Example of a claim against a contractor – what to write to receive financial compensation?

An example of a lawsuit against a contractor can help you succeed in the Contractor claim for construction defects or Lawsuit against a renovation contractorHowever, it is always important to consult with a lawyer before filing a lawsuit because each case requires unique thought and different preparation.

It is important not to rely solely on an example of a claim against a contractor that you found on this site or any other site because Claim This may not address the issue relevant to you at all.

In general, to be successful in a lawsuit against a contractor or renovation contractor, it is very useful to familiarize yourself with the contract agreement with the contractor (what exactly are your rights and obligations), collect all correspondence or recorded conversations, do not rush to file a lawsuit, and consider sending a letter of intent. Warning letter Before filing a claim.

Keep in mind that these types of claims are not simple claims, requiring familiarity with the legal procedure (for example Civil Procedure Regulations) and with the relevant ruling, and these lawsuits usually last more than a year.

Do not expect to reach a quick settlement after filing the lawsuit. This usually does not happen in lawsuits for Construction defects or similar issues.

Example of a lawsuit against a contractor

Regarding:

The plaintiff: שם ושם משפחה, ת"ז: _________
__________ Street, City 
Tel: _____________ 
ע"י ב"כ עוה"ד אדי בליטשטיין (מ.ר. 60023)
13 HaHagana St., Rishon LeZion (Yaron Miller Tower, Office 501) 
Tel: 03-6427876; Fax: 077-4704697; 
דוא"ל: [email protected]

N G D

Defendant: Company name, C.P. ____________
____________ Street, city name 
Tel: ________; Fax: ____________

Claim

Essence of the claim: Supplier – customer, other financial. 
Requested remedies: Monetary compensation in the amount of 77,951, declaratory order, executive order. 
Court fee amount: 1948.78 ש"ח (974.39 ש"ח במועד זה לפי תקנה 6(א) ופרט 1 לתקנות בתי המשפט (אגרות), תשס"ז -2007).
The existence of an additional procedure: As far as the plaintiff is aware, there is no other proceeding relevant to the disputes between the parties detailed in this statement of claim.

Summons

Since the plaintiff has filed this statement of claim against you, you are invited to file a statement of defense within sixty days of the date this summons was served on you.

לתשומת לבכם, אם לא תגישו כתב הגנה אזי לפי תקנה 130 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018, תהיה לתובע הזכות לקבל פסק דין שלא בפניכם.

The emphasis in the statement of claim is not in the original unless otherwise noted.

A concise description of the litigants

1. The plaintiff is ________________, and he purchased a residential apartment in Ashkelon from the defendant in December 2020, with two parking spaces in the building. The apartment was actually delivered to the plaintiff at the end of August 2023.
2. The defendant is a company that builds and markets residential apartments, and it is the one that sold the apartment to the plaintiff.

The reliefs requested in brief

• The Honorable Court is hereby requested to grant the plaintiff the following reliefs:
• סעד הצהרתי לפיו הנתבעת לא קיימה את חובותיה בהתאם להסכם ההתקשרות בין הצדדים ו/או בהתאם להוראות חוק המכר (דירות), תשל"ג – 1973.
• An order was made instructing the defendant to repair the defects in the plaintiff's parking lot in accordance with the expert opinion attached to the lawsuit, so that there would be no more leaks and/or defects above the plaintiff's parking lots.
• פיצוי כספי בסך 50,000 ש"ח בגין מחדלי הנתבעת אשר לא אפשרו לתובע להשתמש בחניה שרכש ו/או עוגמת נפש.
• חיוב הנתבעת בשכר טרחת עורך דין שנשא התובע בסך 25,355 ש"ח, בתוספת ריבית והצמדה מיום הגשת התביעה ועד למועד התשלום בפועל.
• חיוב הנתבעת בשכר טרחתו של המומחה מטעם התובע בסך 2,596 ש"ח, בתוספת ריבית והצמדה מיום הגשת התביעה ועד למועד התשלום בפועל.

