Construction work or eye work?
Nov 16, 2020
By: Shlomi Hadar, Adv. – John Geva, Geva, Hadar & Co., Attorneys at Law
The Lod District Court recently heard a claim in the amount of NIS 4,921,143 filed for damages allegedly caused to the plaintiffs as a result of construction works carried out in their home. The plaintiffs, who reside in a private house with seven levels, claimed that they hired the defendant to perform waterproofing works on the roof of their home due to leakage and dampness.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was initially asked to carry out a localized repair—waterproofing the roof of the storage room located in the northern wing outside the structure, and the ceiling of the living room wing on the western side. However, during the work, the defendant identified various defects and persuaded the plaintiffs to carry out a comprehensive repair, including the removal of the tiled roof, claiming that the tiles were “unsuitable for the climate,” and the installation of a sealing system for the roof and the walls of the house.
The plaintiffs further claimed that after all the roof tiles were removed, rainwater penetrated into the house. They also alleged that the defendant relocated nine external air-conditioning units that had been installed in recesses within the walls of the upper roof, asserting that “rainwater seeps in this area,” and that in the place of the recess he poured a concrete block weighing 40 tons, without any engineering justification, thereby impairing the structural stability of the building.
According to the plaintiffs, this concrete casting led to the blockage of the air-conditioning piping and the shutdown of the air-conditioning system. It was further alleged that the negligent construction actions carried out by the defendant also caused water infiltration through the walls of the house, and that the defendant damaged the exterior walls of the house and the drywall at the base of the front and side windows of the home.
The plaintiffs additionally claimed that the defendant presented himself as an engineer specializing in roofs and construction, and as a member of the Israeli Association of Renovation Contractors, and claimed to have performed construction work for senior public figures in the country, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset member Avigdor Lieberman—claims that later proved to be false. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant misrepresented to them that a foreign oligarch was interested in purchasing the house if the repairs were carried out, but it later transpired that the “oligarch” was in fact the uncle of the defendant’s wife, at which point the plaintiffs realized that they had fallen victim to fraud.
The defendant's claim
The defendant claimed that the plaintiffs approached him and agreed that he would repair the roof of the house for them, including sealing two flat roofs above the roof of the warehouse located in the north wing and part of the living room ceiling, repairing gutters near the kitchen, adding sheet metal to the warehouse frame and sealing ceiling windows above the kitchen, and later the plaintiffs decided to carry out additional renovations to the roof and the exterior walls of the house. The defendant added that the defendants refused to pay for the completion of the work and remained indebted to him for 700,000 NIS and added a long list of claims in which he denies what is attributed to him.
The court was impressed that the defendant did indeed have an engineering degree from abroad, was registered as a member of the Renovation Contractors Association, and was a roofing professional, and even determined that the plaintiffs did indeed ask the defendant to expand the scope of the renovations in their home. At the same time, the court accepted the position of the expert appointed by the court, who believed that the cladding work and removal of the tiled roof were carried out negligently, and contained defects resulting from poor workmanship. The court determined that the repairs carried out by the defendant were nothing more than "patchwork additions," resulting from substantial failures in the performance of the work, and the plaintiffs are entitled to a much higher level of finish. Therefore, the court decided that the work carried out by the defendant did not comply with his obligation, and the appropriate solution in the circumstances of the case is to restore the situation to its original state. Therefore, the court determined that the defendant must return the money they paid to the plaintiffs.
As for the plaintiffs' claim regarding moisture defects, the court accepted the opinion of the expert on their behalf, who believed that the defendant did not repair the foundation beams that come into contact with the ground, and therefore water infiltration from there is not his responsibility. The court also determined that the defendant was not hired to repair the openings on the entrance floor, and is therefore only responsible for the moisture defects that he was supposed to repair. As for the plaintiffs' claim regarding the concrete work, the court determined that the defendant's version is unfounded. The defendant admitted the money that was paid to him, did not present work orders documenting the receipt of amounts to prove that these were paid to him for the purpose of purchasing concrete only, and it can be learned from text correspondence and recorded conversations that were attached, that the defendant "tied" himself to the performance of the concrete work regarding which he claimed that these were performed by workers on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court was also required to decide the question of whether the defendant returned the money to the plaintiffs after he "withdrew" his hand from the concrete work, and ruled that this version is inconsistent, among other things, with a text message that he sent to the plaintiff in which he wrote, "Tomorrow we'll be at your place with the concrete," a message that was sent 5 days after he allegedly returned the money to the plaintiffs.
Regarding the casting of the concrete cube on the roof, the court's expert expressed his opinion that there was no engineering need to cast a concrete block on the roof of the plaintiffs' house, and therefore it should be dismantled and removed from the site. The court quoted the expert's words, who explained that placing a 20-ton concrete block on top of a ground-level housing unit was "unacceptable and unreasonable," even though a building permit was required to do so. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant must bear the costs of removing the cube.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of 323,300 NIS plus VAT for restoring the situation to its previous state, a total of 2,188,560 NIS for the reimbursement of the payments made, a total of 50,000 NIS for emotional distress, and the plaintiffs' expenses in the amount of 25,000 NIS.
This case is typical of many cases in which contractor work is carried out without appropriate professional guidance, without clear written agreements, without appropriate insurance. Unfortunately, cases like these that are published tarnish an entire industry, most of which internalizes the great importance of combining professionalism, fairness, and a safety net.
מסמכים
