Ehitusfoorum

Lohu ikka jah. Olid näe temast nutikam, aga see pole ka eriti kõrge mägi, mida vallutada.

pancho villa kirjutas: 22 Juul 2024, 18:43 Lohu ikka jah. Olid näe temast nutikam, aga see pole ka eriti kõrge mägi, mida vallutada.

Hakkab juba looma, kui nüüd veel teada saaks, miks seda katusetegija näpukaks ei peaks pidama, võiks asjaga ühele poole saada. Kas kosmosest sadas miskit peale?

A23 kirjutas: 22 Juul 2024, 22:34 Hakkab juba looma, kui nüüd veel teada saaks, miks seda katusetegija näpukaks ei peaks pidama, võiks asjaga ühele poole saada. Kas kosmosest sadas miskit peale?

Katusekatte paigaldaja näeb, et aluspinnas on lohk ja pohhuistlikult surub katusekatte lohku või on katusekate hiljem vajunud lohku, selmet tööee enne üle vaadata ja see väike lohk visata täis mingit 5 minuti kiirkivistuvat segu või kasvõi liiva? No kuhu liiv sealt ikka kaob? Pealt ja augu ääred on ju kinni. Alt vist kah.

Naljanurk on see siin tõesti. Jäägem oma liistude juurde, geeniused.

pancho villa kirjutas: 22 Juul 2024, 23:05 Naljanurk on see siin tõesti. Jäägem oma liistude juurde, geeniused.

See siin ongi ju naljanurk!
Ise käisid aga mõistatuse välja, tule nüüd ka lahendusega lagedale!

Milleks? Sina ja teised humoristid ei saa nagunii aru ju. Üks eilane hakkab juba lauspahteldust vist tegema irw.

See pole lohk. See on vana katusekatte ülekattekoha tagune ala. Oleks tegu millegi muu, kui väga hästi ventileeritud külma pööninguga, oleks ma selle sealt välja lõiganud, aga mingit mõtet pole. Ma loodan, et saad nüüd rahus magada.

pancho villa kirjutas: 22 Juul 2024, 23:54 Milleks? Sina ja teised humoristid ei saa nagunii aru ju. Üks eilane hakkab juba lauspahteldust vist tegema irw.

See pole lohk. See on vana katusekatte ülekattekoha tagune ala. Oleks tegu millegi muu, kui väga hästi ventileeritud külma pööninguga, oleks ma selle sealt välja lõiganud, aga mingit mõtet pole. Ma loodan, et saad nüüd rahus magada.

Ok, siis müsteerium lahendatud.
Aga kui juba jutuks läks, siis küsiks teisel teemal. Kui Norras (lõuna ja keskosas) ringi sõitsin, siis ei hakanud seal silma ühtegi kivist eramut, kõik laudvoodriga. Kahtlustasin varem, et nad teevadki vaid puitsõrestikmaju. Kas ongi nii või on osad petekad, et seest Fibo ja pealt puit? Sinu varasematest kirjutistest võiks selline kahtlus tekkida.

Fibo näeb siin pigem tööstushoone tuleseina ja kontorihoone vaheseinana. Eramutes 99% mitte. Rootsi saekaatrid kiviga visata, ei hakka keegi midagi muud välja mõtlema. Fibot kui kasutatakse, siis on tegu imevahendiga, kus soojustust vaja polegi.

Norra AP-d ametis olnud, nüüd tutikas maja lammutamisele ja 3.5meur majaomanikule hüvitist.

pancho villa kirjutas: 03 Nov 2024, 08:04 Screenshot_20241103_065837_Chrome.jpg

Norra AP-d ametis olnud, nüüd tutikas maja lammutamisele ja 3.5meur majaomanikule hüvitist.

Viitsid paari sõnaga täpsustada, mis põhjusel vaja lammutada?

The verdict, which was first reported by Estate Nyheter, was handed down on Friday 25 October and is not legally binding.

"The parties agree that Blaschek himself is not to blame for Øvre Åsenvei 5 being flammable and uninhabitable. The case bears the mark of central players pointing at each other and insisting that in any case the responsibility should not be placed on them themselves," writes the Court of Appeal in its assessment of the case.


The Court of Appeal points out that both parties' attorneys have used the phrase "a building case turned upside down" about the project in Sandefjord.

The Court of Appeal agrees with this, and writes that it is "incomprehensible" that the fire concept was not available at an earlier time.

This is the case in brief:

The house with four apartments in Øvre Åsenvei 5 in Sandefjord is "flammable and uninhabitable", according to a SINTEF report from 2020.
Construction work began in the summer of 2015, with Bobygg as contractor. Only late in October was a temporary fire concept prepared by Rambøll. By then, the foundation wall system was already complete, with ribbed covering from Nordic Isoelements. The ribbed tire in question lacked technical approval and, according to the judgment in the Agder Court of Appeal, has been withdrawn from the market.
Parts of the building have a fire resistance class below R 30, while the requirement is R 60.
The municipality revoked the temporary use permit in 2021, and the building is currently empty.
SINTEF, by researcher Brynhild Garberg Olsø, wrote in the report from December 2020:



Sandefjord municipality decided on 25 January 2021 to order "cessation of the use of the building for residential purposes" with immediate effect.

