Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

The canopy is functionally not a problem. The only question would be whether that results in a discount. But I see that rather uncritically.

Yes, that's how I understood it too, but simply executing it in wood instead of concrete is kind of strange. Hadn't you noticed that yet?

The back wall is currently not visible to the naked eye. But the site manager says that's only due to its unplastered condition. Once plastered, it will be visible and then it will be disturbing. If that weren’t the case, he certainly wouldn’t have mentioned it voluntarily, even if he had noticed it.

Okay, personally I would just have concerns whether they will actually manage it properly. So there is a bump at one spot, right? And that would then be clearly visible through the plaster.

Regarding the stair step, I see about 38 cm on the tape measure. Screed 16 cm, I don’t know exactly about the parquet, it can’t be much. So we won’t get to 15 cm there.

True, you’re right, I had looked wrong there. Then it will indeed be at least a 20 cm step, which is of course a significant deviation. But you probably won’t gain that much in window height either, unless you go for side entrance doors (which also exist without a real threshold) but are probably significantly more expensive. Broader would probably be even harder, as the openings are correspondingly built with masonry.

It will turn out for the better. The question is only how long it all takes and how many nerves it costs. The expert doesn’t see it so critically. He says we are right on the essential points and that you can even recover legal costs.

Sure, if you are fundamentally right, it can become unproblematic in terms of costs. The only question then is how long it will drag on! But maybe there will be a way to bring the whole thing to a sufficiently good end without court etc.

Yes, that’s how I understood it too, but simply executing in wood instead of concrete is kind of strange. Hadn’t you noticed that yet?

Actually, they called about it once, saying they’d prefer to do it that way. But there is no written additional agreement / price reduction for it. The expert thinks it should be cheaper and requires a written additional agreement and cannot be done just "on request." I hadn’t even had the issue on my radar. The expert only noticed the deviation from the contract on site on his own.

But I have little to no concerns about the matter.

So there is a dent in one spot, right?

Yes.

Still, I can’t simply approve the stripping without being able to assess the statics, the insulation, etc. And if not even the expert can approve it since he can’t assess it, we now just have to see what they propose and will do.

The thing with the doors, thresholds, etc. is way too complex and unmanageable for me. I’m curious what the lawyer says about it, and ideally he should sort it out in a legally enforceable way with the expert or just say “tough luck” if he can’t do anything.

But maybe we’ll find a way to bring the whole thing to a reasonably good conclusion without court, etc..

I’m assuming that, and a good lawyer will strive for it. If we are in the right, the general contractor will also give in; otherwise, he has to pay €75 for each day of delay.

Instead of "peeling" the uneven wall, can't it be evened out with plaster if it's only about 1-1.5 cm? With gypsum plaster that would probably be borderline thick, but then you could upgrade to lime-cement plaster. That might even be the more economical option.

The fact that with high thermal insulation, filled Poroton nobody willingly wants to raise their hand to approve manipulations to it is, in my opinion, no real surprise. It's such fragile stuff. If you nibble on one of the filled chambers, you already have half the contents in your hand. Working with precision is simply difficult with these bricks if you want to adjust them manually. I got to see this yesterday at the future neighbor's place.

The chambers of the Poroton are not filled. Apparently the budget version.

Can't you level the uneven wall with plaster instead of "peeling" it, if it's only about 1-1.5 cm?

They said then the window appearance would no longer fit, if I remember correctly.

That has nothing to do with saving ....

but just using wood instead of concrete like that is strange.

Because of the energy saving regulations, one has to rethink: in the past, this would have simply been carried through in front of both building parts. Here, however, it would have been necessary to incorporate "Isokörbe" in front of the house if the floor slab had simply been cantilevered. Prefabricating the wooden construction is already the significantly more favorable solution – also technically. On construction sites, there is generally the attitude that "settlement is done at the end," i.e. only the result visible in the finished plastered state counts. Owners wandering around construction sites measuring were apparently much rarer in the past; the builders are not yet trained for that.