Withholding payment for defects in the shell construction

  • Erstellt am 2021-02-09 16:57:26

Kishihmen

2021-02-09 16:57:26
  • #1
Hello everyone,

the ceiling above the ground floor has currently been concreted at our site. According to the payment plan, an interim payment of approximately €30,000 is due here.

However, our expert has discovered several defects. These were reported to the main contractor [GÜ] with a deadline. The first deadline (2 weeks) passed without the defects being fixed, the second deadline is still running until Thursday (also 2 weeks).

Currently, we have withheld about €17,000 of the €30,000. Our main contractor considers this far too much and insists on payment.

Since we currently fear insolvency of the main contractor (structural builder not paid, stone supplier not paid, steel supplier not paid, light well supplier not paid), we want to make the deduction as high as possible. However, since we are not construction experts and want to avoid a deduction that is too high for defects possibly backfiring, I hope there are experts here who can give us a rough estimate of the costs.

P.S. Lawyer contacted, but the appointment is only on 17.02 and I fear we cannot hold off the main contractor that long.

Defect 1:
At the transition between the basement and the ground floor, no base sealing of the first row of stones was considered.
The basement is already fully glued with Styrodur, and the excavation pit is backfilled.


Defect 2:
At some points of the shell construction, the minimum offset of the stones was not observed; at some places, up to 7 rows of stones were built one above the other.


Defect 3:
It is a terraced house. Mineral fiber boards were installed between the buildings for sound insulation. At one spot visible from outside, there is a gap between the boards of approx. 80cm deep and approx. 20cm high. After pointing out the defect, the structural builder "stuffed" mineral fiber boards into the hole. According to our lawyer, reliable sound separation cannot be guaranteed this way.

Defect 4:
The area where the terrace doors will later be located was poured with concrete. Here, the reinforcing steel protrudes from the wall. According to the expert: This results in an insufficient bond between reinforcing steel and concrete. It must be assumed that adequate corrosion protection of the reinforcing steel is not permanently ensured. Furthermore, with insufficient concrete cover of the reinforcing steel, adequate fire protection is not provided.

Defect 5:
In the area of the floor slab, the mineral fiber board was not secured. The result is that it runs quite wavy. This is particularly problematic in the stairwell area, as only about 10cm of concrete remains to the mineral fiber board in places. However, the stones for the partition walls have a thickness of 17.5cm.


Defect 6:
The mineral fiber boards were partially not laid tight enough, so that concrete has flowed between the boards and forms a sound bridge.



These are the (known to us) defects. I would be very pleased if someone could at least roughly assign prices to the defects.

Thank you very much in advance.

 

knalltüte

2021-02-09 17:06:44
  • #2
I have never seen a soft mineral fiber mat serving as sound insulation placed "loose" in the formwork and do not consider this procedure to be either DIN-compliant or effective. It is obvious that at least, even if only at a few points, a sound bridge is created. In my opinion, this can no longer be remedied (or only by dismantling) and would cause me relatively sleepless nights. Because sound insulation between residential units or semi-detached houses is regularly a contentious issue. Ergo: without wanting to get ahead of your lawyer, I consider the amount to be too low. The damage could only be remedied (in my opinion as described above) by dismantling. The remaining amount is not enough for that ... Regarding the missing coverage, someone knowledgeable in statics would have to comment, but it certainly depends on the structural function of the affected wall. P.S. It also looks sloppy in some other places. But for that, certainly more pictures are needed.
 

Patricck

2021-02-09 21:01:45
  • #3
I would think twice about continuing to build at all. He wouldn't see any money from us for such work. It looks like the structural builder is doing something like this for the first time.

What does the inspector suggest for fixing the defects?
 

