Construction defects judgment awards €193,889.78 plus costs, with the court-appointed expert’s report matching ours.

           The legal department of DPcon Reclamación Daños Constructivos has once again obtained a judgment upholding the claim in full for a residential development in Móstoles.

                     The lawsuit, brought before the courts of Arganda because the defendant, a well-known developer, has its registered address there, was filed some time ago with the Juzgado Decano (central court registry) of Arganda del Rey, claiming for  a series of defects in several of the homes (25) and in the communal areas (façades and storage rooms): numerous cracks, detached materials, open joints and fractures in the plaster false ceilings, which meant that the homes handed over, and the communal areas, were not fit for the purpose for which they had been delivered.

                  The developer did everything possible to reject its liability and slow down the proceedings: it ignored the formal demands sent to it,  tried to bring other parties involved in the construction into the proceedings through “third-party joinder”, denied that the defects claimed were its responsibility and said that in any case they did not amount to a breach of contract,  requested postponements of the scheduled hearings, requested the appointment of a different court-appointed expert and an extension of the court expert’s report, requested clarifications, and so on.

               But in the end all these manoeuvres did not help it much, as the court has recently handed down a judgment upholding the claim in full, ordering the defendant to pay €193,889.78, with an express order to pay legal costs.

              The judge considers that the report of the DPcon expert  is not only “complete, thorough and convincing, as was his testimony at trial, but is also fully confirmed by the report of the court-appointed expert”.

                This is no trivial matter, since it is rare for a court-appointed expert (requested, moreover, by the developer) drawn at random from the court’s list to agree fully with the conclusions and valuation of the party-appointed expert. The judge even considered our expert’s report more rigorous, as he had visited more homes:

              “Both as regards the defendant’s liability for the defects observed and as regards their existence and valuation. Thus, both experts have stated that the defects, which are widespread, are due to defective workmanship from the outset, and cannot be the result of misuse or lack of maintenance. Both also state that these are defects that could have been avoided had the works been properly carried out. The experts also agree on the defects, although the court-appointed expert points to the existence of flaws not observed by the claimant’s expert. It should be noted, however, that this is despite the fact that the court-appointed expert visited a smaller number of homes and therefore had more limited knowledge of the existing defects. Finally, they agree on the valuation of the damage. The supplement to the court-appointed expert’s report is illustrative, stating literally that “I consider that all the repairs proposed in the report of the Architect –from DPcon S.L- , are necessary for the proper repair that needs to be undertaken, and I do not see any repair that is not necessary. I therefore refer to the monetary quantification set out in the report of the said Architect for this purpose”.

                If your recently established homeowners’ association has construction defects and wishes to claim for them,  tell us about your case with no obligation.