Refurbisher or turn-off

It seemed like such a great idea. Many friends were enthusiastic and the stories in the newspapers with beautiful pictures of handymen and their restored homes were the deciding factor. You had to know what you were getting into and have good stamina. But then you had something: a largely self-refurbished handicapped apartment. The contractor would do some renovation work, after which each buyer was obliged to take on the further renovations to their own home.

It all began energetically. In 2014, the members of the CoE each entered into construction agreements with the contractor. With a sister company of the contractor, they entered into purchase agreements. The homes were sold as job homes whose delivery will be in the condition they are in at the time of signing the purchase agreement. The buyers also signed to be familiar with the condition of the homes. After the completion of the renovation works by the contractor on November 5, 2014, it took until January 16, 2020 for the CoE to summon the contractor to repair defects in (among other things) the concrete of the facades. The VvE hired the Bureau of Building Pathology to determine the damage to the facades, and the Bureau reached conclusions about it in several reports with which the contractor disagrees. He disputes that he is (or was) at fault.

The parties' stalemate prevents them from reaching an agreement. The tough job of ensuring a breakthrough is placed before an arbitrator (from the Council of Arbitration in construction disputes). The VvE claims that the contractor failed to comply with the agreement by failing to apply a carbonation inhibitor coating after cleaning the concrete. This caused damage to the concrete. It demands repair of the damage and the subsequent coating of the concrete consoles. The contractor disputes the VvE's claim. He duly fulfilled the contract. According to the technical description, he was to apply a hydrophobic paste to the concrete after cleaning. He did so. The contractor seeks dismissal of the VvE's claim.

At the hearing, the Association argues that it bases its claim on a provision in the technical description dated April 7, 2014. The contractor argues that it is the technical description of September 21, 2013 that applies to the contract for building. This does not include coating but hydrophobing exactly as he has performed. He also refers to the agreement with his subcontractor which states that the cleaned concrete surfaces must be treated with two coats of transparent hydrophobic cream.

Arbitrator does not mince words. He considers that the building contract refers to the September 21, 2013 technical description cited by the contractor. The agreement brought into dispute by the VvE refers to an October 2013 version signed in February 2014. That the parties (the individual members and contractor) agreed on a modified technical description after the agreement was signed with the date of April 7, 2014 has not been established. It emerged at the hearing that the expert from the Building Pathology Office only had the technical description dated April 7, 2014. When it became clear to him that the contractor only talked about hydrophobizing, the expert stated in his subsequent reports - without further specific research - that he could not find anything about a hydrophobic paste,. The fact that with the passage of time the transparent hydrophobic paste can hardly be observed, if at all, appeared to be known to the parties. Arbitrator has no reason to doubt that the hydrophobic coating was applied by the contractor. Arbitrator hammers off and the VvE's claim for restoration is dismissed.

For example, the requirement to apply a water repellent coating to the concrete was evident from a waterproofing story provided by the contractor. For the handymen, their choice turned out to be a turnoff. Good advice for your facade? Check out www.vmrg.nl. It will fix you and your facade!