A handover report says works are complete while you still dispute leaks, damage or missing components. A precise response matters. The report may later contribute to establishing what was discussed and discovered at handover. This guide concerns disputed records and evidence for private and business construction appointments. A construction lawyer can assess the significance of the document, your declaration and the applicable statutory regime in your case.
Sources (2)
On this page
1. Preserve the exact version received
Save the original document with attachments, covering message and date. Check who prepared it and who attended. With digital handover, portal comments may later change or disappear from your own overview. Keep available confirmations and a readable copy of your responses as well. Make clear which version you actually saw before giving approval or signing.
Then distinguish a draft, a unilateral report and a jointly signed document. The heading handover report does not answer every question about the agreements made. Record whether you merely acknowledged receipt or confirmed substantive approval. Have the actual wording assessed; your recollection of the intention does not automatically replace the text and further correspondence.
2. Describe every missing or incorrect entry
Prepare a correction list following the report’s numbering. State the existing entry, amendment requested and reason. A door that will not close, a missing manual and a colour dispute require different descriptions. Where possible connect the item to a drawing, agreement or photograph without presenting a technical cause as established while investigation remains necessary.
Separate the observation from the desired solution. Visible moisture is a different fact from whether a roof must be rebuilt. You can request that moisture be recorded while its cause remains unclear. Include uncertainties and investigation questions too. This lets the contractor respond substantively without your prematurely fixing an unproven repair method in the report.
3. Respond in writing and identify the disagreement
Send corrections to your contracting party and the person managing the report. Identify the handover date, version and relevant items. Explain which entries you consider missing or incorrect and request an amended version or written response. Keep the message with sending details. For an important discrepancy, do not rely solely on another visit or telephone discussion.
If the parties cannot agree one text, keep both accounts side by side. Ask whether your correction list can be appended and state that no agreement exists about it. Do not retrospectively change a signed original as though the addition had been jointly established at the time. The file must show what was said when, including any refusal to include your comments.
4. Assess signatures and reservations in context
Read declarations concerning approval, repairs, payment and any release around the signature box. A document may contain more than a construction snag list. If unsure, obtain an explanation before signing of the declaration you are making and whether a specific reservation is needed. Adding under protest without further detail is not a reliable solution for every possible provision in the document or contract.
If you have already signed, record factually as soon as possible what you consider wrong. Note the information available and what was discussed during signing. A signature does not always extinguish every claim, but neither does it render unfavourable wording meaningless. A lawyer can assess the declaration, circumstances and other documents together before you choose the next step.
5. Investigate which liability regime applies
According to IPLO, the new liability provision in Article 7:758 paragraph 4 of the Dutch Civil Code does not apply to construction contracts concluded before 1 January 2024. Collect the contract date and any later amendments. Handover after that date alone does not automatically make every older agreement new. If the legal significance of a supplementary appointment is uncertain, the contractual history needs examination.
IPLO also distinguishes private and professional clients regarding departures from this provision. For a professional client, an express agreement in the construction contract may matter; private-client protection cannot simply be excluded to their disadvantage. Give your adviser all contract documents. Avoid assuming the technical quality-assurance rules automatically have the same scope as these private-law liability rules for construction contracts.
6. Use evidence beyond the report
IPLO stresses that the formal report does not say everything about which defects were actually discovered. Other information, such as handover recordings, may also clarify this. Collect original photographs, messages and attendees’ notes. Preserve dates and context. A single photograph without an identifiable location may explain less than a sequence with a clear account of the component shown.
Ask any expert present to distinguish what was seen during the walkthrough from what emerged only through later investigation. Have a technical report describe the observations supporting its conclusion. A cause established later need not be the same as a manifestation discussed earlier. That distinction may be relevant where parties dispute what was known at handover and how it was recorded.
7. Fictional example: a damp patch missing from the final version
During handover, an owner points out a damp patch by a roof window. A draft records further investigation, but the final version omits that line. The contractor later says no complaint was made. This fictional example illustrates an evidence problem and makes no finding about liability, the damp patch’s cause or whether legal handover occurred.
The owner retains the draft, photographs and message confirming the investigation. They request the missing entry in writing and add the response to the file. What the parties observed and agreed can then be examined. A correction request alone does not prove contractor liability for every later leak; the contract, cause and applicable rules remain relevant.
8. Connect the record to specific follow-up action
Alongside the evidence file, prepare a practical list of investigation, access and repair arrangements. State who will respond to each item and what remains open. An amended report does not itself remedy the defect. Keep new complaints recognisably separate from corrections to the original record so it remains clear which issue arose at handover and which emerged afterwards.
If the dispute stalls, discuss with a lawyer what is needed for repairs, a liability claim or protection of rights. Bring the complete report with every version, contract and correspondence. Do not decide on a complete payment stoppage or another contractor solely because an entry is disputed. Those measures require their own assessment; a carefully recorded discrepancy provides the factual basis.
Frequently asked questions
Do I lose rights if a defect is absent from the report?
Not automatically. The applicable regime, what was actually discovered and other evidence require examination. Report the defect in writing and preserve the context.
Must the contractor always adopt my corrections?
Disagreement may remain. Request a response and keep your own dated correction list as a separate document; do not present it as joint approval.
Does the handover date determine the new Wkb liability regime?
According to IPLO, the date the construction contract was concluded matters for transition to Article 7:758 paragraph 4 of the Dutch Civil Code. Have amendments and exceptions assessed.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- IPLO — aansprakelijkheid en Wet kwaliteitsborging Accessed: 2026-10-23
- ACM ConsuWijzer — niet goed uitgevoerd werk 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