Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

Well, if there actually is a sealing underneath, what does the general contractor say?

I already wrote that. He says he is aware that he deviated from the DIN standard but he builds 90% of the houses that way. Reason: The drainage is simpler.

However, the expert says his method of execution is neither equivalent nor considered state of the art. So why should I accept an inferior execution?

Without counting the commas, the report reads to me with the tenor "defects criticized, plaque assigned." I do not see 199 instead of 201 cm as a disputable deviation; with a 201 rough opening, I would have even expected 198 cm element height. So for me, the question is not why 199 instead of 201, but: why 201 instead of 213.

I think the structural engineer will be benched by the general contractor for a season, but the selling value of the house will not suffer measurable damage from the deviations.

I see your legal chances as largely dependent on the interaction between the expert and the lawyer.

Without having counted the commas, the report reads to me with the tone "deficiencies pointed out, plaque assigned."

So you find the base sealing acceptable and think it should continue like this? The expert clearly stated that they need to address it again. The execution was substandard, it was not in my interest, and it simply was not agreed upon. Your assessment therefore confuses me a bit.

I don't see 199 instead of 201 cm as a disputable deviation; with a 201 rough opening, I would have even expected 198 cm element height. For me, therefore, the question is not why 199 instead of 201, but why 201 instead of 213.

The contract simply states window height 201 cm and not window for a rough construction height of 201 cm. Basically, apart from that, I see it as you do, that the 201 cm window height as such is the problem. And the expert did try to point out a way to hold the architect liable in his statements. But the expert cannot show anything further; everything else goes into legal matters and we will clarify that tomorrow. However, if suddenly the threshold is 5 cm higher than stated, that is already a significant deviation. After all, the contract specifies 15 cm. Accordingly, from my point of view, new doors have to be installed anyway. And if new doors have to be installed, you can surely negotiate about getting other dimensions for an additional cost. There is certainly room for negotiation, also concerning the delay. The question is whether the building permit even allows the installation of taller (and ideally wider in the bedroom and bathroom) balcony doors.

Expert and lawyer have contact from other projects. That fits well.

The masonry will be exciting. I cannot imagine that the brick manufacturer will agree to grant such an approval. And we will not grant it either, as the expert writes. That is currently apparently the smallest issue, but it may be almost the hardest to solve because no one wants to grant the corresponding approval and the general contractor is not allowed to simply make such changes.

So you find the base sealing acceptable and it should continue like that? [...] Your assessment therefore confuses me a bit.

No, it just sounds to me that the expert's statement is less dramatic than expected from the last pages of this discussion. It essentially sounds repairable, although in this case ultimately without profit for the general contractor on this object. But that is probably "normal" tuition fees for testing a new shell builder.

No, it just sounds less dramatic to me than expected from the last pages of this discussion according to the expert's statement.

Oh, I see. On the last pages, it was more about the fact that the encapsulations are so massively disturbing. But that is less a problem of the expert and more – if at all – a legal problem. I will raise the issue tomorrow but I don’t expect much from it. Basically, we only have the encapsulation in the kitchen and the left office left. The right office has already been eliminated, and I will eliminate Child 1 through the use of the pipe ventilator.

It essentially sounds repairable, although in this case ultimately without profit for the general contractor on this object.

I would like to start with a question. Assuming the general contractor is willing to correct the base sealing; how should one imagine that? Does the entire basement wall around the building have to be exposed? If yes, how are they supposed to do that in the garage area?

I will eliminate Child 1 by using the pipe ventilator.

Yay, then my tip really helped!