Noise Nuisance - Landords Responsibility ! 04/23/2010
I have had a long running dispute with the neighbour of my tenant who felt I was responsible for the noise my tenants make, but I felt it was lack of sound insulation due to the construction of the building. I recently found the information below which indicates that I am right in my view and that unless they are prepared to take to the High Court there is not liabilty for landlords in respect of the noise a tenant may make. Let me know if you agree! Neighbouring Noises Southwark LBC v Mills (House of Lords) Introduction A landlord is not liable to a tenant who is disturbed by the ordinary and reasonable activities of a neighbouring tenant because of inadequate sound insulation between the properties. So decided the House of Lords on 21 October 1999 in the cases of London Borough of Southwark v Mills and Baxter v London Borough of Camden. Beyond that narrow issue the decision is also important because it clarifies the extent of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The leading speeches were made by Lord Hoffman and Lord Millett. Except where otherwise indicated the quotations below are from the speech of Lord Hoffman. Gary Webber The facts In each case the tenant lives in a block of flats. "They both complain of being able to hear all the sounds made by their neighbours. It is not that the neighbours are unreasonably noisy. For the most part, they are behaving quite normally. But the flats have no sound insulation. The tenants can hear not only the neighbours' televisions and their babies crying but their coming and going, their cooking and cleaning, their quarrels and their love-making. The lack of privacy causes tension and distress". Caveat lessee The tenants complained about the lack of sound insulation. However, they could not rely upon any express term in the agreement to assist them in their claim against the landlord to remedy the situation. "Neither tenancy agreement contains any warranty on the part of the landlord that the flat has sound insulation or is in any other way fit to live in. Nor does the law imply any such warranty. This is a fundamental principle of the English law of landlord and tenant ... Caveat Lessee." Whilst recognising the inequality of bargaining power between the parties, Lord Millett was quite blunt about it. He quoted Lord Goddard in Kiddle v City Business Properties Ltd (1942): "The Plaintiff takes the property as he finds it and must put up with the consequences". Lord Millett continued: "The doctrine does not depend on fictions, such as the ability of the tenant to inspect the property before taking the lease. It is simply a consequence of the general rule of English law which accords autonomy to contracting parties. In the absence of statutory intervention, the parties are free to let and take a lease of poorly constructed premises and to allocate the cost of putting them in order between themselves as they see fit". Nor could the tenants rely upon any duty on the part of the landlord to repair. "Keeping in repair means remedying disrepair. The landlord is obliged only to restore the house to its previous good condition. He does not have to make it a better house than it originally was". Further, the statutory duty to provide premises that are fit for habitation was of no use because that only applies where the rent is exceptionally low. Faced with all these difficulties the tenants sought to rely upon: * The covenant for quiet enjoyment * Nuisance Covenant for quiet enjoyment It is a popular misconception that the purpose of the covenant is to prevent the landlord from causing a nuisance by noise: "Read literally, these words would seem very apt. The flat is not quiet and the tenant is not enjoying it. But the words cannot be read literally. The covenant has a very long history. ... It comes from a time when, in a conveyancing context, the words "quiet enjoyment" had a technical meaning different from what they would today signify to a non-lawyer who was unacquainted with their history... The covenant for quiet enjoyment is therefore a covenant that the tenant's lawful possession of the land will not be substantially interfered with by the acts of the lessor or those lawfully claiming under him". Having said all that, this does not mean that noise cannot be so severe as substantially to interfere with the tenants enjoyment of the premises. It has been suggested from time to time that some physical interference is required before the covenant can be said to have been broken. However, the House of Lords has now confirmed that this is not the case: "For my part, however, I do not see why, in principle, regular excessive noise cannot constitute a substantial interference with the ordinary enjoyment of the premises". Thus, although the fundamental purpose of the covenant is much wider it can in certain cases be used to prevent disturbance by noise. The decision in Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499, that a landlord's threats to evict the tenant, accompanied by repeated shouting and knocking on her door, was a breach of the covenant was, correctly decided. The fact that the tenants in Southwark and Camden were complaining of noise was not therefore of itself a reason why their claims failed before the House of Lords. They failed under this head because the covenant is prospective in nature. "It is a covenant that the tenant's lawful possession will not be interfered with by the landlord or anyone claiming under him. The covenant does not apply to things done before the grant of the tenancy, even though they may have continuing consequences for the tenant." It could