Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

We have a response to the expert report. Point 2.4 is undisputed (it was only unknown to the expert), everything else is disputed.

2.1 Situation regarding base waterproofing:

The base waterproofing represents a deviation from DIN 18533.

As mentioned on site, the variant chosen by us is commonly executed in practice.

There are no disadvantages; the pressure-resistant Styrodur panel firmly connected to the base slab, which is also used as insulation under heavily loaded floor slabs, is an equivalent plaster carrier to one made of concrete or masonry.

There is no defect in this regard. This is especially true because damage to the insulation when subsequently installing the insulation cannot be ruled out.

2.2 Situation regarding the rear facade:

This was incorrectly summarized by me.

The mentioned spot shows an inaccuracy of 1.5 cm on an area of 0.8 m², which is accordingly not peeled off, as I initially stated, but is compensated with the base plaster, since the maximum thickness of the base plaster is not exceeded.

Thus, this is not a defect, but a not yet completed service which will be executed flush again during the exterior plastering work.

2.3 Situation regarding the cable entry in the garage.

This electrical installation is not part of our service.

2.4 Situation regarding the street-front canopy

The executed lightweight construction of the canopy over the entrance door represents a deviation from the construction service description,

however, according to the planning protocol dated 01.12.2017, the canopy construction was changed from concrete design to lightweight construction and specified accordingly (see protocol dated 01.12.2017).

2.5 Situation regarding the terrace exit doors at the building rear on the 1st upper floor

The exit from the finished floor is 15 cm even though 20 cm is claimed in the report. Further dimensional correction should be noted, namely the dimension of 2.01 m is a shell construction dimension, thus resulting in a finished dimension of 1.99 m.

With regard to the note on the passage height of the terrace doors, it should be pointed out that the passage height of the door from top of finished floor to bottom of frame results in 1.97 m. The exit usually takes place over the threshold onto the walkway surface of the corridor and not, as assumed here, at the expense of damage to the threshold wood and the lip seal on the window frame. Moreover, the support surface of the terrace door frame with approximately 6 cm does not offer a secure footing. Ergo, such an assumption is unrealistic.

As a note: The reference of storey and interior door heights to the clear passage height of the terrace doors remains unclear to us. It is irrelevant whether the clear height of the terrace door is 1.82 m or 1.99 m, since the exit usually takes place over the threshold and the frame wood is not used as a support surface improperly. We had already pointed out the damages arising from this.

The issue was discussed extensively. The disadvantages of the threshold solution and the resulting inconveniences were pointed out and included in the contract under 1.7.10. Other solutions are not feasible given the construction progress.

It will be interesting how it turns out with the base waterproofing:

The expert states:

"The waterproofing defects in the base do not only represent a formal defect. There is a danger here that, for example, due to the slope location of your object or the future increased rainfall, water may penetrate your property contrary to its intended purpose. Even though basically the lowest water exposure “ground moisture” is assumed in the base area, which a current waterproofing execution would presumably withstand, it cannot be safely excluded that this will remain so in the future. Based on the standards I cited as well as my professional experience, rework or upgrading of the base waterproofing is necessary, especially since a compliant execution of the base waterproofing is not present."


By the way, the pipe vent would be a Conel, not a Durgo.
Conel Drain – you can find it on the internet. I think it can be used as well.

Sounds partly exciting!

Regarding 2.1: That could indeed become interesting!
Regarding 2.2: That would be a solution that was also discussed here; if the plaster can be adjusted accordingly, that would be wonderful.
Regarding 2.3: Who carried out the electrical installation? Is it part of their scope of work, and if not, why does the expert criticize this, or should you have given a hint?
Regarding 2.4: You should have probably informed the expert that this was changed in the planning.
Regarding 2.5: Which measurement is actually correct in the end could still be interesting. So how does the expert come to 20cm and they to 15cm? Generally, this also seems to be an issue where there was some back and forth during planning. At least the disadvantages of the threshold were referenced, etc., so I would be more cautious than the lawyer about classifying the height as a planning error. The opposing side could argue that it was discussed but simply not desired.

So 2.1 is certainly the biggest issue, but with 2.3 and 2.5 the question also arises as to where exactly the culprit(s) should be sought.

Regarding 2.1.: That indeed might still become interesting!

If it was not executed according to the rules, then it was not executed according to the rules. I see no room for interpretation there. I will continue to maintain the position of my expert.

Regarding 2.2.: That would be a solution that was also mentioned here, if it can be resolved with the plaster that would be wonderful.

They are welcome to do that. If it complies with the rules and does not affect me, that’s great.

