One of the first published rulings on cracking roof panels concerns the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Arnhem-Leeuwarden dated 23 August 2016 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2016:6755). According to the court, there was such severe noise nuisance that normal living and sleeping on the floor became virtually impossible. The sellers were therefore ordered to compensate the repair costs.

Buy property with cracking roof

```html
The buyers purchased a property built in 1979 in 2010. The questionnaire attached to the purchase agreement stated: "Roof panels crack during temperature fluctuations." After purchase, the buyers discovered that these were not ordinary cracking noises, but loud popping sounds from the roof. According to the buyers, the noises were so severe that sleeping on the upper floor was virtually impossible. An expert investigation revealed that the roof panels had been insufficiently fastened. Instead of five nails per rafter, only three nails had been used. This caused sudden deformations of the roof panels during temperature fluctuations, resulting in loud popping noises.
```

Severe noise nuisance = non-conformity

The court emphasised that a dwelling must be suitable for normal use as a residential home. According to the court, this also means that residents must be able to sleep normally without serious disruption to their enjoyment of the home. The court found it sufficiently proven that (i) the popping noises occurred regularly, (ii) the sounds were highly disturbing, (iii) night-time rest was seriously disrupted and (iv) the noise nuisance had existed for a considerable time. This established that the defect prevented normal use of the dwelling. The property therefore did not comply with the purchase agreement.

"Notification about cracking roof panels" insufficient

The sellers argued that they had warned the buyers in advance by including a statement in the questionnaire that the roof panels could crack. The court disagreed. According to the court, this disclosure failed to reflect the severity of the problem. Additionally, pressing a roof panel during the viewing was insufficient to make the buyers aware that serious popping noises disrupting sleep were occurring. This ruling is legally significant. A general remark that a roof "may crack" does not automatically mean that a buyer must accept serious noise disturbance.

Age Clause Does Not Protect the Seller

The appeal to the age clause was also rejected. According to the court, the defect was not related to normal wear and tear on the property, but rather to faulty installation of the roof panels. For this reason, the problem did not fall under the "foreseeable and expected shortcomings" of an older building. This is of considerable importance in proceedings concerning hidden defects. Sellers often invoke an age clause, but it does not always provide protection.

Read the full ruling here.

Contact a roof noise specialist?

Do you experience a ticking, cracking or popping roof after building or purchasing your home? Or are there other defects? Please contact us without obligation. Our office has expertise in this area and can connect you with parties that can assist you. Both in terms of building a case file (what is the problem, cause, consequences, repair and repair costs) as well as in recovering costs from the seller, contractor and/or architect.