Damage report residence Bütgenbach
Back to overview

Expertise · 2024

Damage report residence Bütgenbach

MSeXpertMSeXpertMSeXpertMSeXpertMSeXpertMSeXpertMSeXpertMSeXpert

Cause and remediation report on recurring water ingress in a residential complex in Bütgenbach. Evidence preservation, structure openings and a 42-page report, basis for defect rectification claims against the executing contractor.

Location
Bütgenbach · BE
Year
2024
Type
Damage report
Role
Expert appraisal
Scale
Residential complex · 14 units
Status
Report delivered

Task

In a residential complex of 14 units in Bütgenbach, recurring damp appeared over two years in ground-floor apartments, visible as water marks on inner walls, mould formation in two units and a rising stream of complaints to the management. The owner cooperative engaged MSeXpert with clarifying the cause and describing the remediation scope.

Approach

Step one: document research, building files, as-built drawings, contracts with the executing contractor. Step two: on-site visit with systematic condition recording of all 14 units and the outdoor areas, photo documentation, moisture measurements. Step three: targeted structure openings at six locations around the plinth area, in cooperation with a structure-opening specialist. Step four: analysis, evaluation of execution against accepted rules of construction practice, drafting of the report.

Outcome

The 42-page report identified faulty external waterproofing as the main cause, specifically a missing seal joint and inadequate connection sealing around the basement window frames. The report described the remediation scope in detail (excavation, re-waterproofing, drying, interior remediation) and quantified expected costs. It served the owner cooperative as the basis for defect rectification claims against the executing contractor.

Challenges

  • Multiple damage patterns

    Damage appeared at different points and seemed inconsistent at first. Only the systematic openings revealed the common pattern, uniformly faulty plinth waterproofing.

  • Evidence preservation

    Since the report could potentially be used in court, gap-free documentation of every finding was decisive, photos, dimensions, samples, witnesses.

  • Operational recommendation

    The recommendation had to be concrete enough for a contractor to quote, yet open enough not to lock in a particular method.

Key figures

  • 14

    units affected

  • 6

    structure openings

  • 2

    years of issue

  • 42

    report pages

Parties

Client
Owner cooperative (14 parties)
Management
External property management
Structure openings
External specialist firm
Expert appraisal
MSeXpert