On the day of the first acceptance, we documented about 70 defects (with an expert) and refused acceptance (rightly so) due to the lack of supply of electricity, hot water, and heating. The developer apologized and we accepted the handover 19 days later with still nearly 50 defects but with electricity, hot water, and functioning heating and documented the defects. However, the heating system was missing the heat pump and we were provided with a mobile electric heater. The general contractor (GC) corrected almost all defects within about five months. The heat pump is now also present.
Finding and fixing 70 defects first is quite an achievement, hats off also to the developer for having corrected most of them.
The GC did not fix some defects for which retainages were offered. For example, compensation of 100 to 150.00€ was offered for damages to door and window frames, depending on the type of damage. Is that appropriate?
No one can tell you that without more background info. If an interior door with frame cost 350€ and you now get about a third of the door’s value for a “scratch” for free, that’s good. If it’s a mahogany solid wood door worth 5,000€, of course, you’re worse off. If the defect is purely aesthetic and does not affect function, I find that okay. It would be annoying if every window and door had to be deducted for, then I understand your frustration. If it’s 3-4 throughout the whole house, accept the sums and move on.
For unsatisfactory plastering work (Q2 agreed and partially not achieved), we were offered 100.00€ per wall. Is that appropriate?
Here, the same questions arise: how many walls are affected, how serious are the deviations -> visible with the naked eye, and do they affect fittings or furniture to be mounted on the walls?
Now comes one of two bigger problems where we cannot agree on the retainage. Oh yes... these defects also affect two other parties! The construction description states: "Copper pipes will be installed as risers of the heating system." Unfortunately, we had to find out that cheaper steel was used here instead of copper. Our developer offered us a retainage of 500.00€. I asked a friend from the sanitary and supply technology sector, and he said that the material costs are minimally higher, but the costs for performing the work would be well over 10,000.00€, because the supply shaft in the entire house would have to be opened, which would result in complete retiling of bathrooms and guest WC. The effort would be enormous, and the house would be uninhabitable during the construction period. So we refused the 500.00€ from the developer and demanded a retainage of 9,250.00€ ourselves. The developer refused and informed us that we would have to initiate an arbitration expert procedure as contractually agreed. What do you think about this?
You wrote there is a retainage of 2,000€ per other household. Then just join them. Technically, I see no disadvantage for you. 2,000€ is already very reasonable as a difference for the material value.
Aesthetic defects in the front garden and driveway. Short explanation: the front garden includes a fixed area for the garbage bins and a lateral parking space. In total, this area is about 20sqm and equipped with slabs and flowerbeds. Previously, a public sidewalk ran in front. Later, we found out that the sidewalk is on our property. After consultation with the city, neither a servitude nor a right of way for the city is recorded in the register of encumbrances or the land register. The city must buy the property from us, which they have not done so far. The cadastral office also confirmed that no public sidewalk is documented here. So the city “illegally” erected a sidewalk here. Anyway...different topic.
We had something similar at my parents. It was about 3 sqm that had been “cut off” by the city for about 50 years. I noticed this through planning my new build. I called the building authority and explained the situation. There was an appointment at the building authority, and we discussed the modalities with an employee and that was it. The notary, new surveying, and all other costs as well as a very fair price per sqm were paid by the city. If the city does not come to you, you have to take care of it yourself and arrange it.
Now the GC is contractually obliged to prepare the property up to the property boundary. This had the consequence that the GC carried out the area of the front garden and the parking space at an earlier time (around September 2022) than the work at the previous sidewalk (February 2023). This caused the slabs to have a noticeable color difference due to a different batch. Also, the slabs in the area of the former sidewalk were not laid flush and joint-correct compared to the front garden area. Due to this aesthetic defect, we retained 1,000.00€. Is that appropriate?
That also depends on the scope and degree of the “defect.” The slabs will mostly even out after a few years due to weathering. The joint pattern remains, of course. Could this still be comparatively easily remedied if the slabs only lie on a gravel bed?
I can understand that after being “thrown off” the construction site and the numerous remaining defects, your frustration is great now and you want “justice.” But be glad that it mostly remained with visual differences and nothing in the building physics or technical area is seriously wrong. I can tell you from my own experience that there can be much worse discrepancies when building than what you describe here, and I would gladly swap with you.
