After talking to Richard and Sarah about it, and rereading it, I understand there is no humidity problem any more. The part I still don’t understand is why it’s still with the insurance…
That’s our understanding; Un problème d’humidité dans le mur mitoyen les numéros 475 (objet de la vente) et 479 de la chaussée de Jette existait lors de la signature du, compromis en date du 16 juin 2011. => a humidity problem existed when signing the compromis on June 16th 2011
" Le vendeur déclare qu’à ce jour, il ne demeure plus aucun problème d’humidité." => the seller declares on this day that there is no humidity problem any more
The thing that is strange is:
this paragraph wasn’t in the first draft of the compromis, and was added in the definite version - which was sent very last minute
why mentioning a humidity problem if it has been solved (Richard’s explanation is that as it was mentioned in the compromis of June 16th 2011, it needed mentioning again to explain to current situation)
Le vendeur déclare que lé bien objet des présentes est en discussion erre les assureurs relatif au problème d’humidité dans le mur mitoyen avec l’immeuble sis au 479 Chaussée de Jette dont l’acquéreur est l’actuel propriétaire*. » => here they seem to say that the humidity problem is under discussion between the insurance companies (my understanding). They say ‘is’ not ‘was’, why is it still handled by insurance companies if the problem is solved?
This could be an ongoing discussion on who covers the costs.
For clarity, I’m posting a pic of the wall we are talking about. @els is there a chance you could move this discussion into Reef-sensitive , I don’t seem to be able to do so.
In my opinion we better check with our notary and the owner of the neighbouring property. On the latter we were advised today at the neighbour’s BBQ to reach out in any case, as the inidividual seems to be influential and we will do better to have him on our side.
i guess not , but more clarity on the whole thing would make it - for me- into a definately ‘yes’ or ‘no’
My experience with insurance companies (and i had to count on them more than once): they first decide who covers the cost + they need to have an clear cost estimation (some kind of devis) and only then they give their go to have the works executed. Here I understand the works have been executed, so for me this should have been cleared out already which insurance intervenes…
=> maybe move this to a life talk on what we want to do with this/what steps to take? A @reef-finance talk ??
Hello @els@ugne@RichardB , does this mean you have signed? Could you post an update?
UNlikely. That we know of, the neighbor was angry because of (1) loss of sunlight and (2) loss of privacy.
We already did, back in May. He told us that the preliminary idea of Stekke & Fraas did not create the same problems as the Matexi project. So, for now all good. We will need to maintain the relationship, obviously.
An update from marcel who had a call with Fontaine (current owner of the site) the humidity problem
As far as Marcel understood, the wall with the humidity problem could be an ‘own’ wall, probably a rest of a previous building. Like mentioned in the compromis , this dates from 2011 and should have been solved by putting a protection on it (bardage).
another thing mentioned in the compromis and maybe worth knowing for those who didn’t read the compromis: the soil pollution
The site has served as a storage place for fuels (marcel interprets that as a petrol station). In the compromis it is said that the soil was tested and that the pollution was acceptable. Marcel expresses a certain concern, in his experience with these kind of certificates, he fears that certain controlling organisms might be a bit less accurate about the result, when money is put on the table.
Whether this is actually the case I personally don’t know, i just want to share this, for maybe later, when people would want to start growing veggies, maybe better to do a soil analysis to make sure growing veggies won’t be a problem
