Globes, Ella Levi-Winrib, 11.03.2020
Does private parking that meet the construction standards, but it is very difficult to park it and requires maneuvering every time you enter it, entitles the apartment owner to compensation from the contractor? The Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court recently answered that question, requiring the Golden Heart Contracting Company Tel Aviv Real Estate to compensate a buyer of NIS 150,000 for deficiencies in a parking lot that has been pinned to his apartment, despite the fact that the parking in question complies with the building standards, And despite the fact that the prosecutor himself chose this parking over other parking allocated to the apartment, because he preferred covered parking.
The court ruled that the parking in dispute is standard and allows most types of vehicles to park in it, including the owner's car, but the chosen parking solution (parking multiplier) requires the driver a maneuvering skill that exceeds that of "standard" parking, and there is a restriction on the use of the parking of the selected type .
It was further held that from the documents of the condominium contract - including the technical specifications - the purchaser of the apartment could not have known that there were restrictions, and that the actual parking dimensions would be different from those stated in the specification. "The plaintiff did not realize how difficult it was to maneuver in the parking lot he had available, until the moment he got into the car with his assigned parking lot, as it is a smooth and sloping surface, and some driving skill is needed to maneuver in and out," it was determined.
The allegations : Parking does not allow reasonable use
This parking story begins about a decade ago, when Yaakov Shabtai purchased "on paper" a Tel Aviv apartment from Golden Heart Real Estate, in a condominium of 17 apartments. As part of the agreement, a specific warehouse and parking were attached to the apartment, but two months after the agreement was signed, the parking was replaced at Saturn's request. , For other parking in the building parking lot.
Saturn claims that on the day of the apartment's delivery, he discovered that the parking that was pinned to him is parking that does not allow regular and reasonable use, does not allow parking of any vehicle and does not allow parking of his car, of the Mazda 3. This, due to facilities of parking multipliers (parking facilities allow parking For more vehicles - two or more - in an area designed to park one vehicle).
In a lawsuit filed by the contracting company, through attorney Eyal Ron, Saturn claimed that the assigned parking had caused vehicle damage due to vehicle damage to the parking rails, and that the doors of the vehicle could not be opened to enter or exit. In addition, Saturn argued that parking height was insufficient to To allow the entry of his car antenna, and it was uprooted and damaged, as well as various back injuries he was diagnosed with, and his doctors recommended that he purchase a higher vehicle which would make it easier for him to enter and exit the vehicle and his driving, but he found that he could not fulfill the recommendation of doctors, These vehicles cannot park in the parking lot due to their width and weight.
In the lawsuit, Saturn petitioned him to pay him the amount of his apartment's impairment due to parking deficiencies, at an estimated NIS 250 (equal to the full value of adjacent parking in the Tel Aviv area where the condominium is located), to pay him a total of NIS 3,000 for the indirect damage caused to his vehicle following the deficiencies. In the parking lot and a total of NIS 50,000 for the mental anguish he suffered as a result of not being able to make regular and reasonable use of the parking during the period from which he received the apartment to his possession until the claim was filed (for four years).
In the same suit, he also applied to various building defects in the apartment, and petitioned the contractor to pay him the full cost of repairing building deficiencies, of NIS 50,000 and NIS 12,000 he spent as part of the fight against the contractor, including payments to experts, salary losses and more.
Response: Parking approved by authorities
On the other hand, the parking company claimed that the parking dimensions were taken as part of the building plan that Saturn personally signed, and is an integral part of the agreement and that the parking plans were approved by the planning authorities of the Tel Aviv municipality.
The company also claimed that Saturn knew that it was buying parking under a "parking multiplier," and even if it had built a regular underground parking lot - Saturn was limited in terms of the types of vehicle it could park.
According to the defendant company, Saturn paid NIS 100,000 for the parking for the price of the apartment, and the company agrees to buy the parking back from that amount.
Regarding the height of the parking, it is argued that Saturn could enjoy parking without a height limit, had he not asked for his initiative to replace the original parking he received. Therefore, the Company argued that, should it be found that it had sustained any damage, it should be held that the plaintiff bears guilty contributing 100%.
The Experts : Submit Reverse Opinions
As part of the hearings, the parties submitted reverse opinions on the possibility of using the parking. While Saturn's expert opinion stated that parking does not meet the minimum standards for parking of its kind, it does not allow him to use his car parking, and the value of the apartment is NIS 350,000; The expert opinion of the contracting company determined that the parking allows parking of a variety of family and other vehicles, and that the value of parking space in a parking standard such as the facility in question within the limit of NIS 130,000.
In light of the discrepancies between the opinions, Judge Amit Yariv appointed court-appointed experts to assess the extent of parking deficiencies and the value of the impairment. Court traffic expert Eli Asif stated in his opinion that the "parking lot" is inconvenient, both because of the height between the parking areas and the slope of the surface, and is not suitable for any driver. According to his determination, the facility requires the removal of passengers and luggage before entering the parking lot and extreme caution during maneuvering, and no vehicle can be parked in the parking lot, although many common models can be parked (including Mazda 3, Saturn's current vehicle).
It was also determined that although the parking is usable, since the dimensions of the Ministry of Transport still comply with the instructions, the car exit can be done in one maneuver, and the entrance may require more than one, depending on the driver's skill.
It was further stated that in the absence of a mandatory standard for height between two parking levels, any local authority can approve or disapprove the solution, and its approval is in fact the seal of approval for the parking arrangement. However, the expert noted that when purchasing the apartment, the buyer could not understand what the nature of the parking he will receive, as the data contained in the sales documents do not match the reality. "If he understood, he probably wouldn't have replaced the parking he had originally received," the expert wrote.
The decision : The facility does not fit every car
Based on these statements, Judge Yariv noted that "the actual parking dimensions do not correspond to the dimensions stated in the script and the facility is not suitable for every vehicle, but only for most vehicles ... Except for the fact that parking can not be used to park all vehicles, the vehicles can also be used Parking is limited parking - making it difficult to get in and out of the vehicle. "
As for the value of the parking, the judge adopted the expert opinion of the court, the engineer and real estate appraiser Zvi Ron, who determined that the functional hazard in the use of the parking adjacent to the plaintiff's apartment is equivalent to NIS 150,000.
In addition, the contracting company was charged NIS 38,000 in compensation for Saturn for the deficiencies in the construction of his apartment, as well as the payment of NIS 20,000 in favor of Saturn and the attorney's fees totaling NIS 35,000.