Ineffective soundproofing / builiding regs

[DiamondJoe]

I'm in a 1st floor flat with 2 flats beneath me - they were one flat but were converted to 2 in about 2003 (I think) by one of the current occupants. The soundproofing is bad - when he got the ceilings plastered he stuffed some of that soundproofing fibreglass wool stuff up into the joists and just boarded or plastered over it. In any case, its a poor job as you can hear alot of sound coming through and I'm 99% sure its not been done according to current building regulations.

Because he did this back in 2003 or thereabouts, is there any recourse for me to say, you didn't do this properly, the law says so and its up to you to fix it? By the way I moved in in 2007, after all this had been done, and I have a joint share of the freehold with 2 others.

[DiamondJoe]

...anyone?

[Sad S]

When you bought in 2007, your solicitor should have asked questions about building regs. Assuming you have kept the papers connected with conveyancing, you should check what they say.

If the conversion of the lower floor from one to two flats was carried out in 2003, it would have needed planning permission, and also to have satisfied building regs which applied THEN. There would have been no requirement to satisfy any later changes in regs.

Has it taken you four years to realise how bad the noise is, or have there been some changes in either the building or the occupants?

[DiamondJoe]

No the noise has always been bad but because it is an old building (c1910) I assumed nothing could really be done about it. It has only recently occurred to me (ok, I'm a bit slow) that the conversion had to have been done without accordance to modern building regulations, because if it had, I wouldn't be able to hear conversation and TV noise etc.

I honestly don't know if my solicitor asked questions pertaining to this. Would they have, considering I bought in 2007 and the conversion to the other flats was done in 2003-ish?

What I'm wondering is, at this point, is there anything I can do? E.g. (obviously best-case scenario for me) say to them, you didn't do this properly, which is not lawful, and because of this you need to put it right?

[quarterday]

What sort of floor coverings do you have? There are soundproof underlays of various types.

A tactful way of opening up the issue might be to enquire if the neighbour below has recessed lighting sunk into the ceiling; it may well be that the acoustic insulation is compromised by works to instal this time of lighting. If not protected by plaster boxes or "fire hats" potentially lethal smoke would get into your flat if there was to be a fire. Given that you are all co-freeholders; its not as easy as getting your freeholder to enforce a requirement for the works to have complied with the then building regulations; and it might get a bit fraught if you were to allege that the owner below is not in compliance with his lease, notwithstanding that you are all co-owners of the reversion. It's unfortunate that you didnt get on to the local authority within four years of the work being carried out as normally building control dont go back on infringements going back more than four years. However if fire protection is involved its a little more emotive! Neverthless you shouldn't suffer in silence. Go down to your local town hall and ask for building control. If you get someone helpful on the desk they will open up the file and let you know if a building control completion certificate was ever issued. Building control departments are pretty quiet at the moment as housing starts, nationally, are at their lowest for some 90 years. In my experience, building control officers love nothing better than taking enforcement action; even if legally they are on slightly dodgy ground so to do. Go and see them. They may well refer the case to their pals in Environmental Health if there is inadequate fire insulation; all of which may assist you.

[DiamondJoe]

That's very useful, thanks for that, I'll make some enquiries with building control.

I know they have recessed lighting, as we had a leak in our bathroom once and the water came through their spotlights.

As for fire insulation, what is meant