Bodø couple bought a house – discovered a number of errors – won in court against the builder – news Nordland

March 2019: Linda Mari Kristiansen and Kristian Jakobsen sign an agreement with Byggmester Jarle Vikjord AS. The family of five will get a new home north of Bodø. Price tag: NOK 6.65 million. October 2022: Last week, the Salten and Lofoten district court determined that the house is worth NOK 1.8 million. – It has been extremely stressful for a period of over three years, Kristian Jakobsen tells news. What on earth went wrong? The house lacks proper support On 18 June 2019, the family took over the house just outside the center of Bodø. During the first autumn, they discovered several faults and deficiencies in the brand new house. An appraiser was engaged. On 20 November, a report was submitted: The home has significant deviations from requirements for room height. The terrace is not built correctly. Fire and sound requirements are not met. But this was by no means all the faults with the home. The house has a nice view, but major flaws. Photo: Dina Danielsen/news One year later, a new report came from the same appraiser; the building’s support has major flaws, it says, among other things. – In the extreme, loads may be transferred to a point that does not have the capacity to carry the load to which the point is exposed, wrote the appraiser. Furthermore, the appraiser writes that observations during the inspection leave an impression of: Coincidences In part seriously flawed design Inadequate systematics during the construction of the supporting structures Taking the case to court The errors mentioned above are parts of an even bigger picture. The appraiser pointed out, among other things, faults in wet rooms, a high degree of floor creaking and a lack of a radon well. On 9 February 2022, the appraiser assessed the home’s market value in “perfect condition” at NOK 8.7 million. The appraiser believes the house is worth NOK 1.8 million today. During 2020, both the couple and the developer engage a lawyer. A number of letters are exchanged, but they do not come to an agreement. On 27 April, lawyer Roald Angell filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple against Byggmester Jarle Vikjord AS and general manager Jarle Vikjord. The case went before the Salten and Lofoten district court. Photo: Josef Benoni Ness Tveit / news The negotiations were held in Bodø in October 2022. The couple, Jarle Vikjord and the aforementioned valuer participated. The couple filed a claim that a total claim of just under NOK 8 million, interest and legal costs, should be paid out. Builder Jarle Vikjord AS filed a claim for acquittal and for the couple to pay the costs of the case themselves. Grossly negligent Last week, the verdict came from the Salten and Lofoten district court. The court agrees with the appraiser and the couple in a number of respects. Here is an extract: Substantial deviation from room height requirements. Deviations on the terrace. Significant creaking in the floor. Deviations in wet rooms entail a high risk of damage Failure to meet fire and sound requirements between the main part and the rental part. Deviations in connection with bearing mean that the home does not have the required capacity to carry the load to which the home is exposed. The court determines that the defects are so great that the home must be demolished and rebuilt. They state that this will cost up to NOK 8 million. The district court determines that the buyers are entitled to compensation. Photo: Sigurd Steinum / news The judgment states: “The court finds that Jarle Vikjord has acted grossly negligently and that he is liable for damages to the buyers.” Jakobsen tells news that it has been three demanding years. – Corona has made the process even longer, which has also been exhausting. Satisfied with the verdict The court has now ruled that the couple must have paid out just under NOK 8 million, as well as court costs and interest. – We are very satisfied with the verdict, says home owner Jakobsen. news has tried to get in touch with Jarle Vikjord, without success. In the judgment, it appears that Vikjord acknowledges that there may be a number of faults and shortcomings with the house, but that this can be improved and that there are solutions. Vikjord also stated that he believes the buyer’s claim for a price reduction amounts to less than the costs associated with possibly demolishing and rebuilding the home. Vikjord believes he has not acted grossly negligently. Avisa Nordland has been in contact with him, and has been referred to lawyer Dag Trygve Berntsen. Kristian Jakobsen and Linda Kristiansen won in court after three difficult years. Photo: Dina Danielsen/news news has been in contact with lawyer Berntsen. He has not been available for an interview. On 2 November 2021, bankruptcy was opened in the estate of Byggmester Jarle Vikjord AS. Serious matter Carsten Henrik Pihl, consumer and communications manager at Huseierne says that many houses are built in Norway in the course of a year, but that there are few examples that go as badly as this case. – It is serious that the court rules that the house must be demolished. It shouldn’t be like this. He adds: – When someone is hired to build a house and that is their job, you expect them to be able to do a proper job. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Pihl says that the building quality committee in the Ministry of Local Government and District Affairs is working to reduce this problem. Carsten Henrik Pihl says it is serious when the court rules that the house should be demolished. Photo: Birgitte Wold Ingebretsen / news – Errors during construction must be detected to a greater extent. Do more checks need to be done on the construction site? Who will carry out the inspection? These are questions that must be asked. He gives the couple support in that it quickly becomes very demanding processes when things first go wrong. In addition, it is not always possible to get the money out, even after a court case. – There must be guarantees through the Housing Construction Act, but the challenge with this scheme is that it is difficult to put into use and it does not always cover well enough. – We believe this should be looked at. ALSO READ:



ttn-69