Heating installation company - Achieved more than agreed

Good day,

By the way, I am a supporter of the Indian principle "Watma hatma, hatma," which is also applicable to documents / letters / emails etc. I want to be able to show things, in the truest sense of the word.

I totally agree with you, aside from the fact that I am way too lazy for anything else.

Before there are misunderstandings: I appreciate your posts here, your dry humor of course, above all your rhetorical skills. However ....

... please also think of the naive minds here when you reply ;)

Rhenish greetings

I appreciate your contributions here, your dry humor of course, but above all your rhetorical skills.

Thanks for the compliments, darling. :D

However ....

I suspected there had to be a catch somewhere.

... please also consider the naive minds here when you respond

I allow myself to do that much more than it probably appears. Legal matters can often be presented very easily in a simplified way. Of course, the quality of the statement suffers as a result. At the same time, such statements are also a bit "embellished." On one hand, it seems important to give courage here as well. The chances of success in construction lawsuits are often not that bad for the builder. They are usually the layperson and are not familiar with the subject. Much higher demands are placed on the professionalism of the contractor. It is therefore necessary to provide sufficient security for a possible willingness to dispute.

On the other hand, things are often highly complex. The legal situation after a true flood of calls, conversations, emails, letters, SMS is hardly assessable anymore. Often new information only gradually appears, which was deliberately or accidentally not communicated. Here, a little fear is needed to emphasize that the activities from the start of disputes are no longer to be performed by the builders. One can very, very easily make really serious mistakes here that can cost hundreds or thousands of euros. So the almost stereotypical reference to consult a specialized lawyer.

I think the path can be clearly followed this way. And ... we will not leave the terrain to the so few members whose candle on a cake shines just a little ... less brightly .... The lowlifes are a special caste. They often disappear as quickly as they crawled out from under their rock. ;)

Hello,


That is basically correct ...

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

I caution a bit of care here before the OP - also considering Manu's post, which brought completely different conditions (unless OP's BU is blowing the same horn) - gets carried away in a victorious mood ;)

Rhineland greetings

The OP only has to object (=complain) if too little or defective performance was provided. I see the burden of proof rather with the contractor. He must prove that additional services were ordered. If he cannot do so, he can either remove the additional items again or leave everything as it is and charge only for the originally agreed performance.
The situation is different if the OP sees a defect. If he wants the circulation pump removed again, he must deal with the question of why he did not immediately complain after recognizing the "defect" (or with the question whether the verbal complaint to the installer is sufficient).

Hello,

Thanks for the flowers, honey.

You're welcome :D

And ... we are not going to leave the terrain to so few members, the candle on a cake only shines a little ... less brightly ....

I am also an optimist by nature :D

Rhenish greetings

Hello everyone,

thank you very much for the many responses, they helped me a lot!

I have now sent a letter to the company in which I describe my point of view in detail. I especially addressed the contract clauses and the payments made, and the fact that additional devices were installed without our knowledge and without our oral and written approval, causing additional costs. Specifically, the installation of a circulation set that worsens the energy balance.

Since the additional costs are rather small in relation to the total investment, I consider this to be the best solution at the moment. After all, these are just people you can talk to without immediately threatening with a lawyer. However, I currently insist on the contractually agreed amount.

Now we have to wait and see what the company thinks of my proposal. Somehow we will come to an agreement (I hope) :-)

Thanks again for your help, I will get back to you when there is a result!

Sit down with a specialist lawyer for construction law and discuss the next steps. No further actions on your own that are not coordinated with the lawyer.

I think that "threatening with the lawyer" was not meant here, but rather coordination with the same.

Now we have to wait and see what the company thinks of my proposal. Somehow we will come to an agreement (I hope)

In this regard, it would probably be advisable to be able to assess the legal situation well. Especially if one (unfortunately) does not come to an agreement. ;) Only then do the disputes start and all statements and correspondence come to light. In unclear situations, it will then have to be interpreted what the parties presumably intended to agree on and what now applies.

Have fun with the hobby jurisprudence. ;)