Neighbour's property sustains significant damage as a result of a newly constructed roof by the adjacent homeowner
In a recent legal dispute, neighbours have taken their concerns to court over a roof replacement carried out by their neighbours and homeowners. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant's roof replacement has caused numerous damages and side effects, and they allege that the defendant does not have a valid building permit for the renovation.
The plaintiff neighbours argue that the defendant's roof replacement increased the roof height by 64 cm, making their chimney unusable. They demand the restoration of the minimum distance of their chimney 40 cm above the roof ridge and the restoration of the fire wall quality of the wooden parts on the boundary wall of the street-side dormer on their roof.
However, the regional court dismissed the complaint in the first instance, stating that the defendant's roof replacement regarding the roof height did not violate the building permits issued to them. The court also found no claim for the restoration of the minimum distance of the plaintiff's chimney 40 cm above the ridge of the plaintiff.
The defendant homeowners argue that their roof replacement complies with the building permit issued to them in full. They claim that the alteration of their half of the semi-detached house is subject to its design authority as the owner. The defendant's argument is supported by the fact that they had a building permit, and a violation of the distance regulation is not to be considered.
The plaintiff homeowners also claim that the roof replacement on the defendant's property cut the previously continuous common ridge beam of the roof trusses of both houses, making the roof of the affected plaintiff's property unstable.
The plaintiff neighbours are appealing against the judgment of the regional court. They argue that the regional court wrongly rejected a claim by the plaintiff for the increase of their chimney against the defendant, as the defendant had caused the building code violation of the chimney through its roof replacement. The defects in the chimney are exclusively due to renovation work.
The case is currently under review by the higher regional court. The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the defendant's roof replacement complies with the building codes and regulations, and whether the plaintiff's demands for restoration and demolition will be granted.
Read also:
- Struggles of Nepal's Himalayan wildlife amidst expanding livestock populations and road networks (opinion piece)
- Coverage of Medical Treatment Questioned: Patient Receives Bill for $17,000 Despite Insurance Promise of Coverage
- Social Change Advocates : A Compilation of Zines as Driving Forces
- Guide to Choosing the Best Animation Company in Belgium: A Comprehensive Overview
