Court orders housing developer to pay Amsterdam family €400K over constant water leak
A Dutch court has ordered real estate developer Amvest to pay more than 400,000 euros in accumulating penalties over a years-long water leak in a luxury apartment in Amsterdam-Oost while also noting moisture problems in other units in the same residential complex, AD reports.
The dispute centers on an apartment purchased in 2018 for 879,000 euros in a newly built complex. Before the property was delivered in 2021, a leak was discovered in the living room. Amvest initially said the issue had been fixed, but it reappeared.
In the first weekend after delivery, the leak returned in the living room and continued over the following years despite repeated complaints. Residents said they contacted the developer dozens of times as the water intrusion spread across walls and ceilings and caused repeated electrical failures in the apartment.
In February 2022, the residents wrote in an email, "The leak and damp spot is so large, clearly filled with water, just above the television. If that breaks, we have a dangerous situation where water flows into the electrical outlet and the TV. Since November, we have heard nothing about an approach to this leak.”
In another message cited in court filings, they wrote, "A place is so large, clearly filled with water, just above the television. If that breaks, we have a dangerous situation of water running into the socket and the television.”
The moisture problems also affected other units in the complex. At least three apartments have reported similar issues.
In January 2024, a contractor installed buckets in the living room ceiling of the affected apartment to catch dripping water. Despite that measure, the residents said the leak remained unresolved and electrical outages continued.
In 2022, the owners and Amvest entered into a settlement agreement requiring the developer to pay a penalty of 219.75 euros per day starting from the delivery date until the leak was fully repaired. The agreement did not include any condition that the apartment must be uninhabitable for the penalty to apply.
Amvest later argued in court that the penalty should only apply if the apartment was uninhabitable and sought to avoid payment as the amount increased. The court rejected that argument, finding that the written agreement contained no such limitation and that Amvest, a professional party represented by lawyers during negotiations, was bound by its terms.
The court said the daily penalty functions as a necessary incentive to ensure repair work is completed. It did not set a deadline for repairs, noting that the leak originates in roof and façade areas above other apartments, making the work complex.