Summary of the facts necessary to establish the cause of action and when it arose

• In December 2020, the plaintiff purchased a residential apartment with two parking spaces from the defendant. The plaintiff received possession of the apartment and parking spaces at the end of August 2023. One of the parking spaces was to be used by the plaintiff, and the other by his wife.
• Very shortly after receiving the apartment and parking spaces, the plaintiff noticed that above one of the parking spaces (the parking space that the plaintiff was supposed to use) there was a large water pipe that was dripping, and there were drips from the ceiling/wall itself. (See photos in the expert opinion attached below.) The drip is not heavy, but the problem is that the drip does not allow the vehicle to be parked in the same parking space. Because the drip leaves stains on the vehicle.
• Both the paint on the plaintiff's car and his daughter's car were damaged by the drizzle while they were parked in the same parking lot.
• The stains cannot be removed from vehicles by washing the vehicle at a car wash or even using specialized cleaning products.
• Shortly after discovering this defect (and in fact shortly after receiving possession of the apartment), the plaintiff contacted the defendant and alerted him to the defect.
• And so End of 2023 התובע ניהל התכתבויות אינסופיות עם ב"כ הנתבעת ועם מחלקת הבדק של הנתבעת לצורך תיקון התקלה, אך ללא הועיל. The plaintiff could not use his parking space, but was forced to waste a lot of time each time finding parking on a street where there is already a parking shortage.
• Even a warning before taking legal action by the plaintiff's attorney did not lead to the actual acceleration and correction of the problem.

The facts that give the court jurisdiction

1. The Honorable Court has the authority to hear the claim in light of its nature and the amount of the claim, in accordance with Regulation 7(a) of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

Details of the allegations

1. In December 2020, the plaintiff purchased a 5-room apartment on __________________ Street from the defendant.

Appendix 1: Agreement to purchase the apartment from the defendant.

1. Shortly after receiving the apartment, at the end of August 2023, the plaintiff noticed that there was a Leak from a pipe Above one of the parking spaces he received, and from the walls/ceiling around his parking space. The leak caused stains on the vehicles parked in the parking space at the time. The stains could not be removed either by washing at a car wash or by using specialized cleaning agents.

Appendix 2: Examples of stains left on the plaintiff's vehicle and his daughter's vehicle.

1. As a result of these leaks, the plaintiff could not park his vehicle in the same parking lot, and in fact to this day he has been forced to look for parking on the street every time, where there is a parking shortage.
2. In addition, due to the issue of leakage, the plaintiff refrained from purchasing an electric vehicle out of concern that the leakage would affect the charging station that the plaintiff intended in his parking lot and/or the electric vehicle itself.
3. התובע פנה אינספור פעמים לנתבעת ולב"כ החל מסוף שנת 2023 (The first request was sent to the defendant in September 2023.), הן בעצמו והן באמצעות ב"כ באותה עת.
4. On 6.11.2023 התובע פנה שוב לב"כ הנתבעת, עוה"ד __________, וכתב כך:

" Hello, 

My wife _______ and I are tenants in the _________________ project. We have two covered parking spaces. 59, 60. The ceiling is dripping over the vehicles.The constant dripping leaves stains on cars. Stains are full of Sydney liquor and are difficult to remove. It really ruins cars.You sent a letter more than a month ago to the Bedek department. Before the war, I reported this by delivering a key to Simin, and an email was sent from my wife to the Bedek department. No reply. 

Above our parking lots is a small area with vegetation and a sunset. I understand that taking care of the garden will take time and effort. Repair waterproofing above the parking lotFor now. Vehicles are destroyedAlso. We are afraid that the ceiling will collapse on us or the vehicles one day from the humidity that has been going on for months.! 

I understand that now, during the war, handling this matter is problematic. Therefore, I would like to provide us with two secular Mekorot stores to protect the leak above our parking lots.. "

1. On 11.12.2023 פנתה לב"כ הנתבעת ב"כ התובע דאז, וכתבה כך:

" Hello, 

מרשיי ה"ה _______________, אשר רכשו מכם דירה ברחוב ________________ , חניות 59,60.

