Expert acceptance defects experience protocol

Hello everyone,

the topic of a building surveyor is now becoming relevant for us as well. We hope to gain new insights here. We would be very grateful for your experiences and opinions.

So, we live in Berlin and plan to build a town villa with the company “City-Haus” in Brandenburg (prefabricated solid expanded clay wall elements + mineral wool + clinker). My research showed that this house building company is hardly mentioned in any topic in this forum, i.e. many probably do not know them.

Unfortunately, we realized too late (only now) that involving a building surveyor BEFORE signing the contract – especially for checking the contract and the scope of work description + contract negotiation – would have been advisable/necessary. But it is what it is. We already have a building permit. In about 2-3 months, the groundwork can begin.

That means nothing has been built yet. We now want a building surveyor to accompany our construction project from now on until acceptance + 1 appointment before the warranty expires.

Unfortunately, as inexperienced people we do not know a building surveyor. Does anyone know a good one from their own direct experience? Can anyone recommend a good [Bausparvertrag] in the Berlin/Brandenburg/Barnim region?

We are familiar with the offer from the Bauherren-Schutzbund. We also want to consider other [Bausparvertrag]. Real experiences are very important, as we have already had a very bad experience with a recommended (!) soil surveyor.

Thank you very much in advance!

Hello, unfortunately I cannot provide an expert. But could you perhaps briefly share your previous experiences with City-Haus, as we are also considering the company. Thank you in advance.

Hello questioner. Since the developer is basically required to hand over a defect-free trade, the question arises as to why a general construction expert, who (at least theoretically) must know all trades necessary for the new construction of a building, from the dormer to waterproofing to floor coverings, should be directly involved. Ultimately, there are certified experts for each trade who are familiar in detail with the constantly changing requirements in their sworn declaration. A general construction expert simply cannot do this in most cases (this is my experience as an expert, especially in floor technology). For cost reasons alone, it may therefore be appropriate to involve the corresponding specialized expert only "in the event of a case," so that the whole process is effective (and in case of doubt, admissible in court). This is just a note. Regards: KlaRa

For reasons of quality assurance, one may well assume. Otherwise, the client only recognizes the worst-case scenario when the [Kind in den Brunnen gefallen] already happened.

For reasons of quality assurance, one may well assume. Otherwise, the client would only recognize the worst-case scenario after the damage has already occurred.

That is correct. But he does not fall into the void of lawlessness; rather, he is caught by the safety net of the warranty phase if a trade proves to be faulty. However, to avoid burdening the client with the certainly not insignificant costs for a "quality assurance," which certainly cannot fulfill that of a daily on-site construction supervision with documentation obligations, one should not try to kill the bear in advance that has not yet even entered the battlefield, trusting in proper execution. I am aware of the risks (not from my own experience) which can indeed cost a supervising expert who is present daily on the construction site their livelihood. But let us leave the decision to the questioner. And this decision cannot and will not be wrong. If anything, it may only be very costly ....