Affecting millions of homeowners: They sued the contractor and won compensation

Citizens who purchased apartments in an apartment building in the Güzelbahçe district at various times have applied to the contracting firm due to openings, cracks, and shedding on the building's exterior, the constant clogging of the building's manhole and rainwater channels, and water leakage from the balconies.

Claiming that the firm did not address their requests, the property owners sent a formal notice through a notary public demanding the rectification of defects. Following the failure to address the latent defects in the building and the worsening of these defects over time, they filed a lawsuit at the İzmir 1st Consumer Court to seek compensation for the damages.

In the lawsuit accepted by the court, the attorney for the contractor firm argued in their defense that the flat owners had taken delivery of their independent units during the construction phase, before the occupancy permit was obtained; that the occupancy permit for the units in question was obtained in 2016; and that the lawsuit was filed after the 5-year statute of limitations had expired.

The company's lawyer, who argued that the cracks in the exterior insulation, plaster, and paint on the main structure were caused by balcony enclosures that were added later and fixed to the insulation with screws, stated that "the insulation was damaged due to this improper application by the flat owners after delivery, that blistering occurred because water seeped under the insulation, and that the company cannot be held responsible for the defects arising from these reasons."

The defendant's lawyer further claimed that company personnel conducted an investigation following the complaints, alleging that the balconies were washed with chemicals, which caused the grout around the ceramic tiles to open and led to blistering on the balcony below, and argued that the homeowners' failure to periodically clean the gutters that drain rainwater also caused the blockage.

Following inspections conducted by expert witnesses appointed by the court, it was determined that various surface deformations such as cracking, blistering, and spalling had occurred in several parts of the structure.

The court's ruling stated that the deformations were largely attributed to errors made during roof insulation and exterior facade application. It was further noted that the floor ceramic tiling on the balconies was installed without the necessary slope to facilitate water drainage, that the floor grading and balcony drains in these areas did not allow for proper water runoff, and that the drainage manholes were insufficient.

In the ruling, which noted that the contractor firm performed the work without the necessary care, resulting in latent defects due to errors in project design, material selection, or implementation, it was stated: "It has been understood that the defendant, who is obligated to deliver the immovable property complete and free of defects, is liable to the plaintiffs for 420 thousand liras in defect remediation costs to address the incomplete and defective work.

In this context, it was concluded that with the acceptance of the lawsuit, it is necessary to decide that the 420 thousand liras be collected from the defendant, along with the legal interest to accrue from the date of the lawsuit, and paid to the plaintiffs in proportion to their shares in the title deed."

Güney Çağatay Öz, the lawyer for the property owners, stated that aggrieved parties should always seek their rights regarding defective goods, saying, "In this case, we explained the defective sections of the building in detail.

The court, during its on-site inspection of the building with an expert witness, also observed the defects in the building firsthand. The property owners were entitled to receive a total of 420 thousand lira in compensation, with each apartment receiving a separate amount."