The District Court of Overijssel ruled that a seller is liable for serious cracking and popping noises emanating from a roof structure. According to the court, these sounds substantially impaired the enjoyment of the property, constituting non-conformity in the purchase of the dwelling. The ruling is legally significant because the court extensively addresses when a popping roof impedes normal use of a property and when a seller has a duty to disclose noise disturbance from roof panels.

Sound peaks were measured with spikes reaching towards 70 dB(A)

A buyer had purchased a semi-detached house in 2016 that was built in 2006. Prior to the purchase, the buyer viewed the property twice. During the viewings, the buyer explicitly asked about noises inside and around the property. The buyer tested whether neighbouring sounds were audible and enquired about the ventilation system. However, after taking possession of the property, it became clear that the roof produced loud cracking and popping noises. The buyer held the sellers liable and commissioned an investigation by an engineering firm.

The expert report revealed that multiple sound peaks were measured on the first and second floors, with peaks reaching approximately 70 dB(A). According to the report, these unexpected sound peaks could disrupt concentration, disturb sleep and trigger startle responses. The engineering firm also concluded that the threshold values set out in the Dutch Activity Decree were significantly exceeded, particularly during nighttime hours. According to the expert, the cracking roof panels were caused by a combination of structural deficiencies. For example, locally up to 75% fewer screwed fasteners had been installed than prescribed, certain fastenings were missing and the roof window was inadequately supported. Additionally, the roof elements used showed relatively severe warping due to temperature and humidity fluctuations. The report concluded that there was defective execution of the roof structure and that the noises were likely present from the time the property was built.

Court: normal residential use impaired

The court established that a home must be suitable for normal use as a residential dwelling. According to consistent case law, this means that the home must be habitable in a reasonably safe manner, with a reasonable level of durability and without material impairment of enjoyment of the property. According to the court, this was not the case in this matter. The court found it sufficiently proven that the noise peaks on the upper floors reached nearly 70 dB(A) and that night-time rest could be seriously disrupted. The court considered it significant that the noises occurred precisely in bedrooms and that there were substantial breaches of the noise standards set out in the Activities Decree. The court did not accept the sellers' defence that there were only incidental "dull popping noises" that would not be disturbing. The court found it insufficient that some neighbours and visitors had not experienced the noises as disturbing to set aside the conclusions from the expert report.

Notice obligation for seller in case of cracking roof panels

A key aspect of the ruling is that the court placed significant weight on the seller's duty to disclose information. According to the court, it was the sellers' responsibility to inform the buyer in advance about the cracking roof panels. The court also noted that a roof should normally produce no noise, and that the roof problems had previously been a topic of conversation with neighbours. The court further found it important that the buyer had explicitly asked about noises in the property beforehand. For this reason, the sellers should have disclosed the cracking roof structure. The sellers' claim that the buyer might be particularly sensitive to noise made no difference, according to the court. The measured noise peaks were objectively serious enough to substantially affect normal enjoyment of the home.

Incomplete repair costs awarded

Although the court found that there was non-conformity, not all claimed repair costs were awarded. The buyer wanted complete roof replacement and claimed over €26,000 in compensation. However, the court found insufficient justification for why a less invasive repair method, previously proposed by the engineering firm itself, could not suffice. As a result, the court ultimately awarded €11,500 in repair costs, plus expert fees and court costs.

Read the full judgment here.

Contact a lawyer about your popping roof?

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.