The court in Gelderland has ruled that a seller is not liable for a property with cracking roof panels. Although expert investigation revealed significant noise disturbance and various structural defects in the roof, the buyer was unable to prove that the problems were already present at the time of delivery of the property.

What happened?

The buyer purchased a home in 2016 for € 310,000. Prior to the purchase, a building survey was conducted. No issues were identified with the roof structure during this inspection. Several years later, the buyer complained of loud popping noises coming from the roof. An acoustic investigation revealed that the roof panels were producing frequent loud popping noises. The buyer subsequently commissioned further investigation by an engineering firm. According to that report, various structural defects were present in the roof structure. The roof panels were fastened with too few bolts, certain structural components were missing, and fastening elements showed signs of corrosion. The repair costs were estimated at € 27,500.

Complaint Obligation: Buyer Did Not Complain Too Late

The seller argued, among other things, that the buyer had complained too late. The court did not accept this argument. According to the court, the buyer had sufficiently explained why he had not immediately identified the source of the noises. The buyer initially thought the sounds came from stored items and later suspected a mouse infestation. In addition, the court found it significant that the seller had failed to substantiate that he had actually suffered harm to his interests as a result of the time that had passed.

No non-conformity after all

Despite the expert investigation, the court ultimately dismissed the claims. The decisive factor was that it was not sufficiently established that the popping noises were present at the moment of delivery of the property in December 2016. The court emphasised that the acoustic investigation had only taken place in 2020, more than 3.5 years after the property was delivered. Moreover, the buyer had only first reported the complaints to the seller in 2019. According to the court, it was therefore insufficiently proven that the property was not fit for normal residential use upon delivery.

Seller was not required to disclose the defect

The buyer furthermore argued that the seller had breached his duty to disclose. This argument also failed. The seller had stated that he had not experienced any popping noises during his 23 years of occupancy. According to the court, it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the seller was actually aware of the alleged defects. Therefore, it could not be established that the seller had deliberately withheld information.

No misrepresentation or unlawful act

Even the appeals based on mistake and unlawful act were rejected. According to the court, it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the seller knew of a defect in the roof at the time of concluding the purchase agreement, or that both parties had proceeded on the same incorrect assumption when purchasing.

Get in touch with a specialist?

Are you suffering from a popping roof? Contact one of our specialist lawyers on a no-obligation basis. We have been active in this sector for many years and have extensive experience in holding contractors and suppliers liable.

Read the full ruling here.