Floor plan planning shortly before submitting the building application

Did you type that out or c&p? For a profession that professionally documents investigation results, the latter would be a disaster. I mean: "vertal", really sir??

Are there as many spelling mistakes in the report itself as in his emails? If so, I would wonder whether he takes his work just as seriously.

Did you type that out or copy & paste?

Copy & paste, I don’t suffer from dyslexia. The report looks somewhat better but still lacks proper punctuation, sentence structure, etc. My father-in-law’s drinking buddies manage better, don’t they 11ant?

I had another expert on the shortlist before. But I didn’t choose him because his “sales pitch” basically consisted of proudly showing photos and commenting on them..... I even went to court with the developer because of him..... it was about contract consultations..... he basically scared people away from building with anyone since he already knew all the consulted companies from previous court cases. But he said that was normal and nothing to worry about. You just have to see things through consistently. That felt a bit extreme to me and I got the impression he was a nitpicker and someone who deliberately seeks conflict. I don’t need someone who makes a mountain out of a molehill but someone who points out major mistakes on the construction site and is able to identify defects concretely and bring about an amicable solution with the general contractor.

This is just infuriating!

Regarding the disagreements about the 200m clearance height for the terrace door, I’ve now written to the building authority and confronted them with the different positions. After all, they approved the building application and should be able to comment on it. And if what the expert writes then turns out to be hot air, I think I’ll call it quits because my money and energy aren’t worth that.

But I’m also worried about how I can really make a bullseye with choosing an expert who will take over (and who will then have to familiarize themselves with the matter for a lot of money — general contractor contract etc.).

What you wish for can be done by an expert without days of work and without court.

Our expert also did that. Not sealed properly. After consultation with the manufacturer, it is done this and that way. Agent xy is to be applied according to the instructions on the package.

However, something like
does not comply with the standard. A replacement as requested by the builder is disproportionate. I suggest a reduction according to table xy.

Find an independent expert approved by the court. They do not make demands that would not also hold up in court and in return they do not demand less.

Our expert also did that. Not sealed properly. After consultation with the manufacturer, it is done this way. Agent xy is to be applied according to the instructions on the package.

Well, here he writes that no instructions for action are to be given under any circumstances. It's "vertal".

I mean: "vertal", really sir??

That would probably mean "greenish"

With our inspection reports, we put our finger on the wounds to move the other side to a correction.

It's just stupid if, first, the "other side" – which I would rather call the contracting party here – does not find out where exactly they are supposed to move for correction; and second, if you can immediately see that the expert's expertise for constructive pointers is probably not sufficient after all.

More "verbal" than the spelling, I find that the expert refers on the one hand to DIN 18101 – I quote from its "blurb": "This standard does not apply to - exterior doors according to DIN EN 14351-1, - fire and smoke protection doors according to DIN EN 16034, - burglary-resistant doors according to DIN EN 1627, - smoke protection doors according to DIN 18095 1 with general building authority test certificate (abP), - fire protection doors with general building authority approval (abZ)." and on the other hand also disregards the importance for the fire department:

DIN 18101 is a standard for the purpose of being able to obtain the frame and the door leaf of room doors from different manufacturers. The "second escape route" is about a firefighter fitting through there in protective gear and with a breathing apparatus. The required dimension for this is 90 x 120 cm clear opening. He apparently confuses this here with an access door through which a crew can march.

I would feel safer about being taken seriously with Hein Blöd at my side than with such an expert.

because he already knew all the consulted companies from court. But he thought that was normal and not a reason for concern.

You should have taken him, because he is right. Today it is calculated so that you save a little more by cutting corners than you have to make up when caught. This is taken sportingly, the expert can safely meet you in the dark afterwards.

After consultation with the manufacturer, it will be done this way and that way. Medium xy is to be applied according to the instructions on the packaging.

That's how it goes and that's sufficient. The general contractor can work with that. After all, you want first, if possible, to resolve the problems out of court; and if it goes to court, to argue about the matter and not about the expert's competence.

then I think I will end it because my money and energy are too precious for that.

Yes, please ask for the final invoice and pay it without deduction – in my opinion, you wouldn't be able to reduce it by more than what legal advice regarding the reduction costs.