Deficient architectural performance, delayed start of construction

I want to build a single-family house with a solid house provider. This provider is responsible for the architectural services and subsequently delegates the construction project to a general contractor. I already owned the building plot before signing the contract. The building site is slightly sloping.

We had a strong interest in keeping the slope between the street and the house as small as possible. The responsible architect suggested placing the house about 1 meter lower than the street; the building regulations would have basically allowed a slope of about 25 cm, but the architect did not inform me of this, and I had to find this out myself after the approval of the first building application. The architect suggested 1 meter because the house entrance was located on the side, and a 3-meter distance to the neighboring plot had to be maintained. With a slope of 1 meter, two steps would have been necessary, which would have extended about 50 cm into the 3-meter distance to the neighboring house; 2.50 meters would have remained to drive past the stairs with a car to the garage. With a slope of 25 cm, five steps would have been necessary, and it would not have been possible to drive past the stairs with a car. Before the first building application, I asked the architect if there was an alternative to lowering the house by 1 meter; he denied it. The first building application was approved.

After the approval of the first building application, I found out that there had been an alternative: the house entrance would have only had to be moved to the other side. We then insisted on this; a second building application was submitted, which was approved after about half a year. According to the plan, there should now only be a slope of 25 cm between the street and the house.

This procedure has led to us having to pay interest on the loan commitment for 3 months now; so far, we have had to pay rent for about 8 months longer, with total costs of approximately 13,000 euros so far. This is now my first question: Who has to bear the costs, me as the client or the solid house provider?

After the second building application was approved, the construction startup meeting with the general contractor was supposed to take place. Originally, it was agreed in writing that construction should begin 30 days after the startup meeting. Now the general contractor believes that this agreement cannot be kept because 4 out of 10 construction workers are on long-term sick leave; construction can start at the earliest at the end of the year or the beginning of the new year.

It should also be noted that the solid house provider offered me an alternative general contractor who would start building immediately but, unlike my current general contractor, has hardly any references. The TÜV would inspect the construction project at all relevant phases; the costs would be borne by the current solid house provider.

Additional interest on the loan commitment and further rent will be incurred. This is now my second question: Who has to bear the costs, me as the client, the general contractor, or the solid house provider? Should I consult a specialist lawyer for construction law? How should I decide?

What does your contract say, the one you signed with the provider? Such matters are regulated there.

If your contract is even remotely formulated like the one from a general contractor (GU) that I have, then you could have spared yourself the time writing this text here. However, if it is clearly regulated in the contract that the GU is liable for the points you mentioned, then there is money. If not, then read on...

Sorry to have to say this, but you neglected, agreed to, and signed many things that have brought you into this situation. Even if it sounds silly, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If your contract doesn't say otherwise, it has been your learning cost.

Next time you will know that you should opt for 12 months of provision and not 6 or 9 months. And you will deal more with the subject matter and not simply sign a building permit that doesn’t suit you.

My personal opinion on this, without knowing the contract documents: the architect of the general contractor obviously messed up the receipt. However, I think it is difficult to hold him liable for that. Regarding the start of construction, I think the general contractor is acting fairly. Of course, it is possible that employees are sick for a longer time. He can't do anything about that either. And giving you the option to switch, with construction supervision at their expense, doesn’t sound completely wrong. Maybe you can still negotiate for your general contractor to hire the other as a subcontractor? Then you keep yours.

However, I also think that you probably planned the time too tight. There can be other difficulties during construction, which can easily delay the project by 8 weeks.

Next time you will know that you should take 12 months provisioning and not 6 or 9 months

I took 12 months provisioning. Otherwise, thank you very much for the feedback.

I took the 12-month provision.

Otherwise, thank you very much for the feedback.

I know it's the tone that makes the music. Therefore, I want to apologize for the blunt post.

But how can it be that you completed your construction financing 15 months ago (at least that's what I read) and apparently nothing, absolutely nothing, has happened. Such a construction can take another 9-12 months on top.

In the worst case, you will get another surcharge on the construction costs if you do not start building on time. I have also read that in a contract. Because the prices, even if they are fixed prices, are not "fixed" forever. But that's also stated in the contract.

My suggestion would be: take your contract, read it carefully, and if after reviewing the construction contract you believe there is something to be done, then go to a lawyer and have it checked and advised. The 500€ won't make a big difference now anyway.