Oh man guys, I don’t even know how to write this now. It doesn’t really affect me (yet), but it will inevitably happen...
But let’s start from the beginning. Those who have been following this thread for a while already noticed that the shell constructors pulled off a trick that wouldn’t even happen to my 9-year-old when playing with Legos. discovered in a casual progress photo that the overlap measurements (i.e. the offset of the joints from one row to the row above/below) were not observed in one course of bricks. Here is the internal link to the spot where I took some more detailed photos: https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/lage-stadtvilla-oder-efh-auf-500-m2-rechteck.33505/post-467788
The bottom line was then a three to four week construction standstill until I agreed with the general contractor (GC) to accept it as it is, provided a safety certificate from the structural engineer and additional measures against cracks and moisture ingress were taken. One of the additional measures was to use a crack-bridging sealing slurry in the base area (funny enough, the DIN standard requires this in that area anyway).
Now I had another inspection with my building expert where this exact sealing was re-examined. The findings were: 1. The sealing slurry used is not crack-bridging (i.e. it is rigid) and is applied over the EPDM membrane of the window sealing, which might be okay but needs to be confirmed by the manufacturer’s compatibility certification. 2. The sealing is not sufficiently protected against moisture ingress.
The plasterers on site were surprised and knew nothing about it, they always used this sealing slurry and for a secure seal they would "still blacken everything" later. This meant a bitumen coating that would be applied over everything in the lower base area (now done). However, according to DIN, this should have hardened under the perimeter insulation, not just over it as it is now.
I first sent the expert’s report to the site manager asking for a statement and waited for a response. He replied that the statement would take until the end of the month due to current and upcoming vacations of the plaster foreman and himself. Work on the base (the colored stone plaster is still missing) would be suspended until clarification. Ok, that’s how it is. According to my expert, dismantling would not really be proportionate, but an extension of the warranty period for the area was the recommended goal.
Warning, what follows is hearsay, but I have no reason to doubt the content: Meanwhile, my neighbor, the rear builder who is building with the same GC, had his “acceptance with outstanding work” so he could do his own work (flooring and painting). We talk to each other and even our experts had spoken about the missing overlap measurement. So my neighbor’s expert was aware of the sealing slurry. When he asked whether the sealing slurry was crack-bridging, the site manager and the GC’s CEO said yes, it was. Ok, then the technical data sheets were still requested to be submitted.
By the way, my expert took a photo of the sealing slurry used and already looked up the technical data and as mentioned, pointed out in his report the non-compliance with the general rules of technology. This report was available before the aforementioned acceptance.
So officially none of this affects me, but the conclusion I draw from these events is: Our GC is not only incompetent (so far I was inclined to attribute it to mere absence of malice on his part) but also a liar and exceptionally stupid on top of that! I mean, doesn’t he realize that we talk to each other?
A spicy side detail is that the GC had forbidden the craftsmen to speak to my fellow builders and vice versa.
I’m currently getting whiplash from shaking my head. I need to discuss again with my expert how to position myself tactically.