessarily mean such a disfigured wall. I rather see the bricklayer and accordingly the general contractor responsible, who did the detailed planning and execution (loosely based on the motto: shall we just use the angle grinder here?).

I don’t know exactly how the expert formulated his remark and how it can be proven to him. The fact is: you have been damaged in the form of facade disfigurement, which also cannot be in proportion to any benefit, because no such benefit was created by this procedure. A bricklayer owes no execution planning – he builds what he is told.

Regarding the projected costs, I have now read quite a wide range here. Getting 2000-3000€ per joint (i.e., ~€10,000) from the general contractor seems unrealistic to me. So we will probably have to find a more cost-effective solution somehow. Either only replacement at the particularly conspicuous cuts on the street side or masking.

Counterargument: I consider significantly cheaper “solutions” unsatisfactory. In car accident damage cases, the culture of fair-value-appropriate repair has become established – in this sense, no makeshift solution should be aimed for with a brand-new house. Realistically, however, it is to be expected for one or two instances that the judge will not sufficiently estimate the situation expertly and tend “pragmatically” toward a lazy settlement. That, in turn, can then be obtained cheaper out of court.