- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi,
I am an owner on the Executive Committee of a 3 storey apartment building. About 6 months ago, our neighbour’s on the 2nd floor requested to put wooden floorboards down (actually an owner occupier next door notified us of the work being done and we rushed through the approval). Our strata manager sent through an approval document to the owner stating the following clauses:
Clause 2: The lot owner and installer must comply with By-law 1 Noise and By-Law 14 Floor coverings.Clause 13: “If any reasonable complaints pertaining to noise are made, the executive committee may require you to reinstate the floor to its original condition.”Clause 14: The executive committee or owner’s corporation may specify that the lot owner or its agent have carried out an acoustic test to determine whether the noise attenuation properties of the flooring and underlay are sufficient.Clause 15: The combination of floorboards and underlay must achieve an impact isolation class of 59.The owner agreed to the above and the floorboards were installed. The owner subsequently put the apartment on AirBnb and started short term letting it. The tenants of the apartment below began to complain regarding the noise and the owner contacted the Executive Committee and asked for carpets to be reinstated. The owner states she was given the wrong advice from the Strata and an Impact Isolation Class of 40 should have been advised (the same as carpet). She has agreed to stop short term letting it as of September but the owner downstairs says her tenants will move out immediately if not rectified.The owner impacted by the noise would like a new underlay to a rating of 40 at the Strata’s expense (i.e. from the Sinking Fund). This would basically decimate our Sinking Fund, which has around $5,000 in it and leave us raising special levies for other urgent work we need doing.I would like to find out if anyone else has had this experience and whether anyone is aware of a CTTT ruling in this sort of case. I don’t believe it should be our (the Strata’s) responsibility to pay.Cheers,Lisa
-
Replies
-
Lisa,
I don’t have personal experience of this, but I don’t believe it should be your Strata’s responsibility to pay either.
IMHO, Clause 2 of the approval conditions takes precedence over the other conditions as it appears earlier.
Also IMHO, the Strata should not necessarily be involved (in the dispute), as the lower owner can take the higher owner to the CTTT in their own right.
However, there does seem to be some confusion over the standards.
Impact Isolation Class (IIC).
With IIC the higher the number the greater the sound isolation effect. A good IIC standard is 60. 70 is excellent but not realistically achievable with timber, parquetry, ceramic tiles, marble or stone flooring.
Ln, Tw +c1 (whatever that means).
With Ln, Tw +c1 the lower the number the greater the sound isolation effect. A good Ln, Tw +c1 standard is 50. 40 is excellent but not realistically achievable with timber, parquetry, ceramic tiles, marble or stone flooring.
I think one measures attenuation and the other measures transmission.
The SM specified IIC of 69. That’s good. Just like carpet.
The upstairs owner is not entitled to demand, especially post-installation, that they “should have been given” a lower standard.
Or are they just confused about the two standards?
Anyway the SM gave correct advice.
And the By-Laws (against noise) take precedence.
I think the upstairs owner should first take the hardwood floor company to the CTTT.
How do you tell if a hardwood floor salesman is lying?
His mouth is moving.
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
Patricia & Lisa,
I don’t know about the types or thickness of underlay required.
Given that the upstairs owner was duped, she should be receptive to the information you’ve discovered.
She should lodge a complaint with the CTTT, the Consumer Claims division, not the Strata division or Tenancy division.
She should ask for an order for either (whichever she prefers):
1) Pull up the hardwood floor, replace underlay with compliant underlay, re-lay hardwood floor, all for free.
2) Pull up the hardwood floor, take it away, refund the money. Then she could lay carpet (with proper underlay).
I would recommend (2), as the By-Law about noise is subjective but takes precedence over numerical standards.
I don’t know about fines which might be imposed in addition.
In this particular situation there was an “Approval for Floorboards” document signed off by the Strata Agent which outlines the terms and conditions of the agreement for the owner to install the floor.
The owners haven’t complied with this, and that is evidenced in many ways.
The Executive committee and the Strata Agent are sitting on the fence and won’t help me, the affected owner (downstairs from the floorboards).
My tenants are fed-up and want to move out because the noise is so bad. The combination of the cheapest laminated flooring and 3mm cheapest underlay is not much better than bare concrete in its acoustic performance.
The Strata Agent and Executive Committee could do several things.
They could agree to send the owner a “Notice to Comply” (with by-Law 14). They could action two of the clauses in the the Approval, which require the owner to restore the floor to it’s original condition if reasonable complaints are made, and/or require the owner to have carried out acoustic testing to determine whether the noise attenuation is sufficient.
I am totally disappointed with the committee and the Strata Manager. Next time it might be one of them who is affected by some other owner doing something unreasonable that affects them. I’ll have to think very hard about whether I will be supporting them.
I have spent numerous hours researching acoustics, have spoken with an acoustics engineer and I have tried to negotiate a solution with the owner.
I wrote to her, suggested a reasonable timeline and asked her for her timeline preference, if mine didn’t suit her. The owner refuses to communicate with me.
So I am left with no other option than the CTTT, which is what I will be doing. I have all my documents prepared.
Numerous decisions I found on the Government Website, found in favour of the person affected by the noisy floors.
Your comments are welcome.
Patricia
Hi again after all this time has passed.
The results are in:
First step CTTT : Decision 30 December: Respondents to comply with By-Law 14 “forthwith:
Second Step: Application for Penalty s202 at NCAT: At the hearing I made application for a ruling under s187 where the Adjudicator can make an alternative order under S138 By-Law 14. I asked for the same order as a precedent that I looked up on the AustLII website.
Result: The respondents are ordered to lay carpet and underlay within 60 days.
It’s about 18 months now since the carpet was ripped out and the noisy floating timber floor was installed.
I hope that this is the end of the hassle and the hours of work that I have put into research and applications.
Any one who wishes to know more, please post!
Patricia
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.