Hold the architect liable for faulty planning?

Hello everyone, we are building on a hillside property in the Rhineland. A single-family house with a basement. The maximum permitted ridge height from the street side is 12 meters. Since we are building with a staggered shed roof, we reach that height. Our plan was to be able to go directly from the terrace door into the garden on ground level. The architect did mention that the garden was "not completely level," but nothing more.

We now have the ground floor based on that. To get out from the terrace, about 150 cm has to be excavated!!! In other words: we are hanging way too low in the slope!

My question: Shouldn't the architect have pointed out to us that a variant with a different roof (lower, e.g., gable roof) would have been more sensible for the property? Then we could have built higher and more or less gone out on ground level.

Plans, building application, etc. are all correct. But as a layperson, do you have to realize that it looks this drastic in reality?

In addition, the architect said that the house with the shed roof would cost "only" 5,000 euros more than with a normal roof. But when you calculate the extremely deep excavation, which otherwise would have been lower, and the immeasurable costs for garden landscaping (overcoming 1.50 m to the back, 2 meters to the left neighbor!!!), we are definitely talking about a whole different amount of additional costs here!!!!

Moreover, we are significantly lower than the neighbors, which is really not nice.

Has anyone had similar experiences? Is it worth involving a lawyer and claiming damages or at least securing a contribution from the architect towards the exterior costs?

We are totally desperate!

Were there no views / section drawings in which the terrain was depicted?!?

So 10 or 20 cm not recognizable as a layperson? Okay. But simply overlooking 150-200 cm in the planning phase? I'm not sure if there is even a [Pack-an] involved. However, this is just a layperson's opinion.

Of course, we were aware that the terrain is hilly and also that we have to intercept to the neighbor. But these "extreme" height differences are not visible on the plans. I just feel poorly advised. The architect should have a) pointed out that we cannot go outside on the ground level as repeatedly emphasized. It was clear that the terrain rises afterward. But not that we first have to excavate 150 cm to get out!! b) He should have informed us about the additional costs.

I wouldn't have much hope of seeing any money from the architect either..

Hello,

The architect did point out that the garden is "not completely level," but nothing more.

Which corresponds to reality, although there is disagreement about the description "not completely level."

My question: Shouldn't the architect have pointed out to us that a version with a different roof (lower, e.g. gable roof) would have been more suitable for the property? Then we could have built higher and more or less stepped out at ground level.

Plans, building application, etc. are all correct. But as a layperson, do you have to recognize that it looks so severe in reality?

The crux is that you signed off all the plans; therefore anyone may assume that you know what you approved – including that the encountered ground heights are known. I know this for sure because you signed the building application and later the working plans, thereby approving them! Even in the preliminary site plan, you could – even as a layperson – have recognized how and at what height your house would be built.

Moreover, the architect said that the house with a monopitch roof would cost "only" 5,000 euros more than with a normal roof. But if you calculate the extremely deep excavation, which would have otherwise been shallower, and the immense costs for the garden landscaping (overcoming 1.50 m to the back, 2 meters to the left neighbor!!!), we are definitely talking about a completely different amount of additional costs!!!!

Furthermore, we are significantly lower than the neighbors, which is really not nice.

Did you insist on a monopitch roof and thereby signal to the architect that any other roof form was out of the question for you? It is impossible to analyze conversations afterward that one did not participate in; furthermore, "hearing" and "understanding" are not necessarily the same things. But there must have been discussion about drainage due to the low position relative to street level? At the latest then, it should have become apparent....?

Has anyone had similar experiences? Is it worthwhile to get a lawyer involved and claim damages or at least obtain a contribution from the architect towards the costs of the outdoor area?

Here it would probably be a case of he-said-she-said – where the signed document still counts in favor of the architect. To what extent a legal dispute "could" be successful can only be determined by a consultation with a lawyer. From painful experience I must unfortunately tell you that in the end only one person "wins," and that won't be you – even in this case

We are totally desperate!

I believe you without question; it will indeed be quite expensive.....

Rhenish regards