A liability notice goes beyond saying something was built incorrectly. For compensation, it must become clear why the contractor is legally responsible, what loss resulted and how the amount is supported. A high repair quotation does not answer those questions by itself. This guide concerns a client’s damages claim against their contractor under Dutch law. Damage suffered by neighbours or other third parties may involve a different legal basis. Begin with evidence and the desired outcome before presenting an amount as a final demand.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Identify the specific contractual breach
Establish the performance the contractor undertook. Compare the contract, drawings, specifications and confirmed variations with the work found. Describe the departure in verifiable terms. An unusable installation, insufficiently watertight connection and late execution require different substantiation. A general assessment that the project went badly does not adequately identify the obligation breached and loss connected with it.
In a construction dispute, the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court assessed attributable breach, default, damage and causal connection for each project. This provides a useful distinction for your file. Show for each loss item the breach you associate with it. Do not convert disappointment about the final result into compensation for everything spent without further explanation.
2. Investigate cause before allocating responsibility
A damp patch proves moisture is present, but not yet where water enters or who is responsible. Consider execution, a design error, an existing defect or subsequent maintenance. Ask an expert which possible causes require investigation and which observations are needed. Keep drawings, weather information and details of earlier works if relevant to the investigation question.
Include others’ work and your own choices in the timeline too. A new installer or later renovation may affect the damage pattern. Transparency strengthens the investigation. Ask the report to distinguish established facts, assumptions and missing information. A technical conclusion about cause is also different from the eventual legal assessment of liability.
3. Attribution deserves separate assessment
For a contractual damages claim, whether the breach is attributable to the contractor matters. Not every loss becoming visible during renovation is therefore their responsibility. Examine task allocation, information you supplied and any warnings. Reliance on circumstances outside the contractor’s control also needs substantiation. Include contractual documents before presenting a technical error as full liability.
For defects in structures not discovered at handover, IPLO describes the regime of Article 7:758 paragraph 4 of the Dutch Civil Code: the contractor is liable unless the defect is not attributable to them. That regime does not apply to agreements concluded before 1 January 2024. Record the contract date; when damage became visible does not independently determine the applicable liability regime.
4. Distinguish repairs, default and compensation
A repair request, notice of default and liability notice serve different functions. Messages sometimes need combining, but a liability notice label alone does not make every damages claim due. Assess whether default is required and how it arises. This depends, among other matters, on the obligation, possible performance and earlier communications. A standard period does not suit every construction problem without assessment.
In the Zeeland-West-Brabant judgment consulted, repair costs for one component were rejected because the client repaired it immediately without the required notice of default. Other components were investigated separately. Do not derive an absolute rule for all emergencies from that case. Record instead why action could or could not wait and the repair opportunity offered. In danger, necessary safety measures go together with preserving as much evidence as possible.
5. Calculate loss items without overlap
Distinguish repair costs from additional losses, such as demonstrable damage to belongings or necessary temporary provisions. For each item record date, amount, evidence and relationship with the defect. Label an estimate as an estimate and a paid invoice as payment. A future cost may deserve investigation but should not be presented as an established expense already incurred.
Then check duplicate counting and improvements. If a repair plan includes a larger or more luxurious solution, identify the repair portion. Record insurance payments and compensation received as well. For business use, request attention to VAT and possible deduction. This organisation is practical preparation; it does not mean every included item is legally recoverable in full or awarded without further assessment.
6. Make the evidence verifiable for the other party
Keep original photographs, measurements, messages and reports. Record who collected the information, when and where. Have the original condition documented before components are removed. Where appropriate, provide an opportunity to inspect the damage. A unilateral report may help, but its methodology and the response opportunities available to participants may be disputed. A stack of photographs alone does not clarify cause.
Ask the expert for focused instructions and a cost estimate. A limited inspection may initially suffice to identify useful further investigation. Do not forward all costs to the contractor as an established debt without consideration. The reasonableness of investigation, connection with the defect and legal basis require assessment. Keep repair quotations too so alternatives and the chosen approach can later be explained.
7. Address the liability notice to the correct party
Identify the legal contracting party, project and relevant agreement. Describe the breach, damage and available documents, stating which items remain under investigation. Specify the response sought. A loss amount can be provisional if its extent is not yet established. Keep the message sent and receipt evidence. Correspondence with a site worker does not automatically prove the proper business was formally reached.
Ask whether the contractor will notify their insurer, but treat cover and liability separately. Insurance notification is not an admission, and refusal of cover does not automatically decide the contractual claim. Notify your own insurer or legal expenses provider under its terms. Agree who handles further communications so no one accepts an offer without consultation or unintentionally narrows an earlier claim.
8. Have deadlines and the next step assessed
Alongside the loss calculation, maintain a timeline of handover, discovery, complaint and repair communications. A liability notice may serve several purposes, but check separately whether the complaint was timely and legal claims are validly preserved. Examine liability limits and the client’s capacity too. Express agreements in professional contracts may operate differently from those concerning a private natural person under the new regime.
Give a construction lawyer the contract, cause reports, loss overview and complete correspondence. Ask which items are well supported, where evidence is missing and which step is proportionate. A settlement can limit investigation costs and litigation risk if its scope is clear. Record any remaining uncertainty or loss item expressly. This preparation makes the claim assessable and prevents discussion revolving solely around an unexplained total.
Frequently asked questions
Does a building expert’s report automatically prove liability?
No. A report may substantiate facts and causes; contractual responsibility, attribution and legal consequences must also be assessed.
Is a liability notice the same as a notice of default?
No. They serve different functions. Establish whether a reasonable repair period or another default-related step is needed alongside a damages claim.
Does the contractor always pay my entire repair quotation?
That is not established. Necessity, extent, cause, earlier repair opportunity and any improvements require assessment, among other matters.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Rechtspraak — ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:1776 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- IPLO — Aansprakelijkheid en Wet kwaliteitsborging voor het bouwen Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Rechtspraak — ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2024:13968 Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Construction law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology