House raised higher than approved; additional costs after approval?

Hello,

in another thread I have already described one or the other problem with our developer. I hope I am posting in the right place here, as we are now facing an "official" question. We are building turnkey with a developer and acquire the land including the house after handover in February 2020. The house is currently being "closed up," meaning the shell is complete, the roof is on, and the windows are installed.

The land slopes slightly (!) downwards towards the rear property boundary; however, at the start of construction, the land was heavily filled, so that the foundation slab is now relatively high above the original terrain line. The developer does not provide for securing the loose soil, as this is considered part of the "external facilities." At that time, I did not think much of it, since the developer should know what he is doing. Several garden landscapers have now inspected the property, as we wanted to know what costs (which were not planned) we should expect. It would need to be secured to a height of about 1.70m and additionally filled to achieve a level surface at the height of the foundation slab, overall including tree removal (these are now half buried) and fence installation about 10,000 euros. To legally protect ourselves, I then called the responsible building authority to inquire about possible requirements (yes, in our case permits are required from 2.00m). By chance, I spoke with exactly the officer handling our building application, we had a conversation and—long story short—it turned out that the developer applied for the construction incorrectly! The submitted documents do not match the current actual condition. The building authority feels "deceived" and will summon the developer for a hearing; furthermore, there will now be requirements imposed on the developer to secure the property.

My question now is: Do we actually have to bear the costs for the securing ourselves anyway? Exactly the same plans that we signed in the notarized contract were submitted for the building application. A construction plan with the (obviously only subsequently measured) actual terrain slope was only available to us after the notarized contract and building permit at the start of construction. We actually see the obligation with the developer, as he handed over the faulty plans both to the building authority and to us as buyers.

Has anyone maybe had a similar case?

Thanks and best regards

Did you buy [schlüsselfertig]? Then problem BT

Yes, that is turnkey from the BT. Nevertheless, it is all a bit unfortunate. For the developer, it now looks as if you have reported him to the building authority... Regarding the filling, look in the contract to see what is owed there. If a garden on the same level as the base slab is owed, it is his matter.

Well, I don't know if you can call that tattling. The person responsible at the building authority was just surprised by my question about such a high reinforcement and asked exactly where our property is located... And one thing led to another. He was then directly at the construction site the next day and contacted us again with the information that this was definitely not approved. The plans in our contract, as mentioned, all show no slope; only the work plan AFTER the contract shows a marked elevation. Otherwise, nothing is explicitly specified in the contract, except that we have to take care of the design of the outdoor facilities ourselves. However, I don't necessarily understand that to include the cost coverage for an additional permit for property reinforcement. After all, the BT caused this themselves and applied incorrectly. And in addition, they sold us the property incorrectly, because such an elevation was never mentioned beforehand.

In another thread, I have already described one or the other problem with our developer. [...]
We are building turnkey with a developer and will acquire the plot including the house after handover in February 2020.

Meanwhile, it is at least legally clear that you purchased from a developer. But considering both threads overall, I get the impression that the purchased house and the house currently being built will not match. That means I see the development not leading to what you should have in your hands according to plan in the end.

Now there are further problems that, in my assessment, are likely to economically pressure the developer: these hybrids, who themselves do not really know how far they are developer and how far they are general contractor, often do not have the appropriate capital base. It would probably be advisable if a consulted lawyer was also knowledgeable in insolvency law. Get used to the idea that getting out of the contract unscathed and having to start the building dream anew elsewhere would be a relatively fortunate option.

Meanwhile it is at least legally clear that you have bought from a property developer. But looking at both threads as a whole, I get the impression that the purchased house and the house currently being built will not correspond to each other. That is, I do not see the construction developing into what you should ultimately have in your hands as planned.

I cannot say anything about that at this point, the construction is progressing steadily and there have been no delays so far. Only the interior walls do not necessarily correspond to what one would expect.

Now problems are arising that, in my assessment, could economically pressure the property developer: these hybrids, who themselves do not know exactly how much they are a property developer and how much a general contractor, often do not have the appropriate capital foundation. It would probably be advantageous if a consulted lawyer were also knowledgeable in insolvency law. Get used to the idea that getting out of the contract unscathed and having to start the building dream anew elsewhere would be a relatively fortunate option.

The developer currently has various construction sites ongoing, we have visited some of them, and apparently the houses are being completed.
Our main concern here (in this thread) is the quite uncertain issue of the faulty building permit, and it could be that some have encountered such a case before. We just want to be able to somewhat estimate what might be coming our way.