In a recent sentence, the Brescia Court faced a dispute between a client and a surveyor regarding the payment of professional fees for a renovation project.
The customer had contested the injunction that forced her to pay over 20,000 euros, claiming that the professional had not respected the expected budget, had delayed the execution of the assignment and had compromised access to the building bonuses, fundamental for financing the work.
The judge, however, rejected the opposition, establishing that the professional had done his work correctly and that the client’s economic difficulties could not be attributed to the work of the surveyor.
But what are the limits of responsibility for a technician in charge of a building project? How can you avoid incurring similar problems when planning a renovation?
Let’s find out together.
Advertisement – Advertising
The heart of the dispute: compensation and non -fulfillment
The dispute began when the surveyor obtained an injunction for the payment of € 20,112.62believing that he has carried out his assignment regularly. The client, however, contested the payment obligation, claiming that the planning activity had been useless and that the professional had not respected what was agreed.
One of the main disagreements concerned the renovation budget. The client claimed to have established a maximum expenditure ceiling equal to € 200.000but according to her, the surveyor had developed an economically unsustainable project, with costs around the € 316.000.
According to him, this had compromised the feasibility of the intervention, preventing her from proceeding with the work.
Another controversial aspect concerned the building bonusesin particular the superbonus 110% and the facades bonus. According to the client, the professional had guaranteed them who could have accessed these concessions, but in the end this had not been possible. The loss of the tax benefits, according to him, depended on the delays accumulated by the technician and his alleged lack of preliminary verification on the possibility of taking advantage of the incentives.
The client claimed to have totally entrusted himself to the surveyor’s indications and to have planned the intervention based on the certainty of obtaining the bonuses.
A further reason for dispute concerned theStart of the works. According to the opponent, the surveyor would have refused to start the construction site, further delaying the possibility of accessing the tax benefits and aggravating the situation. To this was added the lack of inclusion of a lift in the final projectan element that the client considered essential for the habitability of the property.
The surveyor, for his part, contested all these accusations, claiming to have respected what was agreed and demonstrating, through documentation and exchanges of emails, that he had done his work diligently. Highlighted how the figure of € 300.000indicated in the assignment contract, was well known to the client and that the estimated costs were in line with this amount. Also, he underlined that Access to the building bonuses did not depend directly on himbut from bureaucratic factors and the availability of banks to accept the transfer of the credit.
In particular, the client had not been able to find a banking institution willing to finance the project through the mechanism of the assignment of the credit, making it impossible to proceed with the work.
Also on the list of the elevator, the professional provided a clear explanation: initially had been included in the project, but subsequently had been eliminated to adapt to the requests of the landscape commission and the technical offices of the Municipality. The surveyor also specified that the client had been informed of these changes and accepted them.
At this point, the Court had to establish whether the professional had actually fulfilled his contractual obligations or if the client was right in refusing to pay.
Advertisement – Advertising
The role of building bonuses: promises and reality
One of the most delicate aspects of the dispute concerned the building bonuses, in particular the Superbonus 110% and the Facades bonus. The client claimed that the surveyor had ensured that he could have used these concessions, thus guaranteeing an important reduction in the costs of the renovation. However, due to alleged delays in the management of the project and the lack of verification of the real feasibility of access to the bonuses, the customer had lost the opportunity to benefit from it.
The investigation revealed that the professional had actually informed the client about the possibility of accessing the incentives, but without ever guaranteeing their use with certainty. The surveyor had dealt with the design and the technical part, while the tax and bureaucratic aspect of the bonuses should have been followed by an accountant.
The main problem, in fact, was not related to the compliance of the property to the requirements for the Superbonus, but rather to the impossibility of the client to obtain a loan through the Credit transfer.
During the trial, it was ascertained that the client did not have the liquidity necessary to anticipate the payments of the works and that no bank or financial institution had agreed to purchase his tax credits. This aspect proved to be decisive: The project was economically unsustainable Not for an error of the surveyor, but because the system of building bonuses, in the period in question, had become increasingly complicated and less accessible due to regulatory restrictions and the withdrawal of many banks from the credit transfer market.
As a result, the Court excluded that the failure to use the bonuses was attributable to an error or an omission of the professional. Since there is no proof that the surveyor had committed negligence in the management of technical practices, the loss of the facilities was attributed to circumstances independent of his work.
Advertisement – Advertising
Court’s decisions: the opposition rejection
After analyzing the documentation and listened to the testimonies, the Court of Brescia, first civil sectionin the sentence n. RG 6361/2022 of 6 March 2025rejected the opposition of the client and confirmed the injunctionestablishing that the surveyor had regularly fulfilled his contractual obligations and that the contestations raised were not founded.
The sentence showed that the professional had correctly carried out the design position, presenting all the documents necessary for the competent bodies and modifying the project several times to adapt it to the client’s requests.
The Court recognized that the amount of the works had been set in € 300.000 Already in the assignment letter signed by the customer, and that any discrepancies compared to the desired budget could not be attributed to an error of the technician.
As regards the failure to use the Superbonus 110% and other tax breaks, the judge clarified that The surveyor had no direct responsibility. The difficulties of the client had mainly derived from the impossibility of finding a banking institution available to detect the tax credit. This element, together with the lack of liquid economic resources by the customer to anticipate the necessary payments, made the start of the works impractical.
The contestation relating to the elevator was also rejected. The sentence confirmed that the element had been included in the initial project, but subsequently removed to adapt to the requests of the Landscape commission and the single counter for the construction of the Municipality of Bresciaa decision that the client had accepted without raising objections.
The Court has therefore rejected all the customer’s requests, including those for the termination of the contract pursuant to art. 1453 ccfor theCancellation for the defect of consent and for the return of the deposit paid of € 5,000.00. In addition, the client was sentenced to reimburse the legal fees of the professional, quantified in € 4,227.00beyond the legal accessories, as required by DM 55/2014 for causes of equivalent value.
The sentence confirms an important legal principle: a professional has the right to be paid for the work done, provided that he has respected the contractual obligations and operated with due diligence. Problems related to access to the building bonuses or financial difficulties of the customer cannot be attributed to the technician, unless his specific responsibility is demonstrated.
