Staircase shifted by 10 cm, options?

A quick interim status: Construction is proceeding with the GÜ (with whom we are absolutely satisfied so far), the flooring is set on the upper floor EL because we will commission the GÜ’s tiler directly in coordination with the GÜ. The site manager is informed and is finding out whether and what options there are. I wanted to get a preliminary opinion here about how serious this is from your perspective (the opinions are not clear here either) and especially what options are available. According to the site manager, the stair builder did nothing wrong because he was instructed by the GÜ to measure the stairs on site and adjust them to the stairwell opening. The stairwell opening corresponded to the plan, so the error lies in the planning (but of course the stair builder could also have reported it..) Clearly, this could have been noticed earlier as well, we checked many measurements, just not the stairs.

Sorry that I’m just quoting you now… it’s more practical ;)

that’s not a minor defect :rolleyes: Every day the whole family passes by the stairs, the 10cm are simply missing, it will probably annoy for a long time.

I assume the argument will be made that 95 does exactly what 105 does.

An example: Would you accept a door with a height of 190cm instead of the ordered 200cm?

You’ll probably have to if you complain officially: the door does what it is supposed to do. I can imagine that only the argument counts if you yourself as a resident brush against the 190.

I see a proportionality regarding the removal or modification of the construction.

Regarding the trip edge at the first step, I agree with you – just looked, there’s a coat rack built in front, I assume? That’s the way to the guest WC?! In that respect, I don’t even see the trip edge. Sorry!!! But I would be annoyed too!!!

It’s the same stairs as we have. Only we have a turn at the top. I almost said, why not just move the stairs 5 cm forward and shorten the top step… but then it probably wouldn’t have any support, right?
In our case, it was installed after the screed. For that, there were recesses for the holders. The holes in the wall were also only milled later… were they already there for you?

The stairwell corresponded to the plan, so the error lies in the planning (the stair builder, of course, could have also spoken up..)

If these are the same plans you are showing here, the stair builder should have seen (you don’t even have to measure) that the first step is flush with the wall. So how can the beam already protrude? :rolleyes: And in your plans/floor plans, this very area in front of the stairs was always criticized - too little space. The builder should also have noticed (had to notice) that. 3 possibilities: leave it as is, redo once, or shorten the first step.

According to the site manager, the stair builder did nothing wrong because he was instructed by the general contractor to measure the stairs on site and adjust them to the stairwell.

Then the word "nothing" is apparently incorrect in this sentence.

In that respect, I don’t even see the trip edge.

I don’t see the trip edge either, I’m concerned about running down the stairs.

I almost said, why don’t you just move the stairs 5 cm forward and shorten the top step at the top… but then it wouldn’t have a support, right?

Yes, that would be my preferred solution. That’s why I asked whether the stairwell opening can be reduced.

In our case, it was installed after the screed. There were recesses for the brackets. The holes in the wall were only milled later… were they already there with you?

The stairs were installed before the screed and before the interior plaster.

Then apparently the word "nothing" is wrong in this sentence.

That’s because the general contractor and the stair builder apparently agreed that the stair builder would not follow the plans but the conditions on site. The stair builder thus is off the hook, although he could and should have noticed and addressed it anyway.

The builder should have noticed that as well.

Yes, that’s true. He did, although only after the underfloor heating and screed but at least before the tiles.

That is because the main contractor and the staircase builder apparently agreed that the staircase builder would not follow the plans but rather the conditions on site. The staircase builder is therefore off the hook, even though he still could have noticed and mentioned it.

I don’t understand that: especially if he had measured on site, the result should actually match reality better than the plan (???).