Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

If at all, I think someone should have told you that it would be like this and explicitly obtained your approval.

It is actually quite simple. Where I have approved such executions by signature, I will have to accept it; where I have not done so, I will apply for an execution plan-compliant execution, which has already happened. If they then do not do it, they should provide factual reasons why it is not done, and then someone has to evaluate that and, if necessary, determine compensation if it is not feasible without demolishing the entire house again. It now seems to be only about drilling into a part of the filigree ceiling.

So if it doesn’t work in the interior wall, it comes to the pipe casing. I don’t find that particularly spectacular.

It means a loss of symmetry, a loss of floor space, and, frankly speaking, it just looks like shit. And if it’s not commissioned like that, then it’s not commissioned like that. Someone must have had a reason to plan it with ceiling distortion and lowering in the sand-lime brick wall. So for God’s sake, they should also do it that way. I will not rest until that damn pipe disappears from my line of sight or experts/lawyers tell me it has to be accepted otherwise.

And that’s how it was planned, only the meaning of execution plans is probably not entirely clear to the (craft) workers here.

On the other hand, if you look at the first post of the thread, where we only had a floor plan and no execution planning yet; even there a longitudinal casing was already indicated. Later on, no longer... but at the beginning it was indeed within the realm of possibility.

The drywaller now offers to tear down the entire L in the master bathroom and execute it in drywall so that a recessed mirror cabinet with a mounting frame can be installed there. As it is now, it cannot stay like that. I’m curious how expensive that will be. He says "not so expensive." That can of course mean a lot. The general contractor does not offer me that. I have to arrange it myself with the drywaller.

Are there tolerances regarding the execution height of the parapet for doors and windows? I have measured considerable deviations.

For example, in the kitchen. One window has a parapet height of 1.25m from the finished floor, another 1.00m. If I measure from the raw floor, there is a deviation of 4cm between the two windows. I have 1.25m + 17cm, and 1.00m + 21cm (measured at the lower edge of the windowsill).

On the upper floor in the children's rooms, 1cm deviation. Likewise, between the children's bathroom and the utility room.

The choice of the parapet height 87.5 was a bad move in connection with the selected windows. I simply assumed the parapet height that we have at home and like, but I did not consider that I am ordering much smaller windows here. I just visualized this on the shell construction earlier. With the parapet height and 1.26m high windows, that is certainly not an enjoyable experience for a 1.89m tall man. Definitely built for the enemy... too bad.

Tomorrow at 9 the appraiser is coming. Let's see what comes of it.

So the insulation really does seem to be in need of revision. Not DIN compliant, and the site manager has admitted that. He stated that 90% of houses are built that way.

I was confirmed that the pipe in the office will disappear completely into the ceiling and the sand-lime brick wall. The precast ceiling will be drilled accordingly. There will be no problem with the reinforcement because of this.

The other pipe in the office is drawn as shown and is acceptable.

For the pipe in the children's room, where only a ceiling opening is shown in the plan, the expert suggested solving the ventilation in the guest WC itself and installing an inspection shaft accordingly. To what extent an agreement can be reached with the general contractor remains to be seen. My position is definitely that no pipe was visible in the shop drawings. Many ceiling openings are drawn. Most of them are simply channels for invisible ventilation pipes, etc. — why one should assume here that a pipe runs from bottom to top through the room, I do not know.

According to the new expert, the crack in the basement is unproblematic. No moisture problem has been detected anymore either.

As explained in the last expert report, the builder has now admitted that the exterior masonry was not executed to size (see photo with the leveling rod in the last report). The tolerances were greatly exceeded. At first, they denied this accusation in writing. Now they want to compensate for it with insulation material.

Of course, a big issue was the windows and terrace doors. The windows were installed according to the shop drawings, and the expert only finds it unfortunate that we were not informed that everything was raised — ceilings, interior doors, front door... but with the windows no one gave any indication that these are standard sizes that actually do not fit. He says that according to the shop drawings, this is correct. Especially annoying! The person responsible at the supplier was at our home back then, and we showed him the existing windows there and told him that we imagine it something like what we have. Unfortunately, we failed to track that in the shop drawings.

For the terrace doors, things will probably get serious. He said he estimates that the contractually mentioned height of 201 cm could at least be ambiguously interpreted by the builder. He is not a lawyer, so he cannot give a final answer. What he did find, however, is that the door (he only measured one in detail) does not even measure 201 cm in total size, but only 199 cm. Therefore, it is not contract compliant in any case, and from his point of view, there are no corresponding tolerances that should be accepted. He also doubted that in the end there would be "only" the 15 cm threshold. He quickly showed a solution on how to achieve almost threshold-free access and larger windows. He was surprised that this was not offered to me from the beginning. But handling this information is no longer his matter, as then we would already be in the legal domain. If it really is the case that the doors have to be completely replaced solely because of the 2 cm, then the roller shutter boxes also have to be newly made anyway. AND THEN it would also be an option for me to order wider versions for all doors for an additional charge, not just for the utility room door. You could even spin it so far that a uniform window height throughout the entire floor would have to be achieved. Certainly a challenge that would take several weeks to resolve.

I assume that only a lawyer will be able to resolve this conclusively. The expert said that courts are generally rather builder-friendly, and he sees a good chance because I am 189 cm tall, everything else was executed higher, that I was not offered corresponding doors (windows).

Now I am waiting again for the expert report for another week. Nothing will really happen at the construction site for that long.

There is nothing against the drywall partition in the parents’ bathroom. That will probably be the smaller problem.

At least no additional construction sites have come up so far, apart from the non-compliant masonry.

If it is really the case that the doors all have to be replaced solely because of the 2cm,

I rather don't think so, but

He quickly showed a solution on how to achieve a more or less threshold-free design and have larger windows.

sounds interesting.

Fingers crossed that things continue to go well. The expert seems to know his craft, the general contractor also gave in and may still give in on one point or another. I assume that the legal route is not in his favor, especially if it is true that the judges tend to be more builder-friendly.

I now have to wait for the report. ; are you aware of the allowable tolerances for windows? The expert also said that the contractually guaranteed 15cm threshold will not be met with the current implementation.