Noise from wooden floors of flat above

Fraise

Kynthia wrote: »

:huh:

I'm confused, the link you provided confirms my point that quiet enjoyment means neither the landlord nor their agent/employee should interfere with the tenant's right to lawful use and benefit of the premises.

There's mention of a case that failed where a tenants complained about excessive noise from other tenants. There's also mention that the Court of Appeal had confirmed that quiet enjoyment was not a guarantee against all disturbance.

Now I'm not saying that a case claiming breach of quiet enjoyment can never be noise related, but it's not what the term means. The noise would possibly have to be under the control of the landlord or their agent/employee in some way and would have to prevent the tenant having use or benefit of the property, which would be extreme. Now I'm imagining some Guantanamo Bay related torture technique of blasting Brian Adams songs loudly through the letter box in an effort to illegally evict the tenant. :rotfl: I would expect a lease to contain a clause about the structure of the building, the flooring or the behaviour of tenants affecting other tenants that would be much more useful in this case.

Also I'm confused by your last statement? Are you trying to say that quiet enjoyment applies to owners, leaseholders and shareholders? :huh: Your link says it applies to landlords, which I take to mean freeholders and those who let their property.

Actually, if you re-read the link ir certainly does say that noise comes under quiet enjoyment in certain circumstances...


Substantial Interference
It has long been understood that the word “quiet” in quiet enjoyment does not mean the absence of noise although a number of cases on the subject have been noise related. “Quiet” in this context means without interference. Interference with the right of quiet enjoyment must be substantial and what amounts to substantial will always be dependent upon the facts of the case. In the case of London Borough of Southwark -v- Mills the House of Lords rejected a breach of quiet enjoyment claim brought by a tenant against its landlord based on excessive noise caused by other tenants in the building. It was held that the tenant took on the lease when the flats were already noisy and had inadequate soundproofing and would not therefore be successful in its claim.


In the above case (LBS -v- Mills) the only reason Mills lost his case against the noise his neighbours were causing, was that he took on the flat when it was already noisy. Had the noise happened afterwards, he would have won the case.

Regarding freeholders being able to claim against noise, yes they can do. That's if they are co-freeholders and one of the other freeholders is causing noise and a nuisance.

katejo

The problem doesn't only affect conversions. I had a period purpose built 1st floor flat (built about 1915) and had problems with the guy underneath me. i didn't have wooden floors at all, only carpet and I didn't wear shoes indoors or run round the flat/stamp in the floor but I had regular complaints from him. I think that there was something in the lease about wooden floors. I sold it in 2006 and the new owner has replaced my carpet with a wooden floor! I don't know if the complaints from the ground floor have continued or not.

Kynthia

Fraise , you seem determined to argue and I'm not sure why? Your points are unclear and muddled. Yes claims against quiet enjoyment can include noise related incidences, I said that, so I'm not sure what your point is. My point was to clearly explain what quiet enjoyment actually means, which isn't directly about noise which some people don't realise, and suggest there may be better clauses in the lease the OP could use.

The only bit of your previous post I agreed with was that quiet enjoyment claims are against freeholders rather than the others you listed, and yet you are arguing that it can be used against other freeholders??? Yes we agree on that one point so why argue it? Very strange.

Fraise

Kynthia wrote: »

I believe that 'quiet enjoyment' is to be able to live in your home without unnecessary interference from your landlord

Kynthia wrote: »

. It's nothing to do with noise levels.

Kynthia wrote: »

Actually, you DID say 'quiet enjoyment' is nothing to do with noise levels. Check your post above . But now you're saying in your latest post that "quiet enjoyment can include noise related incidences". I'd say it's you who is muddled.......

Kynthia wrote: »

Fraise , you seem determined to argue and I'm not sure why? Your points are unclear and muddled. Yes claims against quiet enjoyment can include noise related incidences, I said that, so I'm not sure what your point is. My point was to clearly explain what quiet enjoyment actually means, which isn't directly about noise which some people don't realise, and suggest there may be better clauses in the lease the OP could use.

The only bit of your previous post I agreed with was that quiet enjoyment claims are against freeholders rather than the others you listed, and yet you are arguing that it can be used against other freeholders??? Yes we agree on that one point so why argue it? Very strange.

I am not arguing, I am merely trying to explain things to you which you seem to have trouble comprehending.

Quiet enjoyment claims can be taken out against a neighbour/shareholder/leaseholder or co-freeholder - it's the person committing the problem, not their title!

Hope that has helped you to understand

nickyg2000

Feel for you as I am in the same situation. After lots of agonising I have decided to sit it out & sell after the 12 month mark. Using an online agency liked hatched can keep the costs of selling down to under £600. It sucks but you live and learn

suestew

It's a common problem, I had exactly the same. It depends a lot on the type of people living above you I think, I had 4 different people some were good most were not, one had a child that constantly ran up and down the hallway and into the front room and didn't go to bed early either, drove me nuts. I would politely ask them to take shoes off (why would you wear shoes the whole time you are at home anyway, first things that come off my feet when I get home) and possibly put some thick rugs down. You could also invite them down one at a time and listen to the noise, they most probably do not realise. Good luck!

MaxTheCat

Angelicdevil wrote: »

Oh dear I was brought up with the rules that you remove your shoes when you enter the house!

Is that just a posh thing?

No it's not it's for people too poor to replace their floor coverings regularly so quite the opposite of posh.

Regarding the OPs question I had the same situation and frankly your best option is to move and let someone else have the problem. It's an expensive option but insulation won't work and the stress the noise causes definitely affects your health over time because you don't have anywhere to relax.