They are suffering from a severe water leak in their parking lot since the day their apartment was delivered. The water is flowing onto the vehicles, and this is not clear water, which is causing damage to the vehicles they own.

My clients have contacted me a significant number of times, both by email and by phone, and the problem is still not addressed. (I am attaching my clients' correspondence to this email.)

I would ask you in every language of request to contact those responsible for the issue, and bring the issue to a close and final conclusion.

אודה להתייחסותך בחוזר."

1. On 10.3.2024 (כחצי שנה לאחר שהתובע החל להתלונן לראשונה) נכתב על ידי ב"כ הנתבעת כך:

"The _______ family was given the option to park in alternative parking spaces No. 28+29 on the lower ground floor.

The replacement is only temporary until the defects are repaired. And until the apartment to which these parking spaces were attached is sold, whichever comes first.

It is clarified that as the parking spaces are sold, the company will locate at least one alternative parking space.

Please approve.

Is it clearer now?

אני לא מבטיחה חלופה של שתי חניות אלא רק חניה אחת."

• הודאת דוא"ל זו היא הודאת בעל דין לכך שהליקויים לא תוקנו במשך כחצי שנה ממועד קבלת הדירה.
• בתאריך 8.5.2024 ב"כ הנתבעת הודיעה לתובע כי אחת מתוך שתי החניות החלופיות נמכרה והוא אינו רשאי להמשיך להחנות בה.
• In the following months, the plaintiff continued to complain to the defendant, but the leak was not repaired.
• בתאריך 11.12.2024 התובע כתב לב"כ הנתבעת, למחלקת הבדק ולנציג נוסף של הנתבעת, כך:

"הטיפול שנעשה בטפטוף בחניה היה לא יעיל. בוצע איטום מקומות טפטוף. מים חודרים בכל מקום.

This was expected.The leak continues from a pipe that runs through the parking lot ceiling.No professional assessment was carried out on the matter. It was decided without an assessment to send a waterproofing contractor.

The approach to the solution expressed is superficial and does not correspond to reality. The treatment of me is demeaning and humiliating. For a year and a half I have not been able to park a car in the parking lot.

I received two temporary parking spaces. One was taken from me shortly after it was sold. But another neighbor is still parking there, not the owner of the parking space.

Two days ago I received a threatening warning from the new owners of the second temporary parking lot and I was forced to vacate it as well.

I park my car outside. I paid for two parking spaces in full.

There is no closure of the complaint. There is no improvement in the dripping situation. There is no possibility of using the parking lot.

I request an appointment with a professional examiner who is capable of diagnosing the problem and providing real, non-hasty treatment.

אחרת אאלץ לפעול בדרך פניה לבית משפט"

• גם לאחר דוא"ל זה הנזילה לא תוקנה.

Appendix 3: התכתבויות הדוא"ל המוזכרות בכתב התביעה.

• יודגש, על אף שמוזכרות בכתב התביעה התכתבויות בודדות, ישנן בפועל עשרות, אם לא יותר מכך, התכתבויות בין התובע ו/או ב"כ דאז לנציגי הנתבעת בנושא תיקון הנזילות (שלא תוקנו).
• בתאריך 26.12.2025 בא כוח התובע פנה במכתב התראה לפני נקיטת הליכים משפטיים. עבור שליחת מכתב ההתראה והייצוג בתיק זה התובע שילם שכר טרחה בסך 25,355 ש"ח אותם יש להשית על הנתבעת.

Appendix 4: חשבוניות מס בגין תשלום שכר טרחה לב"כ התובע.

