Questions about warranty for garage and tiles

Hello everyone,

I have 3 questions for the experts here on the topic of warranty.

1)
Our construction contract contains the following clause:

For work on the property, other material defects such as all electrically powered parts of the building, ventilation flaps, backflow preventers, heating burners, and similar, a 2-year warranty applies. For coatings on exterior surfaces, wood, plaster, metal, etc., a 2-year warranty applies because coatings are subject to maintenance and care.

In my opinion, our developer is trying to evade the statutory warranty here, what do you think? Is that even possible? Isn’t it also legally required to provide a 5-year warranty?

2)

We are actually obtaining a ready-to-move-in house from the developer. However, the developer told us that we should arrange the garage ourselves (on which a roof terrace with a connection to the house is being built, as well as a masonry parapet). The same applies to the roof terrace covering, because (and here it comes): It would be much better to leave the garage standing WITHOUT the roof terrace covering for 5-6 months anyway, only then would one see whether it is really watertight. And only then would it make sense to lay the covering!

My impression is that the developer wants to shirk responsibility here. He wants nothing to do with the warranty. He even negotiated the garage offer with the supplier and we also received the developer’s discount from the supplier. We have the offer... but I do not feel comfortable commissioning the garage directly, as the roof terrace will become an integral part of the building. What do you think?

3)

Tiles: we would like to contract the tile work ourselves for 100m², because it is simply cheaper for us. The contract regulates 60x30 tiles, but we want 60x60. The tiler will charge a considerable surcharge for that. But here too, we wonder if that makes sense in a new building because of the warranty. If something happens to the tiles or the underfloor heating later, the blame game could start... We really don’t want that.
What do you think? Is it doable or should we better leave it?

I look forward to your answers and thank you in advance!

Regarding point 1. I can understand that from the construction company's perspective. You will also have problems proving a defect (not wear and tear) in the mentioned areas after almost five years (keyword reversal of the burden of proof). For the mentioned points, you usually only get a two-year warranty from any normal craftsman or when buying in a store. Is it even a property developer or "just" a general contractor?

Regarding point 2. I have no idea what makes sense. Your property developer probably has little experience with roof terraces on garages and therefore wants to get out of the situation. In that case, it might even make a lot of sense for these works to be carried out by a company that knows about this.

Regarding point 3. Removing trades is absolutely normal. You can do it – but whether it will be cheaper is another question.

Hello,

The first question relates to the warranty. However, I have since clarified that it is not legal to limit it to 2 years according to the Building Code.

Regarding 2), the question is whether it is common for the garage (which is designed as a roof terrace) to stand without a covering for 5-6 months first, so that it can be seen whether it is really watertight. That on the one hand, and on the other hand, what your impression is... whether the developer is trying to evade the warranty here... that is what I suspect.

Regarding 3), the question is whether it is generally advisable to award floor covering work separately. We were advised against it because in the event of a warranty claim, the burden of proof would then lie with us and, for example, the developer would then blame the tiler and vice versa. So it is more of a general question.

Thank you

Regarding 1: Why is a partial restriction to 2 years not feasible? It is not stated that way in the [Baugesetzbuch]!

The first question relates to the warranty. But I have since clarified, it is not legal to limit this to 2 years according to the Building Code.

That is not correct! Take a look at § 634a Building Code or ask a lawyer!

As for 2), the question is whether it is common for the garage (which is constructed as a roof terrace) to stand for 5-6 months without a covering so that you can see whether it is really watertight. That on the one hand, and on the other hand what your impression is... whether the builder is trying to dodge the warranty here... that is what I suspect.

I would want to suspect that this is utter nonsense or else there is a corresponding agreement in your contract?

Regarding 3), the question is whether it is generally advisable to commission flooring works separately. We were advised against it because in the event of a warranty case the burden of proof lies with us, and for example then the builder shifts the blame to the tiler and vice versa. So it’s more of a general question.

Of course it lies with you! But as long as your tiler checks the moisture of the screed concerning its readiness for covering, there should be no problems. If you want to be absolutely sure, you should request an intermediate acceptance, provided your contractor still has to carry out services after the tiling trade. Your questions already seem quite strange; trust does not seem to be part of your vocabulary. Who have you built with or are still building with? Rhineland greetings

Hi,

yes, that is correct, because paragraph 2: within five years for a building. This includes a house and all related services. Meanwhile, the opinion of my lawyer, who confirms this, is also available. A limitation to 2 years contradicts the Building Code.

As for the garage, there is no agreement in the contract regarding this. Or what kind of agreement do you mean? In any case, this is the first time I hear this argument regarding the durability.

And as for trust: exactly... it has suffered a lot, and the developer has contributed quite a bit to that. For example, certain points were removed from the offer and others slipped in. Example: he provides the foundations for the garage. The first offer included: foundations for the garage. Now it says: foundations up to 1m deep. Or: the price set for floor coverings was simply reduced by a few euros. — both are, mind you, things that were not discussed. And there are several other points showing us that we should be on guard. And in general: I don’t think one should rely solely on trust with such an amount. If it comes to court in a serious case, which nobody hopes for, that does me little good. The developer has a good reputation, but he secures himself against all kinds of risks in his contracts and has partially invalid or unfair clauses. For example, advance payment, 5% deposit without consideration, no retention of security, etc. That is why we became suspicious in the first place.