Friday, 25 May 2012

LONDON & QUADRANT v VELLA

Posted in: Discussion | Legal debate

decent homes, harassmennt, sound insulation

20/01/2010 11:22 am

kass

kass

Posts: 629

I would be interested for comments from those who are familiar or experience with this case. What do you think are think are its implications?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Post a reply

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

Sancho

Sancho

Posts: 199

20/01/2010 11:44 am

In short, the findings of this case were that a lack of sound insulation could not be considered an environmental health issue because the level of noise affecting a person depends firstly on how much noise is being made, not on the level of insulation.

In shorter, the implications are that you can't sue your landlord because of a lack of sound insulation and (as in this case) you certainly can't take the Local Authority to a judicial review for saying that it is outside of environmental health's remit.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

20/01/2010 12:07 pm

So, two social landlords, L&Q and Lambeth, have combined force to use their residents money to fight and win a case to deprive not just their own residents but ANY resident in England of the right of defence under the Environmental Act that lack of sound insulation of any kind is detrimental to health?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Sancho

Sancho

Posts: 199

20/01/2010 12:51 pm

No. One social tenant has got into a row with his landlord saying that there is excessive noise coming from his neigbours. For whatever reason, he has then got in touch with the Council Environmental Health and told them to sort it out. They have then said that they don't consider the noise being made by his neighbour to be unreasonable and that they have no jurisdiction over the level insulation as it is not part of the 'state' of the building. He has then challenged that decision in court and lost.

He brought the case, not them.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

20/01/2010 1:15 pm

What does the 'state' of the building means and why insualtion is not part of it?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

Posts: 164

20/01/2010 1:32 pm

The "state" of the building often refers to it's condition and upkeep. In much the same way that people have pointed out with Fire Safety, most RSL, and indeed private dwellings all adhere to all legal requirements when first built. Its simply not practical to constantly retrofit with various features unless prescribed by law.

Every resident, without exception whether house or flat would love the maximum sound insulation possible, the finance required to do it simply isn't there.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

20/01/2010 1:56 pm

"Harry Lime Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:32 GMT

...Every resident, without exception whether house or flat would love the maximum sound insulation possible, the finance required to do it simply isn't there."

Ok, following from what you say, is there a minimum insulation which a resident must have because it is required by law and by not meeting it the landlord would be breaking the law?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

Posts: 164

20/01/2010 2:16 pm

It's a moveable feast, it will depend on whatever building regs were (or weren't) in place when the property was being built. The chances are the older your property the less likely there is to have a meaningful figure regarding sound insulation. Loft/energy insulation I'm not sure on, there's every chance with Eco stuff being on the political agenda there will be enhanced laws brought in to increase this, I wouldn't hold your beath on sound insulation.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

20/01/2010 2:33 pm

Harry Lime Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:16 GMT

okay, so how do residents should go about to prove in a legal terms lack of sound insulation and it being detrimental to their health?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Sancho

Sancho

Posts: 199

20/01/2010 2:39 pm

They would need to check the building regulations that were in force at the time their home was built and demonstrate that it does not meet those standards.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

20/01/2010 2:41 pm

Sancho Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:39 GMT

would you or any reader know which these standards were in 1979 when the property was converted into 3 flats?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Sancho

Sancho

Posts: 199

20/01/2010 3:22 pm

I'm afraid not. Building Regulations pre-1984 were not the same as these days and I don't know anything much about them.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Bill Douses

Bill Douses

Posts: 101

20/01/2010 3:38 pm

Kass:

you could look at: http://www.ukbuildingstandards.org.uk
they have full building regs documents available to purchase, about £10 i think...
be prepared to have some strong coffee on the go!

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Mike Eade

Mike Eade

Posts: 2

22/10/2011 10:57 am

Summary - if neighbours are not being unreasonable and there is no defect with the property (based upon the standard of the day or at the point of conversion) there is no statutory nuisance. This is a sound judgement as no person should be made a criminal for living their life in a reasonable way.We have a video available from amazon.co.uk which explains the noise nuisance process.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

22/10/2011 11:34 am

there are many tenants, maybe hundred thousands of them, in social properties in which sound insulation, lack of it or insufficience of it - even though legally do not make the properties 'illegal' (because whatever rubbish legislation or lack of it was at the time of conversion), have become ill.  This means unable to work, this means forced onto benefits.  This has nothing to do with neighbours being unreasobale.  This has to do with the fact that sound insulation is poor or non existent.  Social landlords have conned all these thousands of their tenants by either justifying themselves with rules or lack of them at the time of conversion or by turning complaint about insulation into neighbours' disputes... This has produced an enournous number of tenants ill, unhappy and destroyed communal spirits plus the taxpayer paying for benfits and legal disputes.  Whatever the rules at the time of conversion if these properties produced this outcome is not good for anyone.  Only for social lanlords who rather waste their money of other schemes than bring about current standards of insulations to thier old properties...

