Selection of the building expert for defect rectification

A publicly appointed and sworn expert (ÖBUV) is sworn in to perform his duties conscientiously and to report his expert opinions impartially. It is irrelevant by whom he is paid.

485 II ZPO - Independent evidence proceedings

There is the possibility of cost reimbursement later, but an advance payment must first be made.

It interrupts the statute of limitations, but it is not a pleasure and not a walk in the park; a lawsuit usually follows the costs anyway.

I deliberately left the independent evidence procedure out. Although this is probably the most neutral form of assessment, it takes quite a long time and is very costly.

In my opinion, one should try to come to an agreement based on the existing expert report. The ideal solution here would be mediation or a conciliation procedure at the responsible Chamber of Crafts. To my knowledge, both procedures also lead to a suspension of the statute of limitations,

The thing with the Chamber of Crafts was my suggestion, which the developer rejected. No insight into the report will be granted, and there will be no report for me even after the repair. The one-sided message from the developer is: their roofer, their expert. Damage repair in the presence of the expert. If problems arise, I would have the remaining warranty. What comes after that goes without saying. The developer is not refusing to remedy the defect. He also provides a "neutral" expert, who is sworn and publicly appointed. A lawsuit probably made little sense, as the above procedure seems to be legally correct.

Regarding the post above: it is clear to me that a publicly appointed and sworn expert is obliged to be neutral. But he also has to make a living. It’s not about a job he gets or doesn’t get. He is taken as the in-house expert.

Something else... If I have the roof opened for inspection shortly before the warranty expires, do I automatically lose the remaining warranty? Does this inspection have to be accompanied by an expert?

If there is no suspicion of an existing defect, you should not open the roof. Why bother? If the roof is sealed, you should leave it at that.

When the standing water was discovered in the roof, the roof was not leaking either. Apparently, the vapor barrier is still holding up well. Unfortunately, I cannot rule out that the leak is in a different location than where it was repaired. I can only make a claim as long as the warranty is valid and I am aware of the damage. If everything goes well, the inspection will cost me about 200-300 euros. Significantly less than if I now order my own expert and go to a lawyer. And in the end, I will also know more than I do now. (at least at the said location).