• בתאריך 2.1.2025 בא כוח התובע פנה שוב לב"כ הנתבעת בתזכורת. ב"כ הנתבעת השיבה ביום 2.1.2025 כי נראה שהמכתב "נפל בין הכסאות".
• Although the warning letter was sent at the end of December, the defendant continued to delay and not correct the liquidity.
• On January 15, 2025, the plaintiff's attorney sent another reminder to correct the liquidity.
• Only on January 15, 2025 did a representative from the defendant (Ofer) arrive to repair the leaks. However, Ofer decided not to repair the source of the leaks but to install a channel that would divert the leak away from one of the pipes. In a particularly outrageous way, it turned out that Ofer arrived with a channel that was too small and was unable to install it.
• בשיחה עם התובע מיום 15.1.2025 עופר הודיע לתובע כי הוא הזמין תעלה רחבה יותר שתגיע לכל המאוחר עד "יום ראשון" (19.1.2025). בהודעה קולית נוספת עופר חזר על כך שהפתרון יגיע ביום ראשון.
• Unsurprisingly, Sunday (January 19, 2025) passed and the solution did not come.
• בתאריך 26.1.2025 ב"כ התובע הלין על הטיפול הרשלני והסחבת בתיקון הנזילות. באותו היום ב"כ הנתבעת השיבה, בין היתר, כי "The company's management is exceptional and not slow at all.."
• לקרוא ולא להאמין. התובע מלין על נזילות במשך כשנה וחצי ולשיטת הנתבעת הנתהלותה "יוצאת מן הכלל ולא איטית בכלל".
• In light of the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff's attorney announced on January 26, 2025 that the defendant has until January 30, 2025 to repair the leak, otherwise, its employees will be prohibited from approaching the plaintiff's parking area and the plaintiff will take care of repairing the leak himself.

Appendix 5: מכתב ההתראה והתכתבויות בין ב"כ התובע לב"כ הנתבעת.

• ביום 30.1.2025 (למעלה מחודש לאחר ההתראה לפני נקיטת הליכים משפטיים שנשלחה על ידי ב"כ התובע) הגיע נציג הנתבעת כדי להתקין את התעלה. התעלה הותקנה אך הבעיה לא נפתרה והנזילות עדיין קיימות.

The defendant misled the plaintiff and acted contrary to the agreement between the parties and contrary to the law.

• The defendant presented the plaintiff with a representation that he would receive parking spaces without defects. In fact, the defendant misled the plaintiff and provided him with parking spaces with defects resulting from the flowerbed installed above the parking spaces (more on this below). If the plaintiff had known that he would receive parking spaces with defects, he would not have agreed to park his vehicles in those parking spaces in the first place, thus preventing the damage to the paint on the vehicles caused by the dripping.
• Section 11.3 of the engagement agreement states as follows:

"הקונה מתחייב לאפשר לקבלן המבצע ו/או למי מטעמו להיכנס לדירה, לצורך בדיקת הקלקולים או הפגמים כאמור לעיל, ואשר עליהם הודיע הקונה בכתב לקבלן בתוך תקופת הבדק. קלקול או פגם המפריע לשימוש סביר בדירה or in the joint property and which is possible to carry out in terms of the season of the year, Will be carried out within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of the notice by the contractor., subject to circumstances beyond the contractor's control, provided that the buyer immediately notified the contractor so that the defect and/or deficiency can be repaired immediately.

• With all due respect, an endless delay that lasted about a year and a half from the date of the initial contact with the defendant's representatives is not a reasonable period of time. The conduct of the defendant's representatives constitutes contempt for the plaintiff and conduct lacking in good faith in the extreme.
• In any case, the provision of this section of the agreement is a condition precedent to its provisions. Cogentity של חוק מכר (דירות), תשל"ג – 1973 (ראו סעיף 7א לחוק).
• סעיף 4ב(א) לחוק המכר (דירות) קובע בצורה פשוטה כי "אי התאמה" יש לתקן תוך זמן סביר (ללא כל יתר התנאים וההגבלות בסעיף 11.3 לחוזה).
• As stated above, a period of time lasting about a year and a half is not a reasonable period of time – and the problem was not fixed at all!!
• Section 4B(b) states that if the fault is not repaired, the plaintiff may repair the fault at his own expense, and the defendant must bear the cost of the repair. In light of the statement attached below, this is not a repair that the plaintiff can perform himself in light of its complexity and/or the costs involved.
• Section 23.14 of the engagement agreement is Prejudicial terms in a uniform contractAnd he states as follows:

"In any case of a claim on behalf of the buyer regarding inconsistencies and/or defects and/or violations of any kind and/or type, which the company has not acted to settle after receiving written notice from the buyer regarding them, The buyer will be entitled to enforcement relief only, i.e., the correction of the defects, and in any case, the buyer will not be entitled to compensation relief and will not be entitled to offset any of his debts to the company., למעט במקרה בו החברה לא נענתה לדרישת הקונה לביצוע תיקון תוך הפרת חובותיה על פי הסכם זה."

