The houses are built with enstegstätade plastered facades without an air gap, and all have exhibited elevated humidity. Now taken the matter to the Supreme Court.
As early as the 1980s warned of the risk of moisture damage in enstegstätade stucco facades. It points out homeowners in Svedala, which has driven the design type to the Supreme Court. This target will be tested in February.
Enstegstätade, plaster facades on träregelvägg has caused lots of moisture damage in new houses. Construct, which lacks an air gap and means plaster applied directly to the insulation, has proved to be very sensitive to moisture penetration. Even small cracks in the plaster can lead to moisture coming in, and once inside the wall can not be discharged without cause rot and mold damage.
Some 30 houses in Skåne Svedala built with the type of construction between 1999 and 2003 Since high humidity were detected in walls have homeowners pursued a lawsuit against the construction company Myresjöhus to persuade the company to replace the facades with a two-step approach with an air gap.
Court of Appeal chose not to give assent to the Homeowners’ claim based on the argument that the construction industry was not aware that the design was risky at the time when the houses in Svedala was built.
But homeowners out in a submission to the Supreme Court that it is already in the 1980s, there were warnings about the risk of rain penetration in the construction.
The information comes from the scripture Puts on additional insulation of Mr Bengt Andersson, Lund University. It shows that the detailed design at the window hole and the like must concentrate on rain not to be led into the outer wall. “At the inappropriate design, relatively large amounts of moisture to get into in a short time,” writes Mr Andersson. And the drying takes a long time, between one and four years, depending on the vapor-tight surface layer is on the inside wall.
Homeowners also points out that risks of construction had been observed in North America long before Svedala built, something that even New Technology describing.
As evidence also refers homeowners to Lars-Olof Nilsson, Professor of Building Materials, Lund University, who in a submission to the court finds that the structure has a particularly high risk from a moisture standpoint.
As it is well known that water can enter behind brick masonry and wood paneling, and that consequently, they must be provided with a draining air gap on the inside, he can not see how you could miss that it can enter the water behind a thin plaster.
Myresjöhus, for his part, pointed out in a submission to the Supreme Court that the company can not be blamed for not understanding that the construction would be contrary to the basic construction engineering principles when Boverket, Sitac, the rest of the construction industry, technical consultants and researchers not Nor did it.
The company also claims that the wall construction at the time of conduct neither violated National Board of Housing, the national building regulations or the then Planning and Building Act.
The main hearing is held in the Supreme Court on 10 and 11 February. They expected about three weeks later. The judgment can not be appealed.
No comments:
Post a Comment