not therefore apply to the physical condition of the flats, a state in which they existed prior to the grant of each tenancy. The tenants must reasonably have contemplated that there would be other tenants in neighbouring flats. They were not therefore entitled to complain of the presence of other tenants as such. "If they cannot complain of the presence of other tenants as such, then their complaint is solely as to the lack of soundproofing. And that is an inherent structural defect for which the landlord assumed no responsibility. The Council granted and the tenant took a tenancy of that flat. She cannot by virtue of the terms of that tenancy require the Council to give her a different flat." Nuisance Nuisance involves doing something on adjoining or nearby land which constitutes an unreasonable interference with the utility of the claimant's land. The primary defendant is the person who causes the nuisance by doing the acts in question. The landlord will only be liable if the landlord authorises the tenant to commit the nuisance. However, in these two cases the neighbouring tenants were not committing a nuisance by the normal use of their respective flats. The landlord's could not therefore be liable under this head. "If the neighbours are not committing a nuisance, the Councils cannot be liable for authorising them to commit one. And there is no other basis for holding the landlords liable. They are not themselves doing anything which interferes with the [tenants'] use of their flats. Once again, it all comes down to a complaint about the inherent defects in the construction of the building". Public policy This decision also demonstrates how the judges will not develop the common law to remedy a social situation where it considers that Parliament is the proper body to do so. "... Parliament has dealt extensively with the problem of substandard housing over many years but so far declined to impose an obligation to install soundproofing in existing dwellings. No doubt Parliament had regard to the financial burden which this would impose upon local authority and private landlords. In a field such as housing law, which is very much a matter for the allocation of resources in accordance with democratically determine priorities, the development of the common law should not get out of step with legislative policy." Conclusion Perhaps the most significant aspect of this decision is that it confirms, at the highest judicial level, that the covenant for quiet enjoyment is not confined to cases of direct and physical injury to the land. Noise can give rise to a breach of the covenant if it gives rise to a substantial interference with the ordinary enjoyment of the premises. Finally, the decision does not affect the position where neighbouring tenants commit a nuisance in the legal sense of the word (i.e. by unreasonable behaviour) and the landlord positively authorises the interference (see generally Woodfall, vol. 1, 11.275). Where the victim of the nuisance is also the tenant of the landlord he will be able to rely upon the covenant for quiet enjoyment. Where he is not a tenant himself he will seek to rely upon the law of nuisance. However, simple failure to take steps to stop to prevent the nuisance will not make the landlord liable (Hussain v Lancaster City Council [1999] 4 All ER 125, CA). "It is quite a novel doctrine to me that permission by a lessee to use demised premises for a purpose which may or may not involve or create a nuisance is a wrong act on the part of the landlord, and that the landlord can be rendered liable merely because a person does carry on that business in such a manner as to create a nuisance. It would be different, of course, if it were let for a purpose which necessarily involved a nuisance, but this letting did not necessarily involve a nuisance" (Malzy v Eicholz [1916] 2 KB 308, per Cozens-Hardy MR - cited with approval in Hussain). All in all, it is difficult to establish that a landlord is liable for nuisance or annoyance resulting from the behaviour of his other tenants. www.propertylawuk.net TOP TIPS FOR RENTING A ROOM 03/23/2010
Poll Where did you find your lodger? Online Friend/Family Newspaper Shop Window Elsewhere You Shout --> Never failed - Never lived 03/16/2010
My good friend Dwayne Kerr posted this on his blog a while back and got lots of GREAT feedback about it It's about people who became FAMOUS when some people called them failures. To SEE the video use the link below How to build in the Caribbean 02/22/2010
Was very inspired by this programme and thought I would share it with you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BASO4S1RVVA . Unfortunately they did not allow me to embed the video Property insurance 11/29/2009
 Property insurance provides protection against most risks to property, such as fire, theft and some weather damage. This includes specialized forms of insurance such as fire insurance, flood insurance, earthquake insurance, home insurance or boiler insurance. Property is insured in two main ways - open perils and named perils. Open perils cover all the causes of loss not specifically excluded in the policy. Common exclusions on open peril policies include damage resulting from earthquakes, floods, nuclear incidents, acts of terrorism and war. Named perils require the actual cause of loss to be listed in the policy for insurance to be provided. The more common named perils include such damage-causing events as fire, lightning, explosion and theft. Complied by Wikipedia Get your property insurance here Corgi gas registration scheme replaced 11/10/2009
