There was a dispute between the shareholder and the housing association about, among other things, who owns the repair costs and whether the costs were reasonable.
Helsinki the district court has ordered a housing association in Helsinki to pay compensation to the shareholder in excess of 26,000 euros in a dispute that began with the repair of a leaked toilet seat.
The resident noticed a toilet leak from a pool of water accumulated behind the seat.
The plumber had found the tank in the old toilet seat oxidized and recommended to the condominium that the seat be replaced with a new one. The housing company located in the heart of Helsinki had decided to replace the tank seals.
After more than a month, the partner had noticed the toilet seat leaking again. He had later noticed that there was a gray mold growth on the wall behind the seat and a floor in the hallway behind the bathroom with a hump.
Partner An inspection of the apartment’s structures had been found to be elevated by an expert commissioned by an expert. The expert had recommended, among other things, opening the structures and finding out and repairing the cause of the moisture.
The housing company had commissioned its own inspection, which was carried out by an expert who recommended structural openings in the bathroom to check for possible pipe leaks and to check the leaks in the intermediate floor for pipe leaks and drains.
In order to facilitate the repairs, the partner had obtained a tender for the demolition and restoration of the bathroom. The housing association had agreed that the shareholder would take demolition measures at its own expense when the company was provided with sufficient information to arrange supervision.
According to the company’s articles of association, the shareholder was obliged to take care of the waterproofing and the interior of the apartment at his own expense.
Demolition work it had become apparent that there was no significant moisture under the floor surfaces of the bathroom, but there was moisture in the wall structure. In addition, it had become clear that there was no waterproofing in the bathroom and that an old sewer pipe had cracked in the midsole.
At the same time, it was found that the bathroom water pipes had previously been run through the load-bearing beam so that the beam had been pierced across. At the beam, there is a risk of cracking and collapse in the structure.
The housing association had ordered a new repair plan and agreed to repair the broken beam and cracked sewer pipe at its own expense.
The shareholder had made other repairs at his own expense.
The housing association had admitted that the bathroom repair costs were in line with the baseline, but a dispute had arisen over the amount of the repair costs. In the second apartment, the repair costs for the bathroom had been clearly lower.
In the lawsuit, the shareholder had demanded that the housing association pay him compensation of about 60,000 euros. During the trial, the housing company had made a settlement offer and proposed to pay the shareholder EUR 25,000 in compensation.
District Court according to the shareholder should have kept more accurate records of the bathroom repair costs.
The district court also held that the housing association was not liable for damages in the matter. The liability for damages would require the company to have delayed the repairs without a valid reason.
However, according to the operative part, the housing company must pay the shareholder more than EUR 26 000 in compensation for costs that are part of the housing company’s maintenance responsibility.
The verdict is not yet final.
#Legal #proceedings #Resident #spotted #pond #toilet #bowl #Everyday #sighting #led #extensive #repairs #litigation