After this, the house has been empty, and the Court of Appeal has assessed that it is not feasible to correct the errors. The house must therefore be demolished and rebuilt.

Involved from before the start of construction
Rambøll first became involved in April 2015, when they were contacted by Nordic Isoelements with a request if they could calculate loads for the building. In June, ground work began on the site. Construction of the building began in mid-August. In September, the foundation wall system was set up, and in mid-October work on the ribbed deck above the first floor was started. This is according to the Court of Appeal's investigation into the background of the case.

Rambøll was then involved to make static calculations, and to prepare a preliminary fire engineering concept. When this was available, the foundation wall with styrofoam had already been built, and the ribbed deck had been delivered and formworked.

A few months later, in February 2016, Rambøll was replaced as fire advisor, following a disagreement with contractor Bobygg regarding requirements for sprinkler systems, but was engaged directly by Rune Blaschek in 2017 and asked to carry out investigations into the condition of the building. The company wrote several reports, including about a lack of fire safety.

As Byggeindustrien has previously mentioned, Rune Blaschek's lawyer Per Gustav Lilleaasen believed that Rambøll must have understood that neither the foundation wall system nor the ribbed decking satisfied the fire requirements they had set themselves. Rambøll should - based on what had already been carried out and ordered - have ensured that further work was stopped, he believed, and if this had been done in 2015, Blaschek would not have suffered a loss. The errors were not discovered until 2020.


The lawyer tells Byggeindustrien that he does not want to comment on the Court of Appeal's judgment, since it is not legally binding.

Liability for negligent employee
In the Court of Appeal, Rambøll argued that the case must be assessed as a case between professional parties, i.e. between Rambøll, Nordic and Bobygg, and not as a case between Rambøll and the consumer Rune Blaschek. They further believed that none of the claimed design errors were within Rambøll's contractual obligations towards Nordic or Bobygg.

"It is not Rambøll that has chosen to use the products from Nordic, it is Bobygg that has done so. Rambøll was not commissioned to design the foundation of the building and has not done so either. Rambøll cannot be held responsible for faults in either the foundation wall, ribbed deck, constructions bordering the fire cell or a lack of stability against earth pressure," argued the company, according to the judgement.


The Court of Appeal, for its part, has concluded that Rambøll is liable for damages, and grounds this with negligence on the part of one of their advisers. The person concerned has made mistakes for which, according to the court, Rambøll is liable under the employer's liability in section 2-1 of the Damages Compensation Act.

The court writes that the project in Øvre Åsenvei had "weak management and fluid transitions in the responsibilities", and that a lack of o

The court writes that the project in Øvre Åsenvei had "weak management and fluid transitions in the relationships of responsibility", and that a lack of organization and competence in the project should have become clear to Rambøll in the period May to September 2015, "and at least when the request for a fire concept came September 14.”

The Court of Appeal considers that it was negligent on the part of the company's adviser not to do anything to clarify whether the foundation wall system and the ribbed deck could meet the requirements in TEK 10 and in the fire concept, and indicates that it would have been sufficient to send an e-mail to Blaschek, Bobygg or Nordic about the case. Then the matter would have been investigated more closely, and probably the foundation wall system would have either been replaced or improved to fire resistance R60. The Court of Appeal concludes that large parts of the loss could have been avoided.

The court considers the negligence to be simple, not gross.

- Surprised and disappointed
Rune Blaschek's lawyer submitted a claim for compensation of up to NOK 64 million, while the court settled on NOK 30 million plus court costs for treatment in two courts, a total of NOK 12 million.


Stina Johansen, communications manager at Rambøll Norway. Photo: Rambøll
Stina Johansen, communications manager at Rambøll Norway, writes in an e-mail to Byggeindustrien that they are both surprised and disappointed.

- The Court of Appeal has concluded that Rambøll carried out its design obligations in accordance with the agreements entered into, and that it is thus other actors in the project who were responsible for the errors in the building. The Court of Appeal has nevertheless assumed that Rambøll is liable for damages to Rune Blaschek. We are both surprised and disappointed by this result, writes Stina Johansen.

She adds that they received the verdict on Friday afternoon.

- Now we - together with our lawyers - will make a thorough assessment of whether the judgment should be appealed, concludes Johansen.

More lawsuits
As the building industry has previously mentioned, the responsible applicant in the project, Kvartal 19 Arkitektkontor, was sentenced earlier this summer in the Agder Court of Appeal to pay NOK 35 million in compensation, plus court costs, to Rune Blaschek together with his insurance company Gjensidige. The appeal deadline in this case expired on 16 September, and the judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's appeals committee decides whether the case should be referred further for consideration in the country's highest court.

Rune Blaschek has also filed a lawsuit against Bobygg and chairman Terje Saxe Kristensen. Bobygg went bankrupt in 2021. He has also filed a lawsuit against Mesterbygg, who was Bobygg's subcontractor. Nordic Isoelements has also been involved, as a supplier of the foundation wall system and the ribbed deck.

According to the Court of Appeal, the main hearing in several of the cases concerning the house in Øvre Åsenvei is scheduled for the winter/spring of 2025.