Residential Construction Liability: Discover your rights

Questioner

I bought my home from a housing association in 2005. Before that, it was rented to a married couple. I recently renovated my front garden, and when removing plants (a standard practice for housing associations in rental properties at the time), holes in the facade became visible. I didn't know why they were there, but a company employee pointed out that this was due to insulation in the facade and that these holes should have been filled in. This was maintenance work done by the housing association, but they neglected to fill it in. I called the housing association about this yesterday (February 5, 2014), but they said it was too long ago and they wouldn't do anything about it. Their argument is that I bought the house as it was. I did argue that I bought an insulated house and that the holes, hidden behind a shrub, weren't pointed out to me. Can I still hold the housing association/foundation liable for the damage? Holes in the wall, but also higher energy bills due to extra drafts? What I really want is for them to fill the holes at their own expense. An inspection of the rental properties will be conducted soon. My neighbors are still renting, and they're in the same situation. That will need to be addressed as well. Please let me know if writing to them is worthwhile.

Lawyer

That's pointless, as you describe the issue. In short, this isn't a hidden defect that prevents normal use of the home. And the damage, especially in terms of higher heating costs, will be negligible, if it can even be proven.

Lawyer

Day, If your neighbors are having the same problem, there was a construction defect and you received a defective house. In that respect, I don't entirely agree with the above answer. I think it's worth investigating how much damage you've suffered and whether it's worthwhile to confront the seller about it. In that sense, any approach from the seller is a mistake, and you won't know if they're inclined to do so unless you, in turn, have tried to prove your damage and hold them liable.

Lawyer

In light of the above comment, I would like to make the following observations so that you have a better understanding of why it will most likely be pointless. Hidden defects are defects that only become apparent after delivery. The determining factor in such cases is what was agreed upon in the purchase agreement between buyer and seller. If a warranty provision is included in the agreement, the seller is liable for all latent defects, provided that they can be said to hinder normal use as a residential home. If no warranty provision is included in the purchase agreement, the conformity guarantee under Article 7:17 of the Dutch Civil Code still applies. Accordingly, the property must conform to the agreement: if the property does not possess the properties necessary for normal use, it does not conform to the agreement. A buyer may expect the property to possess the properties necessary for normal use, the presence of which they could not have doubted, as well as the properties necessary for a special use as provided for in the agreement. Furthermore, the purchase agreement may include an age clause that limits the buyer's rights. The seller of a property is obligated to report any defects that impede its normal use, so that the buyer can take these defects into account when making their purchase decision. This is called the seller's duty of disclosure. On the other hand, there's the buyer's duty to investigate. The buyer is also obligated to actively inform themselves about the condition of the property. This could include, for example, engaging an expert to prepare a building inspection report. Therefore, it must also be determined whether the buyer has fulfilled their duty to investigate. After all, if the buyer could have noticed the latent defect when viewing the property, it is no longer a latent defect. If a latent defect is present (see the requirements above), the buyer can hold the seller liable under Article 7:17 of the Dutch Civil Code for the costs incurred to remedy the latent defect. The seller is liable for these costs if it is established that they were or should have been aware of the defect and subsequently failed to inform the buyer of its existence. Furthermore, the seller is only liable if the hidden defect prevents normal use of the home. Furthermore, notification to the other party must be made in a timely manner. Case law assumes a maximum of two months after discovery.

Lawyer

If I understand correctly, this concerns holes drilled in the wall of a house to install insulation. I assume they are relatively small holes, and therefore the repair costs are very low. For that reason alone, I believe it's pointless to incur legal costs. Furthermore, Ms. Doomernik has legally correctly stated your position, and the chance of success is therefore very slim even if you proceed. If you engage legal assistance, the only winner is likely the lawyer or attorney who will handle the case at your expense.