1. The Conflict: An Advance Without Consideration
A homeowner found herself in a situation of extreme vulnerability: after suffering a fire that left her home uninhabitable, she paid an advance of over €30,000 to a contractor to urgently start the renovation. However, after the payment, the work not only did not start, but the contractor made unusual financial requests that generated a total loss of trust.
2. Technical Verification of the Facts
Our expert task consisted of verifying whether the advance paid, conditioned on the 'start of work', had a real counterpart in the home. The inspection was decisive:
- No Start of Work: No physical evidence of the start of the renovation was found. There was no stockpiling of materials (except for a few bags), no tools, and demolition or reconstruction work had not begun.
- Deficient Actions: The only 'actions' carried out were partial and technically unacceptable. A layer of plastic paint had been applied directly over the soot (a useless treatment) and new cables had been connected over the original burned electrical installation, a dangerous practice outside of all regulations.
- Documentary Discrepancies: It was found that the contractor presented himself as a direct authorized representative of the insurance company, when in reality he was a subcontractor of another collaborating company.
3. Expert Conclusion
The report concluded that there was no physical or technical evidence to justify the collection of the agreed advance. The scarce work carried out was deficient and did not constitute a start of work. The expert report became the key piece of evidence for the homeowner to claim the full refund of the amount paid due to a clear breach of contract.
Do you have a similar case?
This case is an example of our experience in Construction Audits and Quality Control . If you need a technical diagnosis in Barcelona, we can help you.