Is consulting a building expert shortly before acceptance reasonable?

Hello everyone,

we are currently building a single-family house (solid construction) and are about to complete the final inspection and handover of the keys. The construction is being carried out by a general contractor. TÜV Rheinland supervises the construction through several interim inspections. I am aware that TÜV is commissioned by the general contractor and could therefore certainly be "biased."

We are currently considering whether to hire an external building expert commissioned by us before the final inspection. I wonder if that still makes sense shortly before the inspection. Since the floor is installed, for example, he can no longer draw any conclusions about the screed.

In an initial brief phone call, he told me that he only records apparent issues. However, due to his many years of experience, he certainly notices many things that we would not see at first glance. The costs are around €600.

What is your assessment of this?

We are currently building a single-family house (solid construction) and are shortly before the final acceptance and handover of the keys. The construction is being carried out by a general contractor. TÜV Rheinland is overseeing the construction through several inspections in between. I am aware that TÜV is commissioned by the general contractor and could therefore certainly be "biased."
[...]
In an initial short phone call, he informed me that he only records visually apparent issues. However, due to his many years of experience, he certainly sees many things that we would not see at first glance. The costs are around €600.

That there have been accompanying inspections is good. That the inspector was commissioned by the contractor is less so. That it is TÜV is particularly noteworthy. Every car owner fears their meticulousness. The association lives off this brand image, and the general contractors gladly allow this to reflect on them as apparent proof that they have nothing to hide. This is a win-win situation: the inspection organization thus has fully booked order books, and the construction companies bask in the quality assumption resulting from this prestige. A third win is missing, or rather: a third winner – namely the customer. Therefore:

We are currently considering whether to commission an external building expert appointed by us before the final acceptance. I wonder whether that still makes sense shortly before acceptance. Since the floor is already in place, he, for example, can no longer draw conclusions about the screed.

... quite clearly "yes!" to your own expert, now still better than never. Definitely before you sign the acceptance. This expert should consult the protocols of the TÜV construction supervisor. If the supervision wasn’t just a sham, such protocols exist.

To all readers (and of course also to you, for the next house), it should be emphasized again:
1. General contractors can be good contractors, but despite all the sweet poison of fixed-price promises, they are NOT a good alternative to a procurement procedure after tender (in which, however, GCs are also gladly allowed to participate);
2. only a builder-biased construction manager and accompanying expert can also be a good one; in other legal matters – and this dimension can never be separated here! – one would also not let oneself be represented by the opposing lawyer.

My daughter just had an inspection with an expert. Result: 3 pages densely filled with defects, including replacement of several scratched window panes, replastering of an exterior wall, faulty installation of the rainwater downpipe, etc. The 600 EUR was more than worth it! However, the expert did not see everything (e.g. insufficient slope in the walk-in shower). I think requesting TÜV certificates is a good idea, but you may not know if you will get all of them.

It would have been sensible to address the issue earlier. Now almost all the important things are built over. If no expert has ever looked at it for you, I would still hire one. If too many problems arise, at least you know that a lot of botching was done during construction.

I can only confirm everything the previous speakers said. We recently had a preliminary inspection and there were still massive defects that need to be fixed. The move-in is delayed (once again) by about 2 months. 600€ is not even worth considering - do it!

So definitely hire an independent expert.

Wasn’t TÜV (Süd) the organization that certified a dam in Brazil as "without reservations" and shortly thereafter it broke?

If no expert has ever looked at it for you before, I would still hire one. If too many issues come up, you at least know that there was a lot of botching during construction

Are you suggesting that the defects still visible now could be "representative" to "extrapolate" to those no longer visible? (I would agree with that). So far, it hasn't been that no expert looked at it, but merely a contractor-biased party. He should have documented it anyway, and your own expert should also be shown that (report and photos).

Wasn't TÜV (Süd) the organization that certified a dam in Brazil as “harmless” and shortly thereafter it collapsed?

Holzmann was perfectly healthy, according to the last auditor's report before the bankruptcy. Experts indeed. That's why, as a professional, I trust experts only with keeping my distance [hheh].