In this case handled by our office, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled that a residential property with severe cracking and popping noises from the roof is unsuitable for normal use as a dwelling. The sellers were ordered to pay approximately €33,000 in repair costs. The ruling is particularly significant because the court provides extensive analysis on the question of when noise nuisance from a roof structure is so serious that it constitutes non-conformity.

What happened?

The buyers had purchased a property in 2017. Following delivery and renovation, they experienced loud ticking, cracking and popping noises from the roof. At the buyers' request, Bureau voor Bouwpathologie (BvB) investigated the cause of the noises. According to BvB, the noises were caused by movement of the roof elements under the influence of temperature and moisture variations. These were Unidek Kolibrie roof elements, which are known to produce significant popping noises. Prolonged noise measurements showed that on average approximately 135 popping noises occurred per 24 hours with peak levels up to 69.1 dB(A). Furthermore, the guideline values set out in the Dutch Activities Decree and WHO guidelines were substantially exceeded, even during nighttime hours.

Defence of the sellers

The buyers had purchased a property in 2017. Following delivery and renovation, they experienced loud ticking, cracking and popping noises from the roof. At the buyers' request, Bureau voor Bouwpathologie (BvB) investigated the cause of the noises. According to BvB, the noises were caused by movement of the roof elements under the influence of temperature and moisture variations. These were Unidek Kolibrie roof elements, which are known to produce significant popping noises. Prolonged noise measurements showed that on average approximately 135 popping noises occurred per 24 hours with peak levels up to 69.1 dB(A). Furthermore, the guideline values set out in the Dutch Activities Decree and WHO guidelines were substantially exceeded, even during nighttime hours.

Property unsuitable for normal use

The court ultimately concluded that the enjoyment of the property was materially compromised. It was significant that (i) very frequent popping noises occurred, (ii) the noises also occurred at night, (iii) peak levels of almost 70 dB(A) were measured and normal sleep on the first floor was not possible according to the court. This meant that the property did not possess the characteristics required for normal use as a residential dwelling. The court accepted the Activity Decree and WHO guidelines as a suitable frame of reference for assessing the noise nuisance. The defence that the buyers' renovation work caused the noises was also rejected. According to the court, the expert reports showed that the roof windows and partition wall were not responsible for the cracking and popping of the roof. Furthermore, the court ruled that the defect was not apparent to the buyers at the time of purchase.

Repair costs fully awarded

The sellers argued that a substantial "new for old" deduction should be applied. This defence failed. According to the court, the work involved repair using largely existing materials rather than a complete new roof. Consequently, the full repair costs of €33,028 were awarded. In addition, the sellers had to reimburse expert fees of approximately €5,300.

Read here the full ruling.

Do you also suffer from a popping or cracking roof?

Are you experiencing similar problems with your roof and wondering whether you can take legal action? It is advisable to have your situation assessed in good time. We help clients with disputes over popping and cracking roof panels and can advise you on your position and – if necessary – take the appropriate steps towards the responsible party. Please feel free to contact us for an initial assessment of your case.