HessamA
2023-03-22 13:50:58
- #1
Hello dear forum members,
I have the following problem and would be very happy to receive feedback at short notice. I need to provide some important details here to make it understandable and comprehensible.
In 2021, we purchased a single-family end-terrace house from the developer. The developer had the construction carried out by a general contractor. Our developer and broker contract also contains a construction description for all trades.
On the day of the first acceptance, we documented about 70 defects (with an expert) and, due to the lack of supply of electricity, hot water, and heating, rightly refused to accept it. The developer apologized and we accepted the property 19 days later with still nearly 50 defects but with electricity, hot water, and functioning heating, and documented the defects. However, the heat pump was missing from the heating system and a mobile electric heater was provided to us. The general contractor (GC) has fixed almost all defects within just under five months. The heat pump is now also present.
The GC did not fix some defects where withholding amounts were offered. For example, compensation of €100 to €150 was offered for damages to the frames of doors and windows, depending on the type of damage. Is this appropriate?
For unsatisfactory plasterwork (Q2 agreed and partly not delivered), we were offered €100 per wall. Is this appropriate?
Now comes one of two bigger problems where we do not agree about the withholding amount. Oh yes... these defects also affect two other parties! In the construction description it states: "Copper pipes will be installed as risers of the heating system." Unfortunately, we had to find out that cheaper steel was used instead of copper. Our developer offered us a withholding of €500. I asked a friend from the field of sanitary and supply engineering, and he said that the material costs are minimally higher but that the costs for carrying out the work would be well over €10,000 because the supply shaft in the entire house would have to be broken open, which would mean that the bathrooms and guest WC would have to be completely retiled. The effort would be enormous and the house would not be habitable during the time of construction. So we rejected the €500 from the developer and demanded a withholding of €9,250 on our part. The developer rejected this and informed us that in such a case we have to initiate an expert arbitration procedure because this was contractually agreed. What is your opinion?
Optical defects in the front garden and driveway. A short explanation: the front garden includes a fixed area for the garbage bins and a parking space on the side. In total, this area is about 20 sqm and is equipped with slabs and flower beds. Previously there used to be a public sidewalk in front. Later we found out that the sidewalk is on our property. After consultation with the city, there is neither an easement nor a right of way for the city recorded in the burden register or the land register. The city must buy the property from us, but has not done so to date. The cadastral office also confirmed that no public sidewalk is documented here. So the city "illegally" built a sidewalk here. Anyway… different topic.
Now the GC is contractually obliged to prepare the property up to the property boundary. This meant that the GC first carried out the area of the front garden and the parking space at an earlier time (about September 2022) than the work on the former sidewalk (February 2023). This caused the slabs to have a noticeable color difference because they are from a different batch. Also, the slabs in the area of the former sidewalk were not laid flush and joint-correct with the front garden area. Due to this optical defect, we made a withholding of €1,000 here. Is this appropriate?
I have the following problem and would be very happy to receive feedback at short notice. I need to provide some important details here to make it understandable and comprehensible.
In 2021, we purchased a single-family end-terrace house from the developer. The developer had the construction carried out by a general contractor. Our developer and broker contract also contains a construction description for all trades.
On the day of the first acceptance, we documented about 70 defects (with an expert) and, due to the lack of supply of electricity, hot water, and heating, rightly refused to accept it. The developer apologized and we accepted the property 19 days later with still nearly 50 defects but with electricity, hot water, and functioning heating, and documented the defects. However, the heat pump was missing from the heating system and a mobile electric heater was provided to us. The general contractor (GC) has fixed almost all defects within just under five months. The heat pump is now also present.
The GC did not fix some defects where withholding amounts were offered. For example, compensation of €100 to €150 was offered for damages to the frames of doors and windows, depending on the type of damage. Is this appropriate?
For unsatisfactory plasterwork (Q2 agreed and partly not delivered), we were offered €100 per wall. Is this appropriate?
Now comes one of two bigger problems where we do not agree about the withholding amount. Oh yes... these defects also affect two other parties! In the construction description it states: "Copper pipes will be installed as risers of the heating system." Unfortunately, we had to find out that cheaper steel was used instead of copper. Our developer offered us a withholding of €500. I asked a friend from the field of sanitary and supply engineering, and he said that the material costs are minimally higher but that the costs for carrying out the work would be well over €10,000 because the supply shaft in the entire house would have to be broken open, which would mean that the bathrooms and guest WC would have to be completely retiled. The effort would be enormous and the house would not be habitable during the time of construction. So we rejected the €500 from the developer and demanded a withholding of €9,250 on our part. The developer rejected this and informed us that in such a case we have to initiate an expert arbitration procedure because this was contractually agreed. What is your opinion?
Optical defects in the front garden and driveway. A short explanation: the front garden includes a fixed area for the garbage bins and a parking space on the side. In total, this area is about 20 sqm and is equipped with slabs and flower beds. Previously there used to be a public sidewalk in front. Later we found out that the sidewalk is on our property. After consultation with the city, there is neither an easement nor a right of way for the city recorded in the burden register or the land register. The city must buy the property from us, but has not done so to date. The cadastral office also confirmed that no public sidewalk is documented here. So the city "illegally" built a sidewalk here. Anyway… different topic.
Now the GC is contractually obliged to prepare the property up to the property boundary. This meant that the GC first carried out the area of the front garden and the parking space at an earlier time (about September 2022) than the work on the former sidewalk (February 2023). This caused the slabs to have a noticeable color difference because they are from a different batch. Also, the slabs in the area of the former sidewalk were not laid flush and joint-correct with the front garden area. Due to this optical defect, we made a withholding of €1,000 here. Is this appropriate?