Screed uneven - defect removal refused

The uneven floor was noticed but not recognized as a construction defect (lack of knowledge of the facts).

Basically, this is the clarification of the facts. You saw the defect, noticed the uneven floor, and then accepted that floor. This allowed the contractor to assume that you agreed with the execution of the work and that the owed result had been delivered by him.

I would like to join the building expert (once again) and also point out (again) that saving money on the expert is the wrong place to cut costs. Most people have no knowledge of construction at all and basically rely on the statements of the executing trades, believing that the services have been performed well and properly. This leads to absurd situations where well-looking but poorly performed services go unnoticed and poorly-looking but well-performed services are criticized. Both circumstances provide ample reason for disputes.

So: Always, always factor in the costs for expert supervision if you are not a professional. There are almost always defects whose remediation will be more expensive later (not to mention legal costs).

Hello, may I join in here? We are building a timber frame house with an architect who is handling service phases 1 to 8. Would you still recommend additional construction supervision by an expert?

The four-eyes principle also applies here. In addition, it gives you an initial, good assessment of whether the choice of your architect was a good one or rather less good.

Rhenish greetings from the trade fair in Neuss
Construction expert

Construction expert, don't be mad at me, but that is nonsense - the architect is the expert and you would be paying twice. If you can't trust the architect, you can also bring in another expert as a consultant to the expert.

Of course, you can always take double or triple precautions - but you should also consider that people work on/at the construction site who could be unnecessarily offended by this.

If you are unsure, you simply do not book the respective performance phase of the architect and instead pay another expert. Whatever that is supposed to achieve.

Hello,

Construction expert, don’t be mad at me, but that is nonsense – the architect is the expert and you would be paying twice. If you can’t trust the architect, you can also bring in another expert for the expert.

I am not mad, but once again disappointed....

If an independent expert is called in for a construction project, it initially has little to do with mistrust, but rather with the fact that four eyes see more than two. Then, that established structures – here in your example, the usually long-term collaboration between architect and craftsman – are much more prone to errors. This is because the craftsmen in such setups are attuned to each other and rely on each other blindly; not necessarily – but also not intentionally! – checking the work of the predecessor as required (this applies, by the way, to the same extent with any provider with a fixed team of craftsmen). People just know each other.

Then the cooperation between architect and expert is also enriching. If the architect delivers a good performance, the expert will certainly recommend him in the future. If a problem arises during the construction project – and that will happen as surely as amen follows the prayer – the architect, depending on the type of problem, will be glad to have a factual mediator between his client and himself.

And this is the crucial point for me: the expert is significantly more current in his work than the architect. The well-employed among them continuously participate in training, often know better about alternatives than the architect; and in any case, have seen more.

Of course, you can always secure yourself doubly or triply – but you should also consider that there are people working in and on construction who could be unnecessarily offended by this.

Who put this idea into your head? Why should the architect or the craftsmen feel offended if an expert looks at the key acceptance data? I don’t know of any case where commissioning an expert – as long as they don’t come from my favorite club – has caused ill feelings; on the contrary.

... Whatever that is supposed to bring

You have 331 posts here; you have surely read a comparable number. If you can’t answer this question yourself, you cannot be convinced by factual arguments.

And to clear up another misunderstanding: the overwhelming majority of architects and general contractors, general planners, building supervisors in Germany are committed to their work (even if forums suggest otherwise) and have – some may be surprised – only one thing in mind. Namely, to deliver a proper construction project; they too live – oh wonder – on recommendations. But this does not mean that they can walk on water or are infallible. Many an expert has saved these people’s – like you and me – behinds, and this is, from my – certainly subjective – point of view, worth every euro, since it always benefits the client.

Rhenish greetings

I understand why you involve an expert and that no one intends harm - for me, it’s just that having an expert for an architect’s construction is basically pointless, since they assess the same things as the commissioned architect. If you don’t trust him, you simply don’t book the service phases – although, as a layperson, you normally can’t have much of an opinion there.

By offending, I didn’t mean the craftsmen – God forbid. I only meant the architect – initially, you don’t trust that he can handle his job (inspect the construction). Of course, you can push a full coverage mentality and just say “double is better” – but basically, the procedure with a fully commissioned architect is taken to the point of absurdity.

And my architect is constantly attending training – I don’t want to speak for everyone, but you explicitly mentioned that an expert is more up to date. For whatever reason that might be...

With a construction involving a general contractor/general contractor or builder, an expert is mandatory since no one else works for you as the client – with architect construction, the architect works for you and only for you. That is one of the basic principles of the "construction type"... but why am I even telling you this?

And yes, I still don’t understand what this is supposed to achieve – it has nothing to do with the number of posts or the number of posts I have read. You could well present factual arguments – so why get unobjective now?