Imagine going out to buy a new car. You know your budget and know what brand you want. You do have a preference for a model and accessories, but you also want to see what is on offer. Well prepared you set out on your search and after several visits to dealers you have found your ideal car. Sitting own to close the deal, the salesman says coolly: “You have to keep an eye on the production process yourself, otherwise you will not get warranty on the car of we have to add the extra costs.” Totally unacceptable, of course! And unrealistic. But that is exactly how it works in the Netherlands when you have a house built. How Dutch construction law puts the world upside down…
More influence for you
As a customer of the building industry I want you to have more influence on the quality of the final result. For that you will have to learn to speak the language of the industry and the building world not your language. The government will still have more interest in prescribing the fit-out than the base building; more about that in our introduction. Meanwhile, I work to ensure that the building industry adapts to your needs and wishes. But I still need some time for that, because many parties are involved and they all have their interests… In this blog I will explain to you how construction law works right now and what the consequences are for you. Make good use of this knowledge and please contact me if you need help. Here we go.
Two legal worlds to deal with
When you want to build a house you will have to deal with two different worlds. The world of Dutch construction law (based on caveat emptor = buyer beware!). And that of European law (based on caveat venditor = seller beware!). European law protects you as a consumer and makes demands on suppliers of materials and building products. That makes sense, considering you obviously have no knowledge of building and all needed for it. But for the real estate boys and girls like financiers, developers, estate agents and supervisors Dutch law applies. As for the parties involved in designing and actual making and supervising buildings. Like the architect, construction and technical engineer, other consultants, installers, contractors and construction supervisors!
Trouble guaranteed
European consumer law says that you should get what you order as a buyer implicitly AND explicitly. European law also says that the manufacturer of building products must deliver a quality that meets the expectations. If the producer is liable for a defect, he must prove his innocence. And that future problems for the client that could have been expected add to the responsibility. Together that is the combination of the producer responsibility and the precautionary principle of the EU law.
If the producer is put liable for a defect, he must prove his own innocence and the fault of the user. But according to Dutch law a building supplier in construction – for example, a developer or a contractor – is only liable for wishes and commands from the user if they are expressed emphatically. So if you want to get what you have ordered, you have to make your wishes very clear and arguably unto the last detail.
Your responsibility for what you ask, is greater in the Netherlands than the responsibility of the supplier to interpret, realise and guarantee your request properly.
And after completion of the building – the delivery or legal handover – you can only appeal to the contractor for hidden defects. That is… if you have monitored the building process and products sufficiently. That brings us back to the statement of the car salesman. Because anything that has been seen during the construction work for the customer he must directly be making observations for improvement. Add to that the fact that the building site is often off limits to you until completion and you can be sure that trouble is guaranteed. Therefore it is crucial that you learn to phrase your demands clearly as long as the Dutch law remains the same. I will gladly help you with that.
Differences in construction law: classic examples
A friend of mine bought an almost twelve years old house. The expensive floor to ceiling double glazing was moist on the inside. According to the previous owner that had always been the case. There was nothing to be done. So my friend called the contractor who had built the house. “Uh, yeah, sorry about that, but that is not our responsibility.” He got the same answer from the developer. There was no documentation whatsoever. But in the space between the panes my friend found the name of the glaswindow supplier. He found the phone number on the internet. And guess what? There was a twelve year warranty on the windows. It was February and the warranty expired the following month.
The glass supplier was not very happy with the phone call and the claim that followed by letter. No one had ever made a claim to the warranty before, while more houses in the neighborhood have (had) the same problem. After the refusal of the contractor and the developer to do something about it – unless for a fee! – people in the neighborhood had left it at that. Or had the windows repaired at their own expense. My friend could claime his rights with the supplier because the supplier is bound to European law. It saved my friend a lot of money. The dealer has replaced the leaky window for free within warranty. Even though there was talk of a possible faulty installation by the contractor.
Even the national government is confused!
Another example I heard from an civil servant working on a then newly rebuilt ministry in The Hague. The state as a client – then just called the Government Buildings Agency – was suffering from a broken window in the facade shortly after commissioning. It had taken two years of discussion efforts to finally replace the window, because the contractor did not do that as its responsibility under warranty. Unfortunately, the contractor still has the Dutch law on his side, after all, after completion it is the client who takes over all further responsibilities, unless it is agreed upon building completion by the contractor as official trailing operations.
Had the client skipped the contractor and directly turned to the supplier / manufacturer who was liable, it got solved much sooner! Then the contractor under the current law had even gotten the chance to fix this at the expense of the supplier / manufacturer! And most often the window is actually placed by the contractors personnel. I hear uncorroborated stories of contractors who let the customer pay for the solution of such a product problem while claiming the insurance the damages and demanding a supplier / manufacturer rebate for damages. But I would hope that that is not true!
Take the next step and share your experiences
Do you want to take a next step? Come to the FREE* Masterclass. We will work with practical tools to instantly implement the actions of my ebook in your organizational, fiscal or financial projects and organization.
Join the conversation
Do you know how to build that new way and what you need? Would you profit by having a less different law system national to the EU one? Share it in the comments below.
To your health and wellbeing,
Remko Zuidema
[remko_author]
This post is also available in: Nederlands
