Liability for hidden defects

Questioner

Good afternoon, we recently got the key to our new home. During the 2 viewings, the seller explicitly stated that the spots in the corner of the living room were from an old leak. After removing the wallpaper, it looked very bad. When measuring the moisture, the moisture percentage appeared to be much too high. We had a company come and they found a leak in the flat roof (roof extension living room, toilet, utility room) and reported as follows: - Lead has decayed, shows many cracks down to the brickwork. Through which the connection of the brickwork and roofing felt becomes visible. - Lead is too low on the roofing felt, which creates a suction effect, causing (stagnant) water to rise between the lead and the roofing felt and seep in. - The HWA (the outlet is on the bulkhead) This means that water will always remain on the flat roof/roof terrace. This must be on a slope. - Because the HWA is not in the right place and the roofing felt is not high enough at the lowest point of the flat roof. After a heavy rain shower, the water will seek an exit at the lowest point, the water will seep in along the roofing felt and the lead. Due to long-term leakage, the subsurface has become very saturated. In various places on the flat roof, you sink through the subsurface. We have stated this in an official letter as hidden defects to the sellers. They say it is our problem and do not want to pay for the repair. Are they indeed not liable?

Lawyer

The seller has a duty to report any defects, but you have a duty to investigate in the event of a leak that requires further investigation in that case. This could be done with a structural investigation and you can be blamed by the seller for having failed to do so. In principle, the seller is liable if he does not report this. Now that there is more going on and normal use of the home is being prevented by the defects, I advise you to hold the seller liable. If you cannot (yet) reach an agreement, I will look into your case.

Lawyer

Liability is already there, but I wonder if this is substantiated with all the legal arguments, in particular fraud and error? The above obligations of information and investigation do not weigh as heavily if the seller has deliberately concealed something, but then you should know whether an investigation was carried out at the time, as you have now had done? Because, the seller has then half informed you and you had made a decision about the purchase of the house and price on other facts. Yet even if the seller has not deliberately concealed something, there is always the case of mutual error and the costs could be divided. The situation must be assessed first.