The Limburg District Court ruled that noise nuisance caused by cracking roof panels in this case was not serious enough to conclude that the property was unsuitable for normal use as a residence. The buyers therefore did not succeed in their appeal based on non-conformity and misrepresentation. The ruling is noteworthy because the court conducted an extensive assessment of when noise nuisance from a roof structure is legally serious enough to constitute a latent defect.

Noise measurements for cracking roof panels

The purchasers stated that sleeping in the property became impossible due to loud cracking and popping noises coming from the roof structure. According to them, the thermal behaviour of the roof panels during temperature fluctuations caused dozens of noise peaks per night. At the instruction of the purchasers, Quattro Expertise conducted noise measurements in the property. According to the report, noise peaks of up to 59.5 decibels were measured in the master bedroom and up to 65.6 decibels in the attic. In the attic, over thirty peak noises above 45 decibels were reportedly recorded during two nights. The purchasers argued that this constituted serious sleep disturbance and that the property therefore lacked the characteristics necessary for normal use as a residential dwelling.

Court: not every cracking roof structure is a defect

Regarding the master bedroom, the court ruled that over four nights, only four to five sound peaks above 45 decibels per night had been measured. Only once was a peak of approximately 60 decibels recorded. The court compared this to the sound of a dishwasher or alarm clock and ruled that a single such sound peak over four nights was insufficient to conclude that undisturbed sleep was impossible.

For the loft, the court ultimately reached the same conclusion, despite the greater number of measured peak noises. An important factor here was that the property originally dated from 1907. According to the court, buyers of an older property must account for outdated materials and noises arising from the operation of an old roof structure. The fact that the sales brochure stated that a bedroom could be created in the loft did not mean, in the court's view, that the buyer could expect no additional measures to be necessary to reduce noise disturbance.

No breach of duty to inform

The buyers also argued that the sellers had breached their duty to inform by failing to disclose that the roof was subject to cracking noises. This argument too was rejected. According to the court, the measured noises were not of such a nature that the sellers should have understood the buyers had formed an incorrect picture of the situation. Therefore, the sellers were not under an obligation to actively disclose this information. The buyers' argument based on mistake thus also failed.

Significance of this ruling in disputes over cracking roof panels

This ruling shows that not every form of noise disturbance from a roof structure automatically results in non-conformity or liability of the seller. In proceedings concerning cracking roof panels, it remains crucial how severe and frequent the noises actually are. Courts also look closely at the nature and age of the property and the question of what expectations a buyer could reasonably have had.

Contact a property law lawyer in Eindhoven?

Do you experience a ticking, cracking or popping roof after building or purchasing your home? Or are there other defects? Please feel free to contact us. Our office has expertise in this area and can connect you with parties who can assist you. Both in terms of building a file (what is the problem, cause, consequence, repair and repair costs) as well as in pursuing recovery of costs from the seller, contractor and/or architect.