The wall is not level on the base plate or protrudes by 2 cm

Construction managers are also people with very different tastes - that's why I appreciate a DIN standard when it comes to interpreting what the professional way is. And here it is such that the protruding 2 cm wall thickness will not shear off and you will enjoy the planned position of the wall more than its irrelevant meticulous alignment with the edge of the floor slab here.

I can't quite follow your post. On the affected side of the house, there is now a concreted wall section that is offset by several centimeters from the masonry wall section (even within one room). So the centimeters are lost at the latest when leveling with plaster, etc. The planned position of the wall is therefore basically gone anyway.

My post was meant more along the lines that with communication you can still find better solutions together than without. And I specifically asked the question at the beginning to better assess the matter with collective knowledge.

Furthermore: If you applied the DIN standard strictly on construction sites, there probably wouldn't be any acceptance inspections anymore. Here they keep saying "don't take the DIN so literally"...

Furthermore: If one were to apply the DIN standard strictly on the construction site, acceptance would probably no longer take place. Here, it is constantly said "don’t take the DIN too literally"…

On the one hand, this summary is probably quicker to say than to explain to the builder that, for example, the room door standard does not apply to the terrace door. On the other hand, exceeding a DIN tolerance is not a guarantee of house collapse, but rather a measure for an objective claim for reduction or rectification.

On the affected side of the house, there is now a concreted wall section that is offset by a few centimeters from the masonry wall section (also within one room). So the centimeters are lost at the latest when leveling with plaster, etc. The planned position of the wall is thus, so to speak, lost anyway.

I have not understood this, however: the positioning of the wall, which is correct by itself but not congruent with the edge of the floor slab, creates at a "third" junction an unsatisfactory fit?

I did not understand this: the positioning of the wall, which is correct in itself but not congruent with the edge of the base slab, produces an unsatisfactory fit at a "third" interface?

Initially, the cause is probably that the window openings (floor-to-ceiling) on one side of the wall are each a few millimeters too large, which has accumulated to a total of 2 cm. When the affected side was further built around the corner and the wall dimensions were adhered to, this resulted in a 2 cm overhang beyond the edge of the base slab.

However, there is already a piece on the affected side that was previously concreted (for structural reasons). This piece is basically 100% correct and flush with the base slab (it is also connected to it by reinforcement).

So now we have on the affected side a piece of concrete wall that (separated by a window opening) has a 2 cm offset from the masonry wall. I am wondering how this will be compensated for and what measures will be necessary and whether additional costs will arise.

The problem can thus be divided into two parts:

1. Statistically, the masonry wall does not stand flush on the base slab. This seems less dramatic, if I understand most people correctly here.
2. How do you compensate for the difference between the concrete piece and the masonry piece on the outside and inside? Inside presumably with different plaster thicknesses (costs?), but how do you do it on the outside with the ETICS?

First of all, the cause is probably that the window openings (floor-to-ceiling) on one side of the wall are each a few millimeters too large, which has resulted in a total of 2 cm accumulated

2 cm over, let's say, 10 meters length is a difference of two per thousand. That complies with DIN standards (DIN 18202). And millimeter construction walls - seriously, come on?

Aside from the millimeter nitpicking - what exactly is the alleged problem here and why do you think you know more about it than your architect?!

Why do you believe it would do your house good to chip off 2 cm by hand from your cornerstones now - because with your requests, that's what it would come down to.

I have no professional opinion on this and therefore asked here in the forum. Elsewhere, in a similar case, it was said that it had to be dismantled and the base plate had to be enlarged (it was too small, as might be the case here as well). Unsettled by this story, I brought up the matter to the group. And thank you for the constructive responses.


Unfortunately, your answer is off, and by more than just a few centimeters. I pointed out that communication helps before avoidable trouble arises, generally and regardless of the problem and definitely regardless of the industry. If you doubt that, then I don’t understand why you post any contributions at all?

Otherwise, it is a technical question, which is what such a forum is for. You can then calmly reply that the supposed problem isn’t one or that it can simply be solved by measure X and that’s that. In my last post, I simply asked how such things are compensated for (in plaster and ETICS)…

@Scout Your answer is unfortunately way off, by more than just a few centimeters.

Then I wouldn't have pinned a like to it