Compensation for abandonment of construction sites: when the 110% Superbonus becomes a problem


Emma Potter

The Superbonus has allowed many Italians to make improvements to their homes and start renovations at no cost, but the cases of companies that have abandoned the construction site after having collected the advance are multiplying.

To obtain compensation, the client must prove the damage.

The 110% Superbonus

It is with the Relaunch decree that the 110% Superbonus makes its entry into Italy, in a policy of support for the economy and work following the emergency caused by Covid-19.

Thanks to this provision it is possible, for interventions aimed at improving energy efficiency or reducing seismic risk, to benefit from a 110% deduction of the costs incurred for the works or to opt for an advance contribution in the form of a discount, the so-called discount on the invoice, which can be obtained from the suppliers of the services or goods.

Such an attractive measure has led millions of Italians to start the procedures, although long and complex, to obtain this benefit and if many have succeeded in the undertaking, others have suffered damage. The companies commissioned to carry out the work, in fact, collected the advance and then literally fled.

In these cases, as decided by the latest sentences, it is necessary to prove the damage to obtain compensation and this obligation naturally lies with the client.

When the company is fugitive, the damage must be demonstrated

An excessive workload or lack of liquidity can lead the company in charge of carrying out the building interventions, taking advantage of the 110% Superbonus, to abandon the construction site with serious damage to the client who finds himself having paid any advance payment, with the work interrupted or never started and with the possibility of losing the benefit itself.

A problem which from a legal point of view, however, is not so easy to demonstrate. A recent ruling (Padua, number 2266, 15 November 2023) has in fact denied compensation for damages to the plaintiff, despite the defaults of the appointed company, precisely because the client has not proven the impossibility of turning to other companies to which to assign the works and obtain tax breaks.

It was therefore only granted to the owner of the property the refund of the amount paid to the company as a deposit for work never carried out, but not compensation for damages for the loss of the Superbonus benefit.

Compensation for non-compliance and for loss of the Superbonus

It is therefore possible to obtain compensation for the advance by taking the company to court for breach of contract if, however, the tender contract, the invoices demonstrating the sums already paid and the proof, through photographs and videos, that the works were not carried out are attached. complete.

A different case was the one judged by the court of Frosinone (sentence number 1080, 2 November 2023) which granted the plaintiff not only the restitution of the deposit equivalent to 22,000 euros, but also the reimbursementalbeit in a minimum percentage of 10%, of 15,000 euros for the tax benefit lost due to non-compliance.

Much more substantial, in fact we are talking about 150,000 euros, would have been the reimbursement for the client if the latter had provided the court with elements on his income condition (in particular if he had had an income lower than 15,000 euros) which would have demonstrated the impossibility to access a new intervention practice, as can be seen from the sentence.


In conclusion, if you find yourself in the position of having requested the Superbonus benefit, but have not been able to take advantage of this benefit due to the non-compliance of the contracting company, it is possible, through legal action, to obtain reimbursement of the amount advance and in some cases also compensation for the loss of the bonus, provided that adequate documentation is presented certifying not only the work not completed, but also the impossibility of remedying this situation, understood as the finding of other businesses.

That is, it is not enough just to declare that, due to the expiry of the deadlines, it was not possible to have access to the tax relief, but it is necessary to demonstrate definitively that there were no other viable solutions.