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

28/10/2011 1:23 pm

The main point is that the ruling had to come down in favour of L&Q & Lambeth. There was no requirement for noise insulation as standard until 1997 and noise insulation is not cheap. Can you imagine the impact for the likes of L&Q but more significantly Lambeth, to retrospectively have to install it? One case sets precedents and if they were then required to go and install in the person's home they would be hostage to every other person claiming they had an entitlement to it, noise complaints would go through the roof (no pun intended). One person's intolerable noise is another person's beautiful music so defining what constitutes a detrimental environment is tricky. As for the comment about spending money on retro noise insulation rather than new homes - that won't exactly solve the housing crisis will it?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Anonymous

Anonymous

29/10/2011 10:35 am

"One person's intolerable noise is another person's beautiful music..." So are lack of landlords services?... A fantastic way to justify the suffer, incovenience and ruined lives of thousands of social tenants...  "so defining what constitutes a detrimental environment is tricky."... There is nothing tricky in who suffers detrimental environment.  Surely the so-called victims we talk about should have their voice listened to?   But not if they are social tenants according to you... As for retrofitting old properties - They will have to be retrofit at some stage, have not they?  It is not enough to have social tenants living in them for their whole lives, according to you their suffering has to be passed on on the next lot of tenants?  Until when, the year 3,000 perhaps?... As for retrofitting taking away money from building new homes, how much is being spent on having unahppy communities, neighbours dispute, illness provoked by lack insulation, tenants unable to to work, study, or do anything with their lives and live on benefits of all kinds because of it?  Add to this legal aid for all the neighbours disputes lack of insulation brings about, medical bills and prescription, hospitalization and even jail sentences caused by these disputes?... Social landlords dealing with unhappy tenants all the time and antisocial issues - how many hours is that?... It is a classic case of social landlords creating havoc, endangering their tenants and causing waste of tenants money and public money on all fronts

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Rate this topic

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

People are discussing

tags Accountability, advice, antisocial tenant, comment, consultation, debate, decent homes, freedom of information, harassmennt, house building, housing associations, Knee Jerks are self important ministers, legal, mixed communities, petition, public/private, rebuild, ruling, Service Charges, sound insulation, tenants

Most discussed

Most recent posts

  • From Chris, 30/04/2012 11:57 am in Monitoring costs

    email IH and ask them to pass on the request with your contact details to the contact details that they have on file for Raindrop - if you address the request 'Dear Aunty Tom' it is likely to be dealt with more quickly (that last bit is untrue, but links back to an humourous post from the past!)

  • posted Anonymously, 05/04/2012 11:07 am in Landlords lose grass cutting case.

    There a couple of avenues to consider, firstly you should enquire as to the "reasonableness" of cost, if you feel that the services provided are not provided at a "reasonable cost" this can be challenged.

  • From Sunflower, 15/03/2012 11:50 am in L&Q Court of Appeal case

    Martin has the case been sweeped under the carpet. 

  • posted Anonymously, 03/01/2012 1:04 pm in Police or External Regulatory Organisation to investigate?

    I wonder if the police would get involved - they would if it was a tenant, but a Ceo?... You might have better luck talking to the Daily Mail.  If what you allege is substantial they'll love to hear from you.

  • From Spellbinder , 13/12/2011 12:31 pm in Amending existing council tenancies through the Localism Bill

    Secure tenancies can be changed; there's a statutory process to follow, including opportunity for consultation.

  • From mrkfm, 04/11/2011 4:41 pm in Joint Tenancy

    Thanks for this..

  • From F451, 01/11/2011 5:42 pm in Affordable Rents & Service Charge Management

    The simple answer is: I'm sure that none of this has been thought of by the Minister so the Civil Servants are desparately trying to cobble together a working format that at least looks like the scheme he declared as complete and in place.

  • posted Anonymously, 29/10/2011 10:35 am in LONDON & QUADRANT v VELLA

    "One person's intolerable noise is another person's beautiful music..." So are lack of landlords services?... A fantastic way to justify the suffer, incovenience and ruined lives of thousands of social tenants...  "so defining what constitutes a detrimental environment is tricky."... There is nothing tricky in who suffers detrimental environment.  Surely the so-called victims we talk about should have their voice listened to?   But not if they are social tenants according to you... As for retrofitting old properties - They will have to be retrofit at some stage, have not they?  It is not enough to have social tenants living ...

  • From Nathan Cousins, 28/10/2011 3:10 pm in Service Charges and Whats Eligable For HB - your experience???

    It is quite surprising but very true that LA's do have local authority on eligible services.

  • posted Anonymously, 20/10/2011 1:40 pm in court order needed before homless duty accepted

    Have you made application to social services given his age and status and their duties to him?