Liability question - fire protection correction in a semi-detached house

To me, this sounds overall like a disguised general contractor (GC) and a construction contract with architectural services (and thus rather not an architect’s contract with the corresponding professional liability insurance).

Here I do not understand the sequence of events: the building authority has to impose conditions already in the permit, construction may only begin after approval, so I do not understand the "follow-up" afterward; the separation (on which side, by the way, the ridge beam* is here practically "shared"?) should have been implemented before the roofing.
*) Your semi-detached house is somewhat atypical in that the halves meet at the ridge, see

The architect must also observe the fulfillment of fire protection regulations taking into account the aforementioned particularity and must anticipate the condition for the building permit. There are no "additional costs" in the sense of the construction contract, as compliance with building regulations and the resulting requirements are, even without separate mentions in the construction specifications or the like, of course part of the construction contract and thus also of any flat-rate price. The GC simply miscalculated here. The architect "made a mistake," but the building authority reacted appropriately by issuing the permit with the condition instead of rejecting it due to the unmet fire protection regulations. The architect should have already included the separation in the plan, and for the GC it was an integral part of the agreed work. Most semi-detached houses have halves adjoining at the gable side; presumably, the GC here built a transverse twin for the first time ;-)

Hey, thanks a lot first of all for your detailed answer. I interpret this as meaning that the whole thing could be booked under "entrepreneurial risk"? I find it somewhat cheeky that the GC here tries to exploit the customers' ignorance. He has done this several times before, but the situation is different now. The house is finished, we live in it, and still have money owed to him (because we haven’t done final acceptance yet, among other reasons because the fire protection and roof issues are still far from resolved).

Even though I could sit this out to a certain extent (he also doesn’t budge on the outstanding amount, which is five-figure), I still want the work to be completed and the house to be accepted by the authority.

For understanding, here is a brief summary:
- We had a permit from the authority with the original architect’s plans, which, however, did not show the separation of the houses in the fine details
- It only became apparent during a spontaneous shell acceptance (the inspector came by bike)
- I also told the gentleman why the authority issued a building permit and hadn’t noticed this before or communicated any conditions... I can’t remember the exact wording anymore. It goes without saying, the architect should do his homework, etc.

I have attached the architect’s solution, which was approved by the authority. Now someone just has to do it.

Regarding the semi-detached house itself, it does offer us some advantages that the ridge runs like this and not differently (I’m missing the technical term here)... we were able to install floor-to-ceiling windows in every room upstairs. And the roof slopes only begin at 1.55 m – otherwise, we would have roof slopes and thus only skylights in the rooms upstairs.

The fire protection issue is totally annoying, and ideally, I would like to come to some agreement, but I think he will stick to his opinion, and in the end, a lawyer will have to settle it.

Hey, thanks first of all for your detailed answer. I interpret this as meaning that the whole thing could be recorded under "entrepreneurial risk"?

Yes and no, rather entrepreneurial negligence. The architect (who here, as I understand it, was the disguised BT) must know the fire protection requirements and observe them regardless of whether they are pointed out before the building permit is granted or not. Fire protection is not a "criminal offense on application" ;-) but mandatory.

But just a brief info for understanding:
- we had a permit from the authority with the original architect plans, which, however, did not show the separation of the houses in detail [...]
I have attached the architect's solution, it was approved by the authority as is. Now someone just has to implement it.

Add the previous planning as well.

Hello,

I know from steel and industrial construction that two adjacent, independent buildings or halls can independently burn and collapse (must be able to). To prevent fire spread from one half of the roof to the other, the fire or F90 wall must extend 50 cm above the top edge of the roof covering or the outer edge of the facade.

However, I do not know exactly which DIN standard regulates this and whether there is such a requirement for residential houses.

Constructively, the sketch seems questionable to me. Assuming there is indeed a fire on one side of a house and it partially collapses, the falling rafters would take parts of the Promat cladding with them and the fire would also start on the other side.

Constructively, the sketch seems questionable to me. Assuming that a fire actually occurs on one side of a house and it partially collapses, the falling rafters take parts of the Promat cladding with them and a fire also starts over there.

It is called fireprotection for a good reason, not fireabsolute safety; the devil is in the details. What is required are so-called fire resistance classes—"F90" means, for example, that a component can be exposed to a fire for 90 minutes before it loses its structural function. Here there is probably the same misunderstanding as interpreting the best-before date on food as an expiration date (meaning, assuming uninterrupted proper storage, it should keep an acceptable consistency until then). Of course, the fire protection here is already favorably predisposed by the construction type "o" (house chain interruption at the latest after 50 meters) compared to a factory hall with technical gases already present in the supply lines. Accordingly, the whole effort depends on a smaller bell. If this semi-detached house suffers a fire extending into the second half, the local fire department can handle it alone; neither the district administrator nor the television will come. It will never be a major incident. Transferred to your horror scenario that means: someone in "a test tube in Rosenheim" *ROTFL* *SCNR* looked at the stopwatch to see that the cladding lets the ridge purlin go to hell only in the 91st minute. After the deluge comes the insurance expert ;-)

Hello everyone,

thanks for the contributions. 11ant is right regarding the topic of fire protection, it is about preventing the fire from spreading for a certain period of time (here 90 minutes).

It is also not about sense or nonsense, but about who pays for the fun and what the legal situation behind it looks like, as I am trying to realistically assess my chances for a possible court case.

we moved a few months ago and what I currently can't find in any of the moving boxes are the documents for the building permit. If I find anything, I will submit it here.

We moved a few months ago and what I currently cannot find in any of the moving boxes are the documents for the building permit.

They are not relevant here. Fire protection must be observed - regardless of whether the building authority includes a note about it as a condition in the permit or not. The architect simply should have known that the protective panels need to be installed there - whether drawn in or not. The building authority does not regularly check detailed drawings.

It is not about sense or nonsense, but about who pays for the fun and how the legal situation behind it looks, as I am trying to realistically assess my chances for a possible court case.

You bear no blame regarding the existence and legal status of the fire protection regulations. The disguised BT forgot to account for the panels and integrate them into the construction process. The authority acted appropriately by giving notice of the oversight instead of shutting down the construction site. The fault lies with the architect (of the BT) - he was asleep, you are completely out of it. The BT should try to hold his architect liable (for the additional costs of the subsequent rather than early completion). You can (unless you get a bottle as a lawyer) stay relaxed. You are not responsible for the panels, nor for the additional costs of their subsequent installation.