11ant

2021-02-09 21:34:38
  • #4
The circled areas seem to me more like a misdiagnosis; I see violations of the overlap measure in three places that are not circled. By "area of the floor slab" you probably mean ring beams here. The mats seem to have been used here – if at all, rather boards than mats would have been suitable for this – as lost formwork. That is all very adventurous. How "much" involving a lawyer improves things, you can read about at the Fleischerhaus from ( ) – there you can also convince yourself of the justification of your boomerang fear. I see a big dilemma here: your retention is at the same time disproportionately high and unsuitable low – both by a large margin. The points you mention strongly suggest the suspicion of insolvency. However, the decisive factor for such is mainly whether it actually exists. You should therefore urgently discuss with your lawyer both addressing the listed creditors regarding the keyword "third-party application" and informing the public prosecutor about the suspicion of delayed insolvency filing. Regarding the suspected insolvency of general contractors, I repeatedly stumble over two apparently widespread popular misconceptions. I have often read about fear that the general contractor would file for insolvency (and the fear that this would worsen the position of the client = creditor of completion). These are two misconceptions: 1. an insolvency exists when it exists – not when the managing director bothers to notify the court. Notification of insolvency is not a matter of discretion but a statutory obligation of the managing director (self-application). For the legal effects of an insolvency, it is essential that it factually exists – not when it becomes publicly known. Therefore, it is also (for the obliged self-applicant) punishable to conceal it and thus delay it. A creditor therefore has no reason to hope that the general contractor will delay declaring insolvency. 2a. One is dependent on the managing director of the general contractor fulfilling his duty to notify the court of a possible insolvency. The Insolvency Code explicitly provides that creditors also have the possibility to have a justified suspicion of insolvency examined (third-party application). A group of creditors that regularly makes use of this are health insurance funds as collection agencies for social contributions. 2b. The filing of insolvency is a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of creditors, and without this filing, the debtor could act more freely for the benefit of all involved: NEITHER is the case!!! The insolvency itself – not its filing! – is the sword of Damocles, and all transactions made after its occurrence are generally at risk of clawback. Creditors tend rather to be the losers in a delay!
 

Snowy36

2021-02-09 21:58:32
  • #5
An unpleasant forecast from me: you won't pay the 17,000, you will have to tear it down and find someone to redo it ... that person will charge more money than the previous one ... you will be stuck with 30K ... he is insolvent and will then start over somewhere else ....

continue building with the: NO way

Because if you start arguing now and wait until you find a solution, so much time will pass that it will hurt financially again ... and whoever puts things like that up: you cannot negotiate/talk normally with them
 

Kishihmen

2021-02-09 23:27:58
  • #6
First of all, thank you for the answers. I will try to address them.

It would be nice if that were a misdiagnosis. May I ask why?
And yes, the overlapping measure was not adhered to in some places.


The photo is from the separation between two terraced houses—and yes, that is very adventurous.


Yes, I have already read through the thread a bit. However, I currently see no way around the lawyer.


Honestly, I do not really understand that sentence. From my point of view, I can basically withhold twice the amount required to remedy the defect. Unfortunately, I lack a concrete reference to quantify the required funds.

I have also read into the topic of insolvency. However, I do not want to proceed here without legal advice.

Well, I think it will not go without arguing. We have a contract that is valid independently of defects for the time being. I cannot just continue with the construction and consider the contract terminated ... :(
 

Similar topics
09.10.2016Roofing - Clay or Concrete?16
04.07.2015House contract with financing condition, lawyer wanted10
10.05.2015Screed uneven - defect removal refused52
07.09.2017Floor slab: Concrete or wooden beam ceiling - Advantages and disadvantages!?20
20.02.2016Basement made of watertight concrete - switch problem12
26.03.2016Garage base draws water - defect?28
07.04.2016Defect?? Glued engineered parquet doesn’t stick everywhere?!11
27.08.2017Rust spots on concrete - ceiling to wall - new construction12
12.09.2017Roof constructed too flat - Construction company does not acknowledge the defect12
10.07.2018Does the structural builder have to paint the transition between styrofoam and brick wall black?12
21.09.2018Has adhesive been pushed out between the window panes - defect?27
15.10.2018Is the shell construction overloaded? Current situation in the construction industry!13
18.10.2018Liability for various defects after acceptance of the property19
08.11.2018Structural shell / Structural shell cost calculation - How does it calculate?52
16.08.2020Bathtub misaligned - defect?15
29.01.2021Should the awning maker make corrections here? - Is this a defect?11
16.05.2021Handle position on the window not centered - defect?51
24.12.2021GU insolvency after acceptance - Open defects15
28.06.2024Building permit - is a lawyer useful?12

Oben