OSB panels for the attic "required", yet extra charge?

Stiffening panel - this is nothing funny

Thank you. You always learn something new. I just read something about it. You are right.

If that would be necessary for the OP, then in my opinion he should not bear any costs.

Best regards
Thorsten

As said, if the layout is really required according to the static calculations, the contractor clearly owes the client the layout including everything that belongs to it. They also tried that with us regarding the chimney. One email later, it was then okay. They wanted to sell us a roof window because you can’t get a cleaning hatch into the attic. I just told them, "You sold me the chimney for price x at the specified position. Make sure the chimney sweep accepts it." That was the end of it, they had to reluctantly install the window for free.

Hello,

in advance - this is mostly "coffee grounds reading," since I don't know your contract/BB!

yesterday the construction company called me and said: "we would now lift the OSB boards for the attic straight up into the roof truss, the boards cost ~580€ for 40m² and whether you lay them yourself or not (980€) you can decide then." ... ok?

Well, yeah - that's just under a thousand. For the luxury of not having to lift a finger, in my opinion, the price is reasonable.

It is true that these boards - like many things in house construction and viewed individually - can be obtained cheaper in free trade. But I believe you have no idea how unwieldy these parts are and how impossible it is to transport them through an installed BET into the attic.

Now the question: can it actually be true that the boards are really necessary? Seems strange to me... and if they are - shouldn't they be included in the price? We always asked beforehand what additional costs could arise - this was never mentioned. Is that legal? Would they build us a statically insufficient house without these things?

Your choice - to lay them yourself or to commission someone else - irritates me a lot. According to my understanding, you shouldn't have this choice if the full-surface paneling has been considered in the statics. Then this item should also have appeared in the offer, either priced or marked as included.

Therefore, I rather think that the OSB paneling currently cannot have a mandatory bracing effect and thus is not required by statics. If I am right about this, it is also not surprising that no extra prices were named to you, because a walkway is certainly owed to you according to the BB?

Rhenish regards

Hello,

in advance - it is mostly "coffee ground reading," since I don't know your contract/BB!

It doesn't matter at all what the contract says, the builder must comply with the structural verification. He cannot legally excuse himself by claiming that the client is responsible for ensuring that the house is structurally sound. That is clearly the problem of the general contractor, who was precisely commissioned for that.

A different interpretation: Maybe the use (storage) of the attic is considered in the structural engineering, and for the GU this would now be a nice additional income (through his surprise structural engineering shortly before roof closure).

He legally cannot wriggle out of it by saying that the client himself is responsible for ensuring that the house is statically soundly constructed. That is clearly the problem of the general contractor, who was precisely commissioned with that.

You’re in a quarrelsome mood again today

You take sides with a statement made in passing _without_ any proof of its accuracy. It "could" very well be that is correct in his assumption, but also that the client simply confused the construction project, that I am not mistaken, or ... or ... or.

That is why it is precisely _not_ unimportant what is written in the contract and tender documents; the fact that construction must be based on properly calculated statics is beyond question!

Not every disputed statement from a user hides a malicious client

Best regards from the Rhineland