When it comes to selling your home, it’s natural to want to present it in the best possible light. However, attempting to hide damp issues with quick fixes like Polyfilla and paint could be one of the most costly mistakes a seller can make.
Dampness can be deceptive, ranging from minor condensation to severe rotting timbers that threaten a property’s structural integrity. Often, signs of damp do not accurately reflect the severity of the underlying problem. Deep-seated dampness may be hidden within walls or roofs, only surfacing as small patches in visible areas.
Selling a home with damp issues can reduce its value by up to 20% and may lead to repair costs running into hundreds of thousands of Rands. Additionally, the time delays in addressing these issues can hinder the home’s entry into the market. While it may be tempting for financially or time-stressed sellers to hide evidence of damp, the best approach is to disclose the issue upfront—even if it means accepting a lower sale price. Failing to do so can expose sellers to legal action even after the property has been sold.
A recent case brought before the High Court serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of non-disclosure or attempts to mask damp issues. The court ruled on the principle that a seller who recklessly presents half-truths or withholds important facts may be engaging in fraudulent behaviour.
The Case Details
In this instance, the buyer discovered significant damp issues in the ceilings and walls only after taking transfer of the property and planning renovations. The damp was attributed to rising moisture and water intrusion from failed waterproofing. When the buyer sought repairs costing just under R245,000, the sellers—a divorced couple—refused to cover the expenses, prompting the buyer to sue for damages or a reduction in the purchase price.
Crucially, evidence revealed that the ex-wife, responsible for selling the house, had called contractors twice in the year prior to the sale to repaint and perform cosmetic repairs, suggesting a level of awareness about the damp issues.
What the Buyer Had to Prove
The buyer needed to establish several points:
Defects: Proving that the damp issues constituted defects affecting the property’s use and value was straightforward.
Latent Defects: The buyer argued that the damp was a latent defect—not obvious or discoverable upon inspection. The Court agreed, noting that all traces of damp had been concealed by the cosmetic repairs.
Fraud: The buyer had to demonstrate that the damp issue fell outside the standard voetstoots clause. Proving fraud involved showing that the sellers were aware of the damp and intentionally concealed it.
Court Findings
The court found both sellers guilty of fraudulent intent. Despite their claims of ignorance, the evidence—including the extent of cosmetic repairs—suggested otherwise. The ex-wife’s assertion of unawareness was dismissed; the court noted she was wilfully ignorant of the root cause of the issues. The ex-husband, who acknowledged being aware of dampness in two rooms, was found to have taken no action to ascertain the problem’s extent.
Most damning was the fact that both sellers had signed a Property Condition Report, specifically stating there were no latent defects, including dampness in walls or floors. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the buyer, awarding R244,855 for repairs.
Wider Implications
Concealing damp issues can also lead to trust issues during building inspections by home loan providers, resulting in buyers reconsidering the sale. Long-term damp can raise health concerns, particularly for families with children at risk for asthma.
Ultimately, addressing damp problems proactively is far more cost-effective for sellers than facing potential legal battles over repair costs after the sale. Disclosing these issues not only fosters trust but can also mitigate the risk of financial loss and legal repercussions in the long run.