Deficiency in awning beams in the intermediate ceiling

Hello everyone,

I need some advice on how to deal with the current, new finding.

We had a semi-detached house built as a timber frame construction from November 2019 to March 2020 and then moved in accordingly. The acceptance also took place in March 2020.

On the terrace side of the house, we had already planned a reinforced ceiling beam during the planning stage in order to later install an awning or a terrace roof. This beam was supposed to extend across the entire width of the house front, as also recorded in the execution planning.


Now, in January/February 2021, I started to look into awnings and terrace roofs for the first time and requested beam plans from the house manufacturer, which I could send to potential suppliers for checking the mounting. They noticed that the beam we wanted/commissioned did not cover the entire width, but only about 50-60% of the width. I asked the house manufacturer whether this information was correct, which was confirmed to me by the respective planner.



Therefore, the following questions arise for me:

[*]Should I point out the defect to the builder? Can this still be remedied at all?
[*]A terrace roof cannot be attached over the entire width of the house, but requires additional posts, which involves higher costs. Who bears such costs?
[*]Should/can I initially discuss this alone with the builder or is legal support advisable here?

Thanks for some assessments from your side.

Best regards

Hi,

1. For my understanding: The plan visible above existed before commissioning the house manufacturer and this plan was also commissioned?

....If yes, .....

Then the faulty execution is a deviation from the construction specifications (construction specifications = contractually fixed properties the building should have, here beams across the entire side).
Such a defect does not expire through the legal act of acceptance. Acceptance does not mean that all unseen defects from that moment on are considered accepted. You are only obliged to prove that the defect already existed before acceptance (which apparently did occur).

In the case of a deviation from the construction specifications, there is no concept of "disproportionality" regarding the costs of defect remediation.
The company therefore remains obliged to remedy the defect (apart from minor issues) or can, if no technical defect exists, seek compensation instead of remediation.

What does this mean for you?

1) Yes, the defect must be reported (regardless of whether it can be fixed, otherwise there is no claim for payment). This includes a proper deadline and corresponding reminder deadlines if the deadline expires.
2) This is a matter of interpretation. First, the contractor must be given the opportunity to remedy the defect (see point 1). If they refuse or cannot do so, there is the possibility to compensate for the defect (for example, by erecting the posts to be borne by the subcontractor, or by a substitute payment by the subcontractor).
3) I would get legal advice even before the defect notification is issued, so it does not later fail due to formal errors. Then an expert will have to assess the costs.

Best regards Jann

Hi Jann,

Thank you for your explanations.

For my understanding: The planning shown above already existed before the commissioning of the house manufacturer and this planning was also commissioned?

Yes, you understood that correctly. The commissioning was based on the planning shown above.

Such a defect does not expire through the legal act of acceptance. Acceptance does not mean that all defects that were not seen from that point on are considered accepted. You are only obliged to prove that the defect already existed before acceptance (which apparently has taken place).

The proof would have been made in the sense that the ceiling elements already had the reinforcement when the house was erected, or not.

So now I at least have a better idea of what that means.

Best regards

Steffen