Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

Just a stupid question: Why is the rough construction dimension for the uneven terrace doors no longer changeable?

No one says it is no longer changeable. The problem we have is a cost and responsibility issue. Today, I am being shown what the whole thing would cost (five-figure). The general contractor excludes any cost participation. They do not respond to the lawyer’s statements regarding execution defects / open contract interpretation as well as planning errors and act as if these statements do not even exist. They are also not trying to refute them.

The only thing that is technically no longer possible without further ado is a widening of the elements (which I would have wished for the bedroom). However, it is quite possible to achieve a threshold-free solution through a redesign of the terrace structure and a clear passage width of about 201 cm (i.e., the passage dimension that the lawyer demanded analogously to the contract).

It is a pity that no one is willing to meet halfway here. Recently, I proposed as a compromise that they pay for the old windows and their removal and I pay for everything that comes now. But they don’t want that and say the windows belong in the trash.

There are basically only two options. Either take the money in hand and avoid all further conflicts.

or

Postpone the issue to the acceptance and then clarify it purely on a cost basis while the execution remains as it is.

Regarding the kitchen: Have you shown the kitchen planner the necessary boxing? I could imagine that he would retouch it much more elegantly than the GU’s drywall builder.

No, I haven’t. The kitchen installer wants to come only after the plastering is done, then measure, and only then sit again in the kitchen studio and discuss everything.

The rough opening dimensions of the doors were indeed in your execution plans. I don't understand why the general contractor should now change that at his own expense, or did I misunderstand that?

Best regards
Sabine

I don't understand why the general contractor should now change that at his own expense, or did I misunderstand that?

This is a contractual and legal question. In the contract, he guarantees terrace exit doors with a height of 201 cm with a 15 cm threshold. According to the expert and lawyer, one can therefore expect a passage height of 201 cm, because while other dimensions refer to a rough construction measurement, this is explicitly not the case for the terrace doors. And according to the expert, the 15 cm threshold is also not met. It is currently about 37 cm. 16 cm screed plus parquet. That way we don’t get to 15 cm.

Furthermore, the expert and lawyer assume a presumed planning error, that such a small door is planned in a house like this, of which the layperson could not even see when commissioning what glass area, passage dimensions, etc. could be expected.... according to the lawyer, it would have been necessary to explicitly point out that everything in the house was raised (front door, interior doors, story heights) and that at the same time a terrace door with below-average dimensions was planned.

Putting aside who has to pay for it in the end. It’s clear the doors have to go because they’re crap and would annoy you every day. So, maximum widening and lowering of the threshold - new doors and then see how the damage is spread out. The windows are junk, that’s certain. But crying about it forever won’t help. Get rid of them and move on.

If the casing in the kitchen isn’t deeper than 70, I would plan a tall cabinet in the corner and at the same time have the thing on the right clad in the veneer of the kitchen cabinets. Up to 70 depth, you could have an over-deep countertop planned and bring the cabinets forward or plan deeper ones, which is often a gain. So it would be important that they stay as small as possible with the casing, if you ask me.

Accordingly, maximum widening and lowering of the threshold - new doors and then see how the damage is distributed.

That’s not how it works legally! If they send me a price offer now and I say "please do it," then I cannot come back later and see how the costs are distributed. That is not legally feasible. I would agree with such a solution, but the general contractor won’t go along with it. They will only do it if I confirm the cost coverage.

Also, the elements can no longer be widened (or only with an effort that, according to their own expert, would be unjustifiable). Widening would have been even more important to me than raising, because in my opinion it brings in more light and simply looks better than such meager Mickey Mouse elements.

But endlessly complaining afterward brings nothing. Get it out and be done with it.

I’m not doing that. I’m now waiting to see what they offer and then I will coordinate it with the lawyer. I suspect, legally speaking, it’s better to just let them carry it out if they are not open to a compromise solution, and then you can still carry out the whole ordeal at the acceptance stage. By then it will mostly be about financial matters, but that’s just how it is. There would still be about 17 cm possible in height, which they told me - in connection with a threshold-less solution, which in turn requires extra costs for a different terrace build-up.

I don't know how tight the financial situation is. But if I have the choice to get the thing done with +10k the way I want it or to get 2k reimbursed from the GU, then I don't care about the money. At least more than I would sell the whole house because of it.