A quick note to remind you about a change which affect both those with existing investment properties and those intending to buy investment properties. Please note that the new Gas Safe Register TM replaced the CORGI gas registration scheme that several of us have become so familiar with over the years as Great Britain's gas safety authority on 1st April 2009. Only Gas Safe registered engineers should be employed to carry out work on gas installations or appliances by law as from 1st April 2009 - CORGI gas registration became invalid. The 120,000 engineers currently verified under the CORGI scheme are now registering with Gas Safe Register so they can continue to work legally. Those of you with existing portfolios will be pleased to note that finding a Gas Safe registered engineer will never been simpler. As from 1 April 2009 you are able to find an engineer in your area online - at http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk - or by calling 0800 408 5500. Those registered engineers will be identified with the new yellow Gas Safe Register logo, and every engineer will carry a Gas Safe Register ID card with their own unique licence number. Gas safety is a life or death matter that affects the entire nation. It is considered that the new Gas Safe Register will help raise public consciousness about the dangers of using unregistered installers and inform all how straightforward it is to avoid such dangers by always using a registered engineer. The message from HMO Mentor is this Where you are an experienced property investor and have used the same CORGI registered installer for years - check their new Gas Safe Register ID card. Where you are a novice investor please do start as you mean to continue and before you have any gas work done in your investment property check the proposed installer's Gas Safe Register ID card. by Debra Rice HMO Mentor Beware of Property Scams! 11/09/2009
Ajay Ahuja exposed on BBC 1’s Inside Out Survive the credit crunch through HMO’s 11/07/2009
Times are tough and right now, cashflow is king. Click link below for the definitive guide on how to survive the credit crunch through HMO’s – a guide for landlords by a fellow landlord. It’s important to realise that opportunities still exist to make substantial yields but the only way you will make these kinds of returns is to buy a property that you let out to multiple people. Often known as a house share, multi-let or HMO (house of multiple occupation), these types of properties make average investment yields of 10-20% depending on the area. A lot of people are scared off HMO’s because of bad press about “licencing”, “rules”, “fire regulations” and “lots of management” – but don’t be. Don’t worry about learning this stuff; MATHEW MOODY had to learn it all the hard way but as you read this report, you’ll be on the right track and avoid all the mistakes he made when he first started out! He owns and manages HMO’s with over 60 tenants in them across four counties so you can rest assured that he will give you the quickest tried and tested route to market every time. It’s not simple to operate a HMO but it’s a lot easier than most people think! So here’s how you do it in 90 days. The Power of Masterminding 11/03/2009
Napoleon Hill, author of "Think and Grow Rich" stressed the importance of masterminding at two critical phases in his sixth step toward riches. At the onset of our planning we must have mastermind group input. As we implement and adjust our plans we must continue to maintain our relationship with the group. Most people are ready to grow rich but really have no idea of where to start, much less the processes involved. Previous steps prior to organized planning include:
This is not to be confused with our initial plan which contains our goal, expected date to receive our goal, etc. This plan is where we begin to take definite action. You may ask why you need to have a plan when you know what you want. Napoleon Hill said it best. "No individual has sufficient experience, education, native ability, and knowledge to insure the accumulation of a great fortune without the cooperation of other people" What he is saying is that you will need to jointly plan with your group. The original idea may be your own creation, but the final version and its methods of implementation must be a joint venture. Masterminding is certainly not a new or unique concept. It is no more than a group of individuals with mastery in various and numerous subjects pertaining to your particular needs, coming together to advise you and critique your plans. Mr. Hill deemed this step as absolutely essential. Do not neglect it! How to form a mastermind group:
As Mr. Hill illustrates in his text, Thomas Edison experienced ten thousand "temporary defeats" before he perfected the incandescent light bulb. Yes, ten thousand! If you really having a burning desire for riches, you will need a fiery persistence to build and if need be rebuild your plans, never admitting final defeat. "No man is ever whipped, unless he quits in his own mind", Napoleon Hill, "Think and Grow Rich". Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gerrald_Hendrix Useful websites 10/24/2009
Valuations between estate agents can vary wildly, but a raft of high-tech websites now give you access to the kind of detailed house price data that was once the preserve of agents and mortgage lenders. It’s possible not only have a nose at what neighbours have got for their houses, but look at future predictions and even get a free online house price valuation.
| Landlord's Journal
Journey of an everyday landlord, property investor and infopreneur  Garfield Bailey
 Free Newsletter
ArchivesMarch 2010 CategoriesAll LinksFree report
 
|
RSS Feed