#18853

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. I am the owner of the affected apartment.

I agree the Strata is not responsible to pay.

I believe that the installer could be liable to fines by the CTTT if challenged by the customer (owner of the upstairs apartment). Any comments on this?

The installer wrote on his statement to the customer re the underlay that :

“The CSIRO tests state that the 3mm 100% rubber 850 density result is Lnw59.  This is the equivalent of the Impact Isolation Class of 59. We have been advised that, along with the floating floor, this gives an acoustic result of better than 59 (which is what is wanted). “

Before I found the incriminating document which detailed the underlay, I tried to talk with the boss of the company that installed the timber floor to find out this detail so that I could investigate other options, and was shouted at over the phone. Perhaps he knew he was “busted” for lying?

If I was the customer I would take the installer to the CTTT on the basis that they gave false information, in stating the Lnw is equivalent to IIC and seek recompense in money or free re-laying labour costs.

Did the installer really not realise that Ln,w+Ci is not equivalent to IIC??

I am a schoolteacher, and I was able to find out this information so how did the timber flooring company not know this?

I will be seeing this through to a fair and satisfactory result.

While I feel sorry for the owner of upstairs, the noise levels are so unreasonable that it must be resolved.

Any suggestions about suitable underlays?

Thanks Kiss