Warranty/repair of mixed water pipe under public street

Hello everyone,

I am new here in the forum and am looking for help in my (small) emergency.
A brief introduction about us:
We are a small family and built a single-family house in the Viersen district in 2008/09. On the day we moved in (spring 2009), we discovered that the combined sewer between our property boundary and the main sewer had collapsed (old clay pipe) and the water was no longer draining.

Since the property was previously used as an allotment garden and the connection had never been used before, the city paid for the repair. The sewer was renewed with about 3 meters of plastic pipe replacing the clay pipe. Now we have clay/plastic/clay pipes running from our property boundary to the main sewer.

About 2.5 years later (Nov. 2011), the turning circle above our combined sewer sank. The city came out and commissioned a company to open the area. The workers told me at that time that they did not find the origin. The area was closed again and I thought the matter was settled.

Now about 8 months later (June 2012), we have received a bill from the city for the repair of our sewer under public ground. I know that we have to pay the costs. But I still have a few questions that experts here in the forum might be able to answer:

1.) In the invoice from the executing company to the city it says "combined sewer sank and was lifted again." This theoretically does not correspond to the truth. But I cannot prove the opposite. Can anything be done about this or is it better not to?

2.) If point 1 is rather discouraged, what about the warranty of the company? I received information from the city that there is presumably a 4-year warranty. Now, according to my information, exactly the same area as described above was opened again. Does that fit with the warranty?

3.) I was informed by the city that the costs must first be paid to the city and we would have to reclaim the reimbursement on the civil law route from the company. Isn’t the city the client and shouldn’t they assert a warranty claim against the company?

Since there is no longer an objection procedure here, one would have to go directly to court. Now my only question is whether I should not pay the claim to the city and have to sue for the city to recover the costs itself from the company. Or do I actually have to pay and approach the executing company?

Such a situation is new to us and until now we have never had to file a lawsuit in any form.

I am grateful for any information. Many thanks.

Regards
Christian

Regarding 1: That doesn’t sound fundamentally wrong to me, but I can’t really give you any concrete advice on that.

Regarding 2: The warranty could theoretically apply. In the first 6 months, the seller, meaning the contracted company, has to prove in case of a defect that it only occurred after they completed their work. After that, the burden of proof shifts, and you now have to prove that the defect existed before the work was completed or that the origin of the defect was already present. This is (almost) impossible for you to prove, especially now that the work is finished.

Regarding 3: Unfortunately, I can’t help you with that either. If the city gave you that information, I think it must be correct.

Overall, I can say that you should rather consult a lawyer. Giving a proper assessment of your situation through a forum is difficult, and you can’t rely on the accuracy of the statements either. Apparently, you are hesitant about the cost of a lawyer, understandably. How about first taking advantage of telephone legal advice? That way you can find out how the legal situation looks and whether you have a justified chance of winning the case in court. If that is the case, you can go to a law firm with a better feeling, knowing that the lawyer’s fees probably won’t be for nothing. If the chances are bad, at least you haven’t wasted hundreds of euros.

Good luck to you.

Hello Christian,

... Now we have clay/plastic/clay pipes from our property boundary to the main sewer.

About 2.5 years later (Nov. 2011) the turning area above our combined sewer sank. The city came out and commissioned a company to open the area. The workers told me at the time that they did not find the origin. The area was closed again and I thought the matter was settled.

Now about 8 months later (June 2012) we received an invoice from the city for the repair of our sewer under public ground. I am aware that we have to pay the costs. But I still have a few questions that experts here in the forum might be able to answer:

1.) In the invoice from the executing company to the city it says "Combined sewer sank and was lifted again". That theoretically is not true. But I cannot prove the opposite. Is there anything that can be done or is it better not?

First of all, the invoice states that the subsidence was fixed; nothing more, nothing less.

2.) If advice is against point 1, what about the company’s warranty? I received information from the city that there is probably a 4-year warranty. Now, according to my information, exactly the same area as described above was opened again. Does that fit with the warranty?

Maybe I do not understand what you mean – but: the subsidence was fixed and you as the property owner have to pay your share. How should the warranty help you in that?

3.) The city informed me that the costs must first be paid to the city and that we would have to recover the reimbursement from the company via civil proceedings. Isn’t the city the client and wouldn’t they have to assert a warranty claim against the company?

I don’t understand that either – the public area sank, you have to pay the repair proportionally. Whether it happened once or twice is irrelevant as long as you only have to pay the “fun” once.

Kind regards