Regarding 2.3.: Who carried out the electrical installation? Is it part of their scope of work and if not, why does the expert criticize it or shouldn’t you have pointed that out?

Electrical work was contracted separately. The general contractor has nothing to do with that and I see that as completely uncritical.

Regarding 2.5.: Which measurement is actually correct in the end could also become interesting. So how does the expert come to 20cm and they to 15cm? In general, this also seems to be a topic where there was back and forth during planning. At least the disadvantages of the threshold were pointed out, etc., so I would be more cautious than the lawyer about whether the height qualifies as a planning error. The opposing party could argue that it was discussed but simply not desired.

The expert simply measured where the door opening begins and mentally added the finished floor and screed on top. We just don’t get to 15cm that way.

The planning stated that there would be a threshold here and that is also in the contract. This is not disputed at all. Why a flush execution was not planned and discussed back then, I no longer know. The lawyer says they should have given a layman the hint that everything in the house is raised (wall heights, interior doors) or widened (hallway, stairways) and that the terrace doors represent a small standard dimension in contrast.

Yes, doors and windows were discussed. We even had the general contractor at our home and said we can well imagine the windows the way we have them. They are about 2.30m high and the regular windows are also significantly larger. But we failed to keep track of the measurements or we didn’t know that rough construction dimensions were indicated in the execution plan. Even the specialist lawyer for construction and architectural law says he doesn’t understand that. If the contract states a height of 201cm, that should be considered a priority, he says. And the detailed plan also lacks a corresponding legend for rough construction height etc.

In the end, what was said by whom cannot be proven anyway. The lawyer asked if anyone other than my wife was present when we showed the large door and window elements at our home. But no one was. The general contractor will have the same problem when he claims to have informed us about this and that. It simply isn’t true that we wanted such small openings/elements. Apart from our wish formulation as described, there was no discussion about window dimensions but only about the threshold issue.

we didn’t know that the execution plan includes raw construction dimensions. Even the specialist lawyer for construction and architectural law says he doesn’t understand it. If the contract states a height of 201cm, that is initially the priority to consider, he says. And the working plan also lacks a corresponding legend for raw construction height, etc.

Honestly, I haven’t come across any working or execution plans that refer to finished dimensions. The consistent use of raw construction dimensions is the status quo here in my opinion, so I would at least view the lawyer’s statements critically. After all, the execution plan should include the size of the opening into which the window/door element will later be installed, and not the size of the window sash/door leaf. And a mix of raw and finished dimensions in a single plan is of course completely unacceptable.

It simply isn’t true that we wanted such small passages/elements.

Well, in case of dispute it’s less about what you wanted and more about what you ordered according to the contract and contract planning and approved by signing the working plan.

As much as I wish you a clean outcome in this matter... But it will be very difficult to blame the general contractor here.

To be honest, I have not yet come across any shop or execution planning that refers to finished dimensions. In my opinion, the consistent use of rough construction dimensions is the status quo here, so I would at least view the lawyer's statements critically. After all, the execution planning should include the size of the opening into which the window/door element is to be installed later, and not the size of the window sash/door leaf. And a mixture of rough construction and finished dimensions in one plan is of course absolutely not acceptable.

Full agreement.

After all, the execution planning must include the size of the opening in which the window/door element is to be installed later, and not the size of the window sash/door leaf. And mixing rough construction/finished dimensions in one plan is of course absolutely not acceptable.

So if you can make sense of that.... respect....

Neither the expert nor the lawyer can make sense of it for me and therefore they doubt the contract-compliant execution. On the one hand, a parapet height is drawn in the dressing room and a "rough construction dimension" analogous to the terrace doors. So I have to assume that I have the parapet height + the 2.01 m from the rough construction dimension there. On the other hand, however, not parapet height + 2.01 m was executed here but "the same" 2.01 m that I also have in the other rooms with terrace DOORS, where no parapet height is drawn.

For the other windows on the upper floor and also downstairs, I do have rough construction dimensions of the windows listed + additionally the parapet height. So why should it be different on the terrace side now? But it is. They do not consistently follow their own execution planning and there are contradictions in it.

And if I put this in the context of the contract text with 201 cm door height, I consider it quite possible that a judge would follow this argument.

And what about the 15 cm threshold in the contract? Apparently, they mean the threshold from outside to inside. But I assumed the threshold from inside to outside. When I read something about a threshold, I assume that is the height I have to step over at most. What sense does it make to simply insert the threshold here without fixation, which is the lower one when viewed from both sides? Especially since, technically speaking, a 15 cm threshold inside would have been perfectly possible?

In short; this is simply not properly regulated.