Demolition and reconstruction of the exterior wall due to defects

Hello everyone,
the following defects are present on the exterior wall of our ground floor:
- Undershooting of the lap joint measure by 50%
- Processing not in accordance with building authority approval (bed joints were not fully mortared)
For the issue of lap joint measurements, there is mesh plaster to minimize crack risks.
But how can bed joints be fully mortared afterwards?
The installed brick is: Bellenberg MZ70

Now to the actual question for an expert: Can an exterior wall be replaced even though the ceiling above has already been concreted?
What is the best way to proceed?

- Undercutting of lap joint by 50%

Does that mean the lap joint is not maintained in more than half of all points???

There is mesh plaster to minimize cracking risks regarding the problem of lap joints.

According to whose advertisement? - no way, little Peter :)

Can an exterior wall be replaced even though the ceiling above has already been concreted?

In this case, I would definitely replace "can" with "must":

- Processing not according to building authority approval (bed joints were not fully mortared)

All tutorial videos on this topic—even in Polish, which I do not understand—demonstrate it in such an idiot-proof way that even I, as an absolute office theorist, could not produce such maximum botch work. This calls into question the expertise of all those responsible!

What is the best way to proceed?

Hopefully have a completion bond in your pocket. I see a teardown as unavoidable— the builder might be tempted to attempt an escape into insolvency. Your reading for tonight is ;-)

Is that supposed to

According to whose advertisement? - no way, little Peter :)

Webertec Distance for example? Or is that not possible with this stone?

Webertec Distanec for example? Or is that not possible with this stone?

I hope the moderator only deletes the link and not you. The plaster reinforcement does not eliminate the static concern, but only prevents the failure from becoming visible as a plaster crack. However, this is a cosmetic measure for point injuries of the lap joint - in the case of your house - or rather, the serious nonsense in place of your house - it may not be sufficient. In my opinion, the only proper solution here is the demolition.

The plaster reinforcement does not eliminate the structural concern, but only prevents the defect from showing through visibly as a plaster crack. However, this is a cosmetic measure for localized violations of the overlap dimension - in the case of your house - or rather, a crude mess in place of your house - this cannot be sufficient. In my opinion, the correct procedure here is exclusively the dismantling.

The structural integrity was checked by the brickworks. That is probably not a problem. There are still enough reserves left.
The question is only whether a mesh also covers large-scale undershooting of the overlap dimension.....
I am also already in talks with a lawyer.... According to him, a violation of the approval alone is sufficient grounds for termination. We have a contract according to VOB... This is really a major burden now.

The static was checked by the brickworks. That is probably not a problem. There are still enough reserves left.

But your description reads completely differently. I also cannot imagine a brickworks having a structural engineer certify that its products meet the same requirements here without any concerns despite improper installation as in the test wall for the certification institute. It would be best if you took photos of all the nonsense that was "built" there.