Lack or no lack

Hello everyone,

we have bought a plot of land (680m²) in the Emsland and want to start building soon.

I was just at the plot and met one of the future neighbors.

After some time, he told me that he had to give me a tip. Half a meter of soil from half of the plot has to/should be removed, as there is only rubble, gravel, and large stones in the soil. This comes from a construction company that laid the roads and sidewalks in the settlement for the city. When they finished their work, they simply spread the leftovers on the plot with bulldozers.

Our purchase contract does say "sold as seen," but we did not do a test drilling to see what is beneath the surface.

Does anyone here know if this is a "defect," or if we just had bad luck and are stuck with the costs for disposal?

Thank you very much for the help.

Best regards

Benjamin

Did the seller prevent you from this or refuse approval for a [Baugrunduntersuchung]?

no.

But I am surprised that a soil investigation should be done in a new housing development when it will be one of the last houses to be built there and it is actually clear that no special foundation is needed. Because to investigate that, I do a soil investigation, not to see whether the city or a company commissioned by the city buries junk.

Well, learned something new again.

Who knows, maybe the Romans also placed a pile of shards right there, then the city would know nothing about it either.

And why shouldn't there be different soil exactly there than next door?

Actually, you should always do a soil investigation so that there are no nasty surprises like described here.

I think "things went wrong" fits best.

Hello,

But I am surprised that one should do a soil investigation in a new development area when it will be one of the last houses to be built there and it is actually clear that no special foundation is needed.

That is a typical layman's mistake!

Even in an almost completely planned/sold/built new development area, a soil report is strongly recommended; we wouldn’t build at all without one!

It can happen – and I have experienced it already – although fortunately rarely – that we encountered different soil conditions when building a complete semi-detached house. It can also be that a water vein runs directly under your property and ... and ... and ...

Rhenish greetings

Hello Benjamin,

we have bought a plot of land (680m²) in the Emsland region and want to start building soon. [...] Half a meter of soil from half of the plot needs/should be removed, as there are only rubble, gravel, and large stones in the soil. This comes from a construction company that paved the streets and sidewalks in the settlement for the city. When they finished the work, they simply spread the leftovers over the plot with bulldozers.

Although our purchase contract states "bought as seen," we did not conduct a test drilling to find out what was beneath the surface.

Does anyone here have expertise to say whether this is a "defect," or if we are just unlucky and have to cover the costs for removal ourselves?

That is not a defect of the property; let me clarify that upfront.

Again from my job – not that long ago: on our client’s plot, soil was missing because another provider (now in insolvency) had simply removed it. We tried to negotiate with the seller (municipality); unfortunately without success, resulting in our client bearing the loss.

What this means for you: unless you can prove the neighbor’s statement, and the subcontractor commissioned by the developer does not voluntarily agree to cover costs, you will also be stuck with the costs. You also bought as seen ;)

Regards from the Rhineland