Court of Limburg has ruled that buyers of a property failed to provide sufficient evidence that they experienced such serious noise disturbance from a cracking roof that the property could not be used normally. The claim against the sellers was therefore dismissed. The judgment demonstrates that relying on non-conformity in the case of a cracking roof requires not only technical evidence of the cause of the noises, but also convincing proof of the severity of the disturbance and its impact on enjoyment of the home.

What happened?

The purchasers bought a property in 2016 for €850,000. Following the purchase, they complained about loud cracking and popping noises coming from the roof, particularly during temperature fluctuations and high humidity. A roof specialist engaged by the purchasers concluded that the noises were caused by shifts between roof panels, timber construction elements and fasteners. According to the specialist, the sandwich roof panels used warped when heated, causing sudden stress releases resulting in loud cracking and popping noises. The specialist further stated that a residential roof should not normally produce such noises and that such sounds indicate either poorly executed work or unsuitable materials. Given the high cost of remedying the situation, the roof specialist recommended serious consideration of completely replacing the roof panels with more stable and robust insulating roof elements. The costs of demolishing and replacing the current roof panels, including installation of a waterproof membrane and new roof battens, were estimated in the report at €76,000 including VAT. In comparison, the purchasers argued that the relevant costs should be budgeted at €98,031.88, since the original report had been based on an incorrect and undersized roof area.

Court finds insufficient evidence of serious nuisance

Despite the expert report, the court rejected the claim. According to the court, the buyers had not sufficiently substantiated that the popping noises were actually so severe that normal use of the property became impossible. An important factor was that the property was partly used as a Bed & Breakfast. The court found it striking that the Bed & Breakfast website made no mention of noise disturbance from the roof. Statements from previous guests and musicians who stayed at the property also did not indicate that they had experienced troublesome popping noises. According to the court, this was inconsistent with the serious noise disturbance described by the expert.

No expert examination ordered by the court

The court therefore saw no reason to commission an independent expert examination of the roof itself. According to the court, more convincing evidence was first needed to demonstrate that there was genuinely serious and structural noise disturbance affecting normal use of the property. This ruling shows that a technical report alone is not always sufficient in proceedings concerning a cracking roof or latent defect. For a successful claim, it is also crucial to clearly demonstrate that (i) the noise disturbance is serious and structural, (ii) the enjoyment of the property is genuinely affected, (iii) the nuisance can be objectively substantiated, and (iv) the complaints are consistent with the actual situation. This is precisely why objective noise measurements, statements from residents or third parties, and good documentation of the disturbance are often decisive in proceedings involving cracking roof panels.

Read the full ruling here.

Contact Real Estate Lawyer

For questions about cracking roof panels, hidden defects or purchase agreements, you can contact me at jipvanvlokhoven@lawandpepper.com, or schedule an appointment at our office in Eindhoven. Want to stay updated on this topic? Follow the LinkedIn page of Law&Pepper Advocaten.