- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Here’s a story where I can’t decide whether the outcome is good or bad. It started when a colleague’s mother’s upstairs neighbours lifted their carpet and polished their floorboards.
Mum was suddenly assaulted by the sound of footsteps and other domestic noises that were only audible thanks to the removal of the most effective form of sound insulation between units – wall-to-wall carpet on top of a quality underlay.
The by-laws were not specific about flooring but there was the usual ‘thou shalt not’ about disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of another resident’s lot.
Mum had a good case to take to the CTTT to ask for an order for the carpet to be reinstated, but no matter how strong your position, there’s still a price to pay that goes way beyond the cost of an application to Fair Trading.
As you schlep around from mediation to adjudication to appeal and hearing, like a beggar going from door to door, there’s the time, emotional energy and legal fees if you want to increase your chances of success.
And, given the unpredictability of the CTTT, there are no guarantees except that this will cost you; the tribunal can’t award costs in normal circumstances and won’t, even when they are allowed to. Also, the adjudicator or member might decide that scattering a few rugs was enough (which it almost never is).
So my colleague sat down with the upstairs neighbours, reasonable people who didn’t realise how much noise lifting the carpet would cause, and agreed with them that they would replace the carpet at his expense and never lift it again.
But hang on, they are in the wrong and his Mum is definitely the victim, so why should he pay? Well, he would be the one paying the lawyers, turning up at the hearings, gathering the evidence and destroying what had been a happy relationship between his mum and the folks upstairs.
It was easier and cheaper just to write a cheque for a relatively modest sum and make it all go away. Check out Hard Floors and Tough Decisions on the Forum for more tales of flooring woes.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
-
Replies
-
Jimmy,
Yes this is a difficult one to definitively say whether the outcome is good or bad. Sadly the whole process of getting a fair and equitable outcome for both parties is often fraught with pitfalls. Happily in the case you have sited there was good will offered from both sides, however splitting the costs would have been fairer. Sadly in some cases the offending party is determined to keep their precious wooden investment and offers of assisting with costs in setting it right are futile. I lament that there is not a clearer process with clearer guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable in a strata block especially when it comes to the hideous noise pollution that can be generated by these floors. The whole process of seeking “justice” is laughable with the victim of these floors often bearing significant costs both financially and emotionally. Considering that the affected party has invested significantly in their biggest asset (their home) only to have it become virtually uninhabitable is a gross miscarriage of community justice.
The CTTT even when they do make a “strong determination” are effectively a toothless tiger with no real powers to enforce a fair resolution.
I have heard of many cases where the person affected by these floors has simply wilted under the financial and emotional onslaught and simply put their home on the market, often at a significant loss.
Why can losses incurred due to these matters be recoverable in the district court or above.
Cheers
andyj
I have previously suggested that the ACCC could get involved in reviewing claims made by marketers of wooden floors. To say that a particular reduction of sound transmission, recorded by a testing system that is not necessarily univerally accepted, meets the requirements of ‘strata’ is frankly misleading when the general standard of ‘strata’, in NSW at least, is expressed in the model by-law requiring that floors be covered in a way that prevents noise transmission likely to disturb neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their homes. There does seem to be widespread use of pseudo-science to exploit the ignorant. How many of us have a true understanding of the physics of sound and the various ways it is measured, let alone the physiology of its interaction with the human brain?
Jimmy, scotlandx and others,
You mentioned in a previous post that you had used Precision flooring and as a result had flawless timber floor installs that have not caused any noise transmission issues with your neighbor’s. May I politely ask what acoustic underlay you used (brand and thickness), as I would like to make some recommendations to the Tribunal at the upcoming appeal hearing. Our unit block has a 150mm concrete floor with a plaster finish to the ceiling of the units below. I would like to put an end to the noise transmission issues I am experiencing once and for all and would like to recommend a top class treatment that can stop noise transmission from a very active young family above.
Cheers
andyj
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.