• סעיף זה אינו עומד בהוראות סעיף 3 ובחזקות הקבועות בסעיף 4 לחוק החוזים האחידים, תשמ"ג – 1982. The Honorable Court's attention is drawn to Section 20 of the Law, which instructs the court to notify the Attorney General that a claim of discrimination in a uniform contract has been raised in court.
• הקיפוח בסעיף 23.14 להסכם בולט ותמוה במיוחד לאור הוראת סעיף 23.1 להסכם הקובעת כי "על הפרת הסכם זה יחולו הוראות חוק החוזים (תרופות בשל הפרת חוזה), התשל"א – 1970". כידוע, אחת מהתרופות בחוק החוזים היא פיצוי כספי (סעיף 2). לא ניתן מצד אחד להפנות בעת הפרה לחוק החוזים ומצד שני לטעון כי פיצוי כספי זהו לא סעד אפשרי. בנסיבות אלה פועלת גם החזקה של פירוש החוזה לרעת המנסח (הנתבעת).

Expert opinion on behalf of the plaintiff

• On January 16, 2025, and February 2, 2025, the plaintiff's expert arrived at the site (after the two dates on which the defendant's representative allegedly made repairs) and examined the defects and leaks. According to the opinion, the source of the leakage is in the flowerbed located directly above the plaintiff's parking spaces.
• As detailed in the opinion, the repair carried out does not solve the problem and the leaks will continue.Furthermore, the expert determined that without thorough repair, this could constitute a safety hazard that could lead to the collapse of parts of the wall/ceiling (see the Conclusions section on page 8 of the opinion).
• According to what is stated in the opinion, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot carry out the repairs himself and/or at his own expense.
• בגין חוות דעת זו התובע שילם 2200 ש"ח בתוספת מע"מ (2,596 ש"ח כולל מע"מ), והתובע זכאי לקבל השבה של סכום זה מהנתבעת.

Appendix 6: Expert opinion On behalf of the plaintiff and a tax invoice indicating the payment to the expert.

Plaintiff's damages

• The plaintiff purchased two parking spaces. In practice, he was prevented from using one of them completely for about a year and a half (except for a few months when alternative parking was provided).
• The plaintiff believes that he is entitled to significant compensation for the defendant's failures that led to the denial of use of the parking lot, as well as for The anguish of the soul That was caused to him.
• During periods when the defendant did not provide alternative parking, the plaintiff was forced to look for parking on the street. This is a street where there is a parking shortage, and therefore each time the plaintiff was forced to waste a considerable amount of time finding parking.
• התנהלות ומחדלי הנתבעת והעובדה שהתובע נאלץ לחפש כל פעם חניה גרמו לו לעוגמת נפש אדירה, והדבר אף בא לידי ביטוי באופן ברור ומפורש בהתכתבויות דוא"ל עם נציגי הנתבעת.
• The plaintiff believes that he is entitled to a refund for all payments he made for the purpose of conducting this proceeding, as detailed at the beginning of the statement of claim (including Court fee, Lawyer's fees, payment to the expert).

In conclusion

• In light of all of the above, the Honorable Court is hereby requested to summon the defendant to a hearing before it and to rule as follows:
• the remedies detailed in this statement of claim.
• לחייב את הנתבעת בתשלום הוצאות משפט ושכר טרחת עו"ד בתוספת מע"מ.
• To grant any other relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

_______________
עו"ד אדי בליטשטיין
ב"כ התובע