Energy expert refuses further support

Good day,

we were owners and residents of a detached single-family house (in a homeowners' association), which we dismantled (not demolished!) so that an energy-efficient building in efficiency level 40 EE could be constructed on the same site. While searching for appropriate funding, we asked KFW whether our project would be classified as new construction or renovation. The answer was that the classification is not made by KFW but by the responsible building authority as part of the building permit process (see also point 3.2 of the BEG FAQ). Indeed, the building authority confirmed the classification as renovation. Accordingly, we

- submitted the building application and received approval
- arranged construction financing
- had a confirmation for the application (BZA) issued by the energy expert
- applied for funding from KFW (Program 461 - residential building grant) and received approval
- concluded all contracts with the respective service providers

Six months after the approval and after the existing building had already been dismantled, the energy expert got back to us and refused to continue overseeing the project, stating that he does not consider the project a renovation and that he does not want to assume liability in the event of a subsequent KFW audit.

We now ask ourselves

- are we allowed to "replace" him with another expert so that, based on the existing documentation and the implemented project, a BnD can be prepared?
- does KFW require a justification for the change in this case?
- does the "first" expert actually have liability in the event of a negative audit result? Does this then automatically transfer to the "second" expert?

Thank you in advance for experiences, opinions, and advice...

Three questions about that: Where is there a detached single-family house in a WEG? That is very unusual. How can a part of a WEG be demolished if the windows etc. are common property? Did everyone agree to that? And what is the difference between demolished and dismantled? The dismantling of a house is demolition if it is rebuilt afterwards. In my opinion, what you are planning is a new construction and not a renovation. For that, at least the exterior walls would still have to be standing.

Three questions about that: Where is there a detached single-family house in a WEG?

For example with us? I don’t understand the question...

That is very unusual. How can one demolish a part of a WEG if the windows etc. are common property? Did everyone agree to that?

Of course! Only the separate property was dismantled, not the common property.

And what is the difference between demolished and dismantled, please?

With a "demolition" a big excavator comes, flattens everything and the materials are disposed of. With a "dismantling" the roof and walls are unscrewed, transported away, and rebuilt elsewhere (of course this only works with a prefabricated house... ;-))

A dismantling of a house is demolition if a new one is built afterwards. In my opinion, what you have planned is a new build, not a renovation. At least the outer walls would have to still be standing for that.

The building authority sees it differently...

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that was possible until now. But you never stop learning. Hopefully, others will be able to provide expert answers to your questions shortly.

In fact, the building authority confirmed the classification as renovation.

During the "dismantling," the roof and walls are unscrewed, transported away, and rebuilt elsewhere (of course, this only works with a prefabricated house... ;-))

So we are talking about the redevelopment of a building plot. The fact that the former existing building on it gets a second life elsewhere does not by any means turn the building plot itself into a "building." However, you cannot "renovate" a building plot in this sense; for that to apply, several essential parts of the building would have to remain there. Even for an entire basement, I would consider this borderline applicable; for just a slab, definitely not. If a basement and ground floor remained standing (even gutted) and instead of the roof structure a new upper floor were added, I would be willing to discuss. But the whole house gone (not destroyed, but moved away) and then to speak of "renovation"—I wonder what they’re smoking at the building authority? (and I agree with the energy consultant that this case is rightly too hot for him). From my point of view, the highly peculiar assessment of the building authority does not heal the fact that the energy consultant could be accused of aiding and abetting forgery of documents and fraudulently obtaining subsidies by declaring such a de facto new build as a "renovation." This could not only cost him his license but, in my opinion, also goes beyond the penal limits for suspended sentences. You as laypersons would be judged even more leniently than the expert. [My expression of opinion does not constitute legal advice!]

So we are talking about the redevelopment of a building plot. The fact that the former existing building on it is given a second life elsewhere does not make the building plot itself a "building" by any means. However, you cannot "renovate" a building plot in this sense; for that to be the case, several essential parts of the building would have to have remained there. I would consider this borderline applicable even for an entire basement, but certainly not for just a floor slab. If a basement and ground floor that remained standing (even if gutted) and instead of the roof structure a new upper floor was added, I could be convinced. But the whole house gone (not destroyed, but moved away) and then talking about "renovation" – I wonder what they are smoking at the building authority? (and I agree with the energy consultant that this case is rightfully too hot for him). From my point of view, the building authority’s very strange assessment does not erase the fact that the energy consultant could be accused of aiding and abetting document forgery and subsidy fraud by declaring such a de facto new building a "renovation." This could not only cost him his license but, in my assessment, also exceeds the penalty framework allowed for probation. You as laypersons would be judged even more leniently than the expert. [My expression of opinion does not constitute legal advice !]

I see it the same way. If only the ground remains, it is neverever a renovation.