Two London councils today warded off legal action that, had it succeeded, could have landed local authorities throughout the country with bills running to countless millions for soundproofing property in their areas.
Five law lords decided in a test case ruling that the London boroughs of Southwark and Camden could not be made to foot the cost of soundproofing the block of 20 flats in Casino Avenue, Herne Hill, and a converted Victorian house in Kentish Town. The cases were brought by Tracey Tanner who lives in the Casino Avenue flats and Yvonne Baxter who lives in Camden.
Had the case gone the other way, the cost to local authorities nationwide could have been staggering. Lord Millett said today that Southwark estimated that the cost of soundproofing the Casino Road flats and others in that area would run to £272,000. The cost borough-wide would run to £37m, and for the council to bring all its housing stock up to acceptable modern standards, including soundproofing, would cost £1.271bn.
However, in a case with major implications for councils and private landlords, the House of Lords upheld two Appeal Court decisions in July 1998 that the council’s failure to carry out soundproofing had not “interrupted or interfered with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the flats”. In those circumstances, the council were not liable to pay for soundproofing.
The law lords were told that far from “quiet enjoyment” of their homes, the tenants have had to put up with the everyday noises of the lives of their neighbours; as one resident said in evidence: “I can hear all the private and most intimate moments of my neighbours lives – conversations, what TV station they are watching, when they go to the toilet and when they make love.”
Lords Slynn, Steyn, Hoffmann, Clyde and Millett today backed the Appeal Court view that, in the eyes of the law, “quiet enjoyment” had nothing to do with freedom from the noise of normal domestic activities. They took the view that the normal sounds of everyday life should be expected, and that in those circumstances landlords were not obliged to carry out soundproofing improvements to deaden the sounds passing between the properties.
Lord Hoffmann said: “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.” He continued: “If neighbours are not committing a nuisance, the council cannot be liable for authorising them to commit one. And there is no other basis for holding the landlords liable. They are not doing anything which interferes with the appellants’ use of their flats.”
Lord Millett said: “These appeals illuminate a problem of considerable social importance.” He said that most people in England today lived in cities and many lived “cheek by jowl” with their neighbours, and many could hear their neighbours. However, he said: “The law has long been settled that there is no implied covenant on the part of the landlord of a dwelling-house that the premises are fit for human habitation, let alone that they are soundproof.”
He continued: “No one, least of all the two councils concerned, would wish anyone to live in conditions to which the tenants in these appeals are exposed. For the future, building regulations will ensure that new constructions and conversions have adequate sound insulation. But the huge stock of pre-war residential properties presents an intractable problem. Local authorities have limited resources, and have to decide on their priorities.”
“Many of their older properties admit damp and are barely fit for human habitation. The London borough of Southwark has estimated that it would cost £1.27bn to bring its existing housing stock up to acceptable modern standards. Its budget for 1998-99 for major housing schemes was under £55m.”
He said that the cases raised issues of priority in the allocation of resources and judges were not equipped to resolve them.
PLS News 21/10/99
