Home sales and hidden defects | Legal aid centre

Questioner

I have sold my home and received a letter from the purchasing party about some defects: -There is a loud noise coming from the extractor hood. -A defect in the fuse box. -Replacing the burner of the central heating boiler. This defect can be repaired by the supplier of the boiler, but the buyer does not want to give me a serial number, which means that help is not possible. As a buyer, I was not aware of all the defects mentioned before or at the time of the transfer. The buyer did not have a building inspection carried out and signed the inspection form on the day of transfer. Now the buyer is trying to recover the damage (repair) from me. I have acted in good faith and believe that I am not liable. What are your thoughts on this?

Lawyer

The fact that the extractor hood makes a disturbing noise is not a defect because the buyer could have determined this himself before the purchase, the other complaints are not of such a nature that there is really a hidden defect within the meaning of the case law. The buyer must conduct a proper investigation and with an old(er) house one must be aware that something will sometimes break, as is the case with other second-hand but even new items. If you give in now, how long will the buyer keep knocking on your door? Under which regime does the standard NVM contract fall?

Questioner

Thank you very much for your quick and clear response. What do you mean by the last sentence? 'Under which regime does the standard NVM contract fall?'?

Lawyer

The purchase contract; is that an NVM standard contract? The terms and conditions of the purchase contract explain a number of things about hidden defects/older houses, etc.

Questioner

This is indeed an NVM standard contract with an old age clause.

Questioner

A few weeks later I have received a liability statement. In the liability statement the buyer mentions hidden defects which hinder the normal use of the house according to buyer Article 17 book 7 of the civil code and article; 6.3 in the purchase agreement. Article 6.3. Upon legal transfer, the immovable property will possess the actual properties required for normal use as: a residence If the actual delivery takes place earlier, the property will be the property of the possess properties necessary for normal use. Seller does not warrant any properties other than those required for normal use. The seller also does not guarantee the absence of defects that would otherwise result from normal use. obstruct and which are known or apparent to the buyer at the time of the conclusion come from this purchase agreement. The total amount is €1,156 for which he holds me liable and wants a solution. He also indicates that he will go to court to recover the damages. I have a few quick questions: Does the working equipment (central heating/extractor hood and fuse box) which is rejected after purchase fall under 'hidden defects'? If your extractor hood makes noise, is that sufficient for the courts to consider this as an obstacle to normal use of the home? Buyer signed for a working extractor hood upon inspection? Can he then claim any damages that occur afterwards? The appliance is 9 years old. Is it wise to perhaps offer a small compensation because I find it an unpleasant situation or is that not advisable? What would you recommend overall? Thanks in advance for your response.

Lawyer

No, the hidden defects regulation in the NVM must - if present - also prevent normal occupation; minor repairs are really not covered by this.