Complaints about wooden/laminate flooring in period properties

Taploc

I'm wondering if anyone can share their views and experience when it comes to noise from neighbours or if you've received complaints about noise from your property.

My bf and I both live separately in Victorian flats and we understand that noise travels whether you have carpets or not. My neighbours above me have thin carpet and walk quite heavily around the flat. It's very noisy when they walk on their roof terrace which is above my living room, but I just get on with it, in the knowledge that it's part and parcel of purchasing and living in a Victorian property. It's not as though they're exercising/partying and running around the flat. I can simply tell they're walking around and 'living' in the flat.

My bf, however, has wooden flooring in his flat and is mindful of not landing on the heels of his feet when walking and laying rugs in the rooms, yet his neighbours below complain to the freeholder about noise. It seems to have escalated to the point where the freeholder is hinting at the possibility of making my partner lift his entire flooring and getting him to shell out 3k for ultra padded and soundproofing underlay. Would it be legally enforceable as the freeholder is the council? I find it quite unfair and feel he just has unpleasant neighbours.

Any advice?

agrinnall

It depends on what his lease says, and we haven't read it.

AdrianC

Taploc wrote: »

My bf, however, has wooden flooring in his flat and is mindful of not landing on the heels of his feet when walking and laying rugs in the rooms, yet his neighbours below complain to the freeholder about noise. It seems to have escalated to the point where the freeholder is hinting at the possibility of making my partner lift his entire flooring and getting him to shell out 3k for ultra padded and soundproofing underlay. Would it be legally enforceable as the freeholder is the council?

What does his lease say? If it says that hard floorcoverings are not permitted, and that floors must be carpetted, then he really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Even if it doesn't, it may say something generic about causing an annoyance or nuisance - which he clearly is doing, since the neighbours are complaining about it...

I find it quite unfair

It would be unfair to breach the lease, yes.

and feel he just has unpleasant neighbours.

They probably feel the same.

Taploc

Thanks for the reply. The lease states that the leaseholder must keep 'the floors of the premises sustantially covered with suitable material for reasonably minimising the transmission of noise'

[Deleted User]

I'm afraid quite a few leases say laminate/wooden flooring can't be laid.., only carpet. But I'm not sure what can be done, if anything, to enforce that clause. Its reasonably easy to make a complaint.., bit more expensive to go to court and I assume the neighbours would have to convince the freeholders to take this action. Not sure I can see that happening.

AdrianC

Taploc wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. The lease states that the leaseholder must keep 'the floors of the premises sustantially covered with suitable material for reasonably minimising the transmission of noise'

Which, in the opinion of the people below, they clearly aren't currently.

Taploc

I also feel it's not a decision the courts would want to set as precedent as it'd open the floodgates for thousands around the UK to sue their neigbours (plus freeholders being able to enforce the removal of flooring).

Taploc

Their opinion is subjective.

Taploc

AdrianC wrote: »

What does his lease say? If it says that hard floorcoverings are not permitted, and that floors must be carpetted, then he really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Even if it doesn't, it may say something generic about causing an annoyance or nuisance - which he clearly is doing, since the neighbours are complaining about it...



It would be unfair to breach the lease, yes.



They probably feel the same.

Wow, you go for the jugular. Thanks for implying my bf is unpleasant. It would actually be against the law to breach the lease, but it's for the court to establish that, of course.

I wrote about my situation with my own neighbours as an example of a person simply accepting the fact that period properties transmit a lot of sound - it's fact. Or I could keep banging on their door after every little sound and being a true 'unpleasant neighbour'. I think you missed the point.

AdrianC

Taploc wrote: »

Their opinion is subjective.

Of course it is. Just as yours is. But the freeholder is entitled to decide if it's a breach or not, and request that he complies with the terms of the lease.

The ultimate sanction available to the freeholder is for the lease to be forfeit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9432/leaflet.pdf

While that's a heavy sanction to take, he will need to declare any dispute when he sells the flat.

Taploc wrote: »

Thanks for implying my bf is unpleasant.

Perhaps you might like to read what I actually wrote, instead of leaping to take offence at something that simply wasn't there? I've never met him. I merely pointed out that his neighbours clearly think he is, since they have gone so far as to complain about him to the freeholder.

Taploc wrote: »

I also feel it's not a decision the courts would want to set as precedent as it'd open the floodgates for thousands around the UK to sue their neigbours (plus freeholders being able to enforce the removal of flooring).

This would not be the first such case, by a LONG way.

Taploc

The courts would ultimately decide if it's a breach or not.

I will have to look up cases where a lease has been forfeited for such a reason. Would you be able to share a URL?

If the flat is on sale and everything is in place, do you really think 3k for some underlay would be an issue at that stage?