The Supreme Court today provide owners of 32 houses in Svedala in Skåne right against the house manufacturer Myresjöhus. Their house is so called enstegstätade facades. HD believe that it was the fault of Myresjöhus to use the construction method.
– It feels very good, of course. Had we not won this time, it had been finished, since we had received remedy at his own expense. But now we have won even a partial victory, one might say, says Jan Ivarsson, one of the homeowners.
Jan Ivarsson and his neighbors live in the area Erlandsdal in Svedala. Their house was built between 1999 and 2003 by Myresjöhus with enstegstätade facades. It was a common practice then and means that the facade has no air gap and that the plaster is set directly on the substrate. There are upwards of 20,000 houses in the country with similar construction.
2007 published experts from the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute of the first tasks that enstegstätning was a risk of damp and mold. The method is nowadays condemned. Six years ago realized Jan Ivarsson and his neighbors that something was wrong.
– We did make the moisture indicator measurements on our facades. We then found that we had very high moisture quotas on most points, says Jan Ivarsson.
Villa owners sued Myresjöhus and won in district court, but lost in the Court of Appeal. They require first new facades and secondly money.
In order to pursue the case to the Supreme Court received the assistance of the Consumer Ombudsman, Gunnar Larsson, who today is pleased Supreme Court’s decision.
– We have always thought it was a strange situation that consumers might borrow a few million to buy a house from a reputable builder will not be protected for errors detected maybe just a year after it has been built, says Gunnar Larsson.
The Supreme Court says in the judgment today that enstegstätning poses significant risks to moisture, mildew and odors.
Although the method was common when the houses was built so it means that homeowners in Svedala did not get it contracted with Myresjöhus: a functional house. Therefore Myresjöhus responsible for a entreprenadfel.
While granting HD leave to appeal in the question now remains: if the villa owners are entitled to compensation.
No, believe Myresjöhus. The company’s argument is that because no one knew that the method was risky when the houses were built so can not the company is deemed to have acted recklessly.
– HD has to decide whether you can be careless, though it is not aware of any risks . It is as we say common ground that none of Myresjöhus aware of any risks associated with the construction between 2000 and 2003, but they got the information from the 2007 National Testing Institute, says lawyer Peter Savin is Myresjöhus representative.
No comments:
Post a Comment