Legal Assistance for Leakage and Sales Problems


Questioner

Early June, the transfer of our house took place (we are the selling party). After heavy rainfall at the end of June and the removal of wallpaper and cladding, it turns out that there is leakage damage to the roof and gutter. The purchase agreement states that the house is being taken over with all visible and invisible defects. We did report problems with the gutter a year earlier, but at the time of sale it was not there. It is a 40-year-old house, where only the ground floor has been renovated (single glazing above, almost no insulation roof, visibly outdated condition at the time of sale). The roof leak has seeped through to the first floor as the ceiling had been removed. At the time of transfer and moving, nothing was visible in terms of wet boxes, spots on the wall, etc. In retrospect, it can be seen that a roof tile on the ridge is broken. However, the buyers did not have a construction technical inspection carried out. We have now received a letter from their lawyer (after previous correspondence in which we indicated that the leak was unknown and that we did not think we were liable for the costs, as we charged for a new gutter and new ridge, which is not in proportion to the condition of the house). What to do? How does the buyer's duty to investigate relate to the hidden defect (roof leakage, which can be interpreted as loss of residential function)? Do we have a strong position if we indicate that it is a hidden defect and that they have taken it over (and that they should otherwise have investigated)? The internet is not clear about this.

Lawyer

You should first carefully check whether the purchase agreement contains any mention of matters relating to the age of the home and the impact this has on your obligation to comply. The starting point is that a home must have the properties that the buyer may expect, taking all circumstances into account. In principle, the buyer may expect that a home does not leak. Age as such does not mean that a buyer may not expect the home to be leak-free. You indicate that the leak was not visible, without removing wallpaper and panelling. This also means that during a normal viewing the buyer did not have to have doubts (based on what was visible) about the home being leak-free. The question remains what the cause of the leak was/is. At most, you can be required to pay for (the costs of) such a repair that the leak is fixed. If the leak as such could be fixed with simple measures (replacing a broken roof tile?) then no more can be demanded of you than this.

Neem de volgende stap

Blijf niet rondlopen met vragen over je situatie. Stel je vraag en krijg persoonlijk antwoord van een ervaren jurist.
Privacy is gewaarborgd.