Heating installation company - Achieved more than agreed

Hello everyone,

I received the final invoice yesterday from my heating contractor who installed the heating, sanitary system, and controlled residential ventilation for us.

The company was commissioned based on a complete offer that contains the following clause:
Our offer is a COMPLETE OFFER which guarantees that no additional costs will arise for you regarding our services.

However, the written commissioned offer differs from the final invoice in two items:

[*]200-liter buffer tank for heating with insulation (and heating circuit efficiency circulator pump for individual room control).
[*]Circulation line with pump

The additional costs amount to approximately €2000 net. Both items were neither verbally nor written commissioned.

When the additional buffer tank was silently installed in March, I called the company on the same day and asked what this new "device" was all of a sudden. I was then only told that this was now a requirement from the manufacturer and that the heating system only works this way. Of course, it costs more – at that point, I already verbally refused to pay for it. However, there was no response but only a written offer that I never signed.

Then, during the briefing on the heating system, I was told that we have a circulation line with a pump. Surprised, I told the installer that I knew nothing about it and had not commissioned it. He just said that he was giving the briefing and is not aware of the commissioning.
-> We have KFW funding (calculation was done without the circulation set – doesn’t this change the rating)?

My question now is – what chances do I have that I don’t have to pay for these two items, or what do you think about it and what options do I have?

Of course, I will contact the company, I just wanted to know beforehand how I should best react to such a situation. At first, I was quite disappointed that something was just imposed on us without asking us first.

Thank you and best regards
Stefan

In principle, only what has been ordered will be paid for. It would be quite something if extensions were contracted unilaterally.

The problem, however, is that the contractor will try to "foist" an alleged order on you. The way you present it suggests that you have at least received commercial training and know how to express yourself well. So from now on, communicate EVERYTHING ONLY in writing with proof of receipt.

Sit down with a specialist lawyer for construction law and discuss the next steps. No more independent activities that are not coordinated with the lawyer.

Your chances are pretty good, but your few lines are simply not enough for a proper assessment. It must be determined from the documents exactly where something went wrong or was inaccurate in the process and what contracts actually exist.

The plumbers in the first house also did more than they had to/should have. The house manufacturer (prefabricated house) refused to pay and neither did we. We haven't heard anything from them since :p Bad luck for them, I would say.

The KFW calculation can certainly change with the circulation line. I would insist on a correct implementation according to the specifications for heating load calculation / Kfw.

Hello,

In principle, only what has been ordered will be paid for. It would be even better if extensions were contracted unilaterally.

That is of course basically correct...

... just - are you really sure that the OP cannot be blamed for contributory negligence, since he only complained verbally (which might be interesting for evidence), otherwise tolerated it? Failed to insist in writing on the compliance with the contractually owed service of the sanitary, heating & air conditioning trade?

I advise a bit of caution here before the OP - also because of Manu's post, which brought completely different conditions (unless the OP's BU is sounding the same tune) - gets carried away in a triumphant mood ;)

Rhenish regards

Are you really sure that the OP cannot be blamed with contributory negligence, since he only complained verbally (which might become interesting for the evidence) and otherwise tolerated it?

Of course I'm not sure, dear Bauexperte. ;) That's why the following statements were important:

but your few lines are simply not enough for a proper assessment. It must be determined from the documents exactly where something went wrong or was inaccurate in the process and what contracts actually exist.

That is EXACTLY the problem. Certainly there is a work contract (whatever you may want to call it with a heading), but presumably there are some things that can be interpreted as additions. The regulations for the conclusion of a contract are very, very simple. However, not the proof of when who may have said what to whom and with what content. That is why in house building / house buying the principle always applies: "He who writes, stays." ;) By the way, I am a follower of the Indian principle "Watma hatma, hatma," which can also be applied to documents / letters / emails etc. I want to be able to show things, quite literally. ;)