Unfortunately, our experience ended in a serious unresolved construction dispute
We ordered a modular double house from Hansa for a known building location in Finnish Lapland.
Hansa designed and manufactured the structural components, arranged the project-specific structural calculations and organised the assembly. The building was assembled in November 2025.
After completion, serious structural problems with the roof became apparent. Construction was stopped by building control and an independent Finnish structural engineer later concluded that substantial roof reconstruction was required. The repair concept currently accepted for proceeding by the local building-control side involves replacing the roof structure.
What concerns me most is not only that defects occurred. Construction is done by humans and mistakes can happen. What matters is how a supplier reacts afterwards.
For months, I repeatedly asked Hansa to provide a complete technical repair solution and later offered to separate the urgent remediation from the question of legal liability entirely: repair the building now, without any admission of liability, stop the damage from increasing, and discuss responsibility afterwards.
Hansa has so far declined to carry out the approved remediation and maintains that its product was ordered, approved and delivered as intended. Its latest position is that it would only support restructuring based on Hansa's own standard technical concept.
This leaves us having to organise and finance the remediation through third parties while the legal responsibility is dealt with separately.
The financial consequences are substantial. The current roof-remediation cost alone is approaching EUR 120,000 and the overall damage is considerably to reach nearly EUR 500,000 because the building cannot yet be put into its intended commercial use.
I would strongly have preferred to solve this cooperatively. Even now, I do not object to discussing a reasonable commercial settlement. But after months of correspondence, several deadlines and repeated opportunities to provide or undertake a complete repair solution, the matter is now moving into formal legal handling.
My rating therefore reflects not simply that a serious technical defect occurred, but primarily how the situation has been handled after the defect became known. The 5 years of warranty is not worth the paper.
I will update this review if Hansa's position or the outcome of the dispute changes.