Serious works continuous for 4 months +

MykMallett

Hi

I'm having a bit of a nightmare at the moment with a property that me and 2 friends moved into in July. From the beginning we've had works been going on in the building, however for the last 4 out of 5 months we have had serious work going on in the building...core drilling, demolition, concrete sawing. At the moment it has escalated to being directly above our heads in the flat above, so during the day you cant hear each other talk.

The builders continuously start before 8am, not the drilling but the unloading and slinging metal about - which echoed around the central area of the block of flats is incredibly loud.

However, the actual work during the day is completely destroying mine and my housemates home lives. We all work late nights and so try and sleep during the day and it's just making it impossible. We all try and stay at friends to get away from it and frankly it's horrendous. I've emailed and written to the landlords in London a few times and have received no response.

Really, I don't want to pay my final months rent at all, but I would settle for a reduction. Do I have any kind of legal options, or do I just have to settle for it?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Jones & Anor v Ruth & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 804

Might be of interest.

G_M

The landlord probobly has no control over the builders who are either working for other flatowners or the building freeholder/management company.

They could raise the issue with the freeholder/mgmt co, but chances are they'd be told these were essential works which were only being carried out during day-time.

A sympathetic LL might choose to accept your early suurender of the tenancy, or offer you a rebate, but I doubt if he could be forced to.

Unfortunate but not much you can do I'm afraid.

G_M

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Jones & Anor v Ruth & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 804

Might be of interest.

If contributing to a poster's problem it is helpful to actually explain the relevant facts.

A very quick look at this case and it does not seem relevant here - though I could be wrong. In that case, the claim was

1) 'nuisance and trespass' that caused actual damage to the plaintiff's property - the OP has mentioned no damage and even if there were, the damage would likely be to the landlord's flat not the tenant (OP)'s belongings, and

2) 'harassment and personal injury' - which might be relevant here - if injury can be proved (the plaintiff in the above case

suffered from severe back pain brought on by the anxiety and depression which this caused. She has not been able to work since April 2005 and requires some form of cognitive behaviour therapy as well as physiotherapy and counselling

MykMallett

G_M wrote: »

The landlord probobly has no control over the builders who are either working for other flatowners or the building freeholder/management company.

They could raise the issue with the freeholder/mgmt co, but chances are they'd be told these were essential works which were only being carried out during day-time.

A sympathetic LL might choose to accept your early suurender of the tenancy, or offer you a rebate, but I doubt if he could be forced to.

Unfortunate but not much you can do I'm afraid.

The whole block of flats is owned by the company, does that make any difference?

lighting_up_the_chalice

G_M wrote: »

If contributing to a poster's problem it is helpful to actually explain the relevant facts.

A very quick look at this case and it does not seem relevant here - though I could be wrong. In that case, the claim was

1) 'nuisance and trespass' that caused actual damage to the plaintiff's property - the OP has mentioned no damage and even if there were, the damage would likely be to the landlord's flat not the tenant (OP)'s belongings, and

2) 'harassment and personal injury' - which might be relevant here - if injury can be proved (the plaintiff in the above case

"Might" makes it relevant.

MykMallett

The whole block of flats is owned by the company, does that make any difference?

G_M

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

"Might" makes it relevant.

The OP has given no indication there has been actual personal injury along the lines in the case you quoted. Even if there had been such injury, it would need to be proven as in referral to medical specialists for treatment.

Hence my 'might'. If the OP has all this, then yes, that case might be relevant.

If it is just disturbing noise etc as described by the OP, then the case is irrelevant.

(though a) I am not legally qualified and b) have not read the case in detail - so my views must be read on that basis)

lighting_up_the_chalice

G_M wrote: »

The OP has given no indication there has been actual personal injury along the lines in the case you quoted. Even if there had been such injury, it would need to be proven as in referral to medical specialists for treatment.

Hence my 'might'. If the OP has all this, then yes, that case might be relevant.

If it is just disturbing noise etc as described by the OP, then the case is irrelevant.

(though a) I am not legally qualified and b) have not read the case in detail - so my views must be read on that basis)

An easy to read summary can be found at... http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/10/shaken-and-stirred/ including the substantial award for noise nuisance.

G_M

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

An easy to read summary can be found at... http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/10/shaken-and-stirred/ including the substantial award for noise nuisance.

Then since you have clearly read, and believe you have fully understood, the case you refer to why not helpfully:

a) advise the OP of the salient points of the case
b) tell him/her how it relates to his/her position and
c) give him/her a pointer as to what he could/should do?

Far more helpful than debating the ins and outs with me!

MykMallett

Ignoring the mysticism of lighting up the chalice's posts

MykMallett wrote: »

The whole block of flats is owned by the company, does that make any difference?

Can someone advise me on this, as G_M you say that it is probably not really the landlord who can make the decisions, but it is entirely the landlord or owners property, the entire block and therefore they can take full responsibility. The noise is literally deafening, they seem to acquire bigger drills every week. It's not a home. It's incredible that this wasn't mentioned to us when we took up the tenancy, as these works started within a month or two and are massive undertakings, so would have been planned months in advance.

Is there nothing we can do?


Also, can you advise. The landlord took guarantor details off us when we moved in. At what point can we request those details be destroyed? We are not students