Right to information from the notary even after purchase?

The assignment issue is also the crux for me. It wasn’t me. My site manager also writes to me that he did not commission the company. The company itself once said in a phone call (which they can no longer remember now...) that they were commissioned by the municipality.

Therefore, my response: Please contact the client.

The statute says the following for us:


Here, the property connection is equated with the house connection



As a result, the municipality is obliged to connect.


Number 1) is also a tricky point: If I pay the company’s invoice, the connection belongs to ME. Not to the municipality... should I charge €1 path fee for every liter of water? :D

Number 3) clarifies that the municipality builds the house connection

Let’s come to the costs according to the statute (and that was exactly how it was also in the purchase contract)



These are also the ONLY reference points for the costs – there is no mention of any length limitation.

The purchase contract then states:



I simply do not see anywhere even a hint that additional costs arise for me for the water connection beyond a certain length that I have to pay to an unknown private company.

I have been trying for over 2 months to get a basis for the invoice from both the municipality and the company. There have been three responses:
- the submission for an intimidation meeting
- the info with "we’ve always done it this way"
- the reminder

I am not very keen on turning this into a legal dispute now. If the matter has to be paid, then it has to be. If not, then not. Hence my wish for a reliable statement from the notary.

Sorry, although it is equated with the equals sign, it is also explained. And in the explanation I read that it is not about the house connection, but about the property development. Further down it is even more defined, which you probably overlooked... with Tapatalk I cannot look back or quote.

I’ll save now and make an edit shortly...

The issue with the order is the crux for me as well. It wasn’t me. My site manager also writes to me that he did not commission the company. The company itself once said in a phone call (which now no one seems to remember...) that it was commissioned by the municipality.

Hence my answer: Please contact the client.

The statute says the following for us:


Here the property connection is equated with the house connection



As a result, the municipality is obligated to connect.


The thing at 1) is also a bit tricky: If I pay the company’s invoice, the connection belongs to ME. Not to the municipality... should I pay 1€ access fee for every liter.

Sorry, although it is equated with the equals sign, it is also explained. And in the explanation I read that it is not about the house connection, but about the property development.
Further down it is even more clearly defined, which you probably overlooked... with Tapatalk I cannot look back or quote.

I’ll save it now and shortly add an edit...



So, here you see that it is not the house connection but the property connection that is meant. And your error in thinking.

Conclusion, my conclusion: I believe there is a misunderstanding. The seller who also offers the initial development fundamentally has nothing to do with the house connections at all.
In this respect, the seller places no legally binding definition of initial development, if such a thing exists at all.
It may well be that others (here or there) see it differently, that this legally binding definition does not exist... however: I am of the opinion that the seller (here the municipality) certainly has the law somewhere in the drawer, we builders must certainly have read some clause somewhere about the principle, but did not notice it, however...
The question now of course is the client of the company.
I can’t remember whether we commissioned this company to dig on our land, or whether it was a service. I only know: in front of the property is the municipality, on the property it’s us... when it comes to paying. And with the latter, of course, the meters matter. And: there was and is only one company digging in the entire district for us... I can’t imagine we took care of it ourselves. For us, only one company does it, and that company is commissioned. We had to pay eventually! It is _construction-related_!

The notary is out, since you received the purchase contract 14 days in advance, which you could have checked by any means. Then there is the notary appointment where you could have grilled the notary. Now it is signed. What remains is a conversation with an expert whom you have to pay.
We as a builder’s forum cannot afford that knowledge.
Good luck.

oh, here you see that it is not the house connection, but the property connection that is meant. And your logical error.

Hello ypg, thank you for your detailed post.

Sorry that I cannot follow you directly. Where exactly do you see my logical error? The municipality is also the water supplier (if that is relevant).

In the statutes, "property connection" is defined as the route from the "supply line to the transfer point." According to the statutes, the property connection ends with the main shut-off device (and that is located inside my building).

Could you please explain that to me in more detail? :)

Not that this comes across wrong here – I am not remotely trying to avoid due payments. I just currently see the connection being paid via the municipality's fee notice – not through an invoice from another company.
Nothing would please me more than to have that clarified with certainty (regardless of whether the outcome is positive or negative for me) – a court dispute is a thousand times more unpleasant. However, the conduct of the municipality seems to me like "collusion" – why can neither the company nor the municipality simply say within two months on what legal basis this is happening?

In the meantime, the municipality even offered me to waive 3 of the 9 charged meters. Almost like hush money – or at least it seems that way to me.

I do not remember whether we commissioned this company to dig on our land or whether it was a service. I only know: before the property the municipality, on the property us... when it comes to paying. And the meters naturally play a role in the latter.

At least in our case, I cannot clearly separate it the way you do at all. We received quite a few things from the municipality on the property – e.g., a rainwater cistern. Also paid via the property purchase.

As a builders’ forum, we cannot provide that knowledge.
Good luck.

Thank you :) I am simply grateful for any input – whether clarified or not. Exchanging experiences is important on such a complex topic, and I just want to be sure here.

Sorry but what do you expect? Do you seriously believe the notary will give you something in writing afterwards as proof? You do know that they are also legal manipulators

So specifically asked: Is there a legal right to information even after signing the purchase contract?

Answered concretely; no one here but a lawyer should give you an answer.

And I especially want to avoid escalation with a lawyer, etc. :)

Bringing in a lawyer on your part is not an escalation. It is the only way to get a well-founded and reliable opinion on the matter. Often the "same" letter written by a lawyer has a much stronger effect than one from an ordinary citizen.

But especially your specific questions (regarding the duties of a notary, etc.) can be sufficiently answered by the lawyer, and can specifically support you in your further actions (for example, whether it should come to a lawsuit, etc.).

Since reminders are already present, good advice is advisable in this regard.

PS. My lay opinion on this. The notary only has to ensure that the contract itself is legally flawless. Not whether the details agreed upon therein withstand legal scrutiny or are defined flawlessly. At the time of certification, he appears only as a notary, not as a legal manipulator.

You will need YOUR lawyer because the notary is the lawyer of the municipality and will be careful not to betray his good client. The fundamental mistake was to take a notary provided by the seller and to pay for him. Understand? Karsten