The Provincial Court of Madrid (Audiencia Provincial) partially overturns a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Móstoles and upholds the claim of a homeowners’ association, awarding compensation for further damage.
All the façade cladding must also be removed, at a cost of €325,000.
Ceramic tiles must be fixed using the double-bonding technique with a notched trowel and with mechanical anchors.
Although it does not always happen, sometimes Justice is just. In a matter concerning a construction defects claim brought by a homeowners’ association against a well-known developer and building contractor, in which numerous habitability defects were claimed, such as hairline cracks, problems with the downpipes and problems with the ventilation shunt ducts, one of the most costly items claimed by the homeowners’ association was the façade cladding.
The façade cladding was made up of large-format ceramic tiles, some of which had fallen off and had had to be refixed by the contractor.
Even though the rest of the cladding had not fallen, given the size and weight of these ceramic tiles and the fact that they had not been properly installed, the possible detachment of any of them posed a serious risk to people’s safety.
As shown in the expert report by DPcon S.L. the tiles had been fixed with dabs of adhesive, that is, with “blobs”, and without the necessary metal anchors, so compensation was sought to remove all the ceramic tiles and bond them properly, using the double-bonding technique with a notched trowel and installing metal anchors.
However, the Court of First Instance, despite recognising the rest of the damage and handing down a judgment partially upholding the claim, did not consider the façade cladding to be a construction defect, on the grounds that there was no real risk of the tiles coming away.
But in the end the Provincial Court of Madrid, accepting the arguments in our Appeal, has ordered the defendant developer to pay compensation, adding €325,000 to the amount already obtained, so that the cladding tiles on all the façades can be properly replaced, and expressly ordered the respondent to pay the legal costs of this second instance. If your homeowners’ association has similar construction problems, contact us. DPcon Reclamación daños constructivos.
Any questions?