Invoice reduction possible yes no

Hello, we had our house completely renovated inside last year (water pipes, bathroom, heating) by a professional craftsman. In this process, we also had everything newly tiled and wallpapered. We moved in December and in January a leak was discovered under the bathtub on the first floor. This leak caused the plaster in the toilet to become so damp that it had to be removed. Our wallpaper has water stains in many places. Since January, we have been trying to have all the defects repaired by the craftsman. Drying devices were provided to us, but they did not necessarily help; then a special company came and installed a fan heater under the bathtub two weeks ago. My question now is, since we have not yet paid the invoice in full, are we allowed to reduce the payment? If yes, by how much.

Hello DanielaSG,

why has the craftsman still not been paid the full invoice after all 8 months? If he provided services around October/November last year and you moved in December, the invoice was due at the latest in December, right?

Hello 6Richtige,

we have made advance payments. We received the final invoice from the craftsman in February and made payments here as well, but not for the full amount. We withheld a partial amount with the note that the invoice will only be paid in full once all defects (which, as already mentioned, have still been open since January) are fixed. Unfortunately, it is also the case with the craftsman that we constantly have to follow up and beg for appointments for something to happen. We are slowly – which I hope is also understandable – fed up. We had everything newly renovated and still have a construction site, and are therefore considering whether we can reduce the invoice and commission another craftsman to now fix the defects promptly.

Hello DanielaSG,

So far, the client has been able to withhold triple the costs of an anticipated defect rectification. Since January, this excessive surcharge has come to an end. The Demand Security Act provides that, as a rule, only double the costs may be withheld. If a defect in the contractor’s performance becomes apparent after acceptance, the client has a right to refuse performance (= right of retention) under § 320 para. 1 of the Building Code, due to his defect claim against the contractor’s claim for payment.
Considering that the client has accepted the performance, it would not be justified to deny the contractor the claim for full payment. For this reason, the right to refuse performance exists only to the extent of an amount necessary to compel the contractor to remedy the defect. This amount cannot be limited to the simple amount of the defect rectification costs, as this would not exert sufficient pressure on the contractor. Rather, it is generally appropriate to set the right of retention at an amount exceeding the simple amount of the defect rectification costs. If the contractor does not want to risk significant deductions from his claim to payment, he will thus (indirectly) be forced to remedy the defect.
With the Demand Security Act, which came into force on 01.01.2009, the legislator has set the surcharge pressure at “as a rule double the costs required for the elimination of the defect (§ 641 para. 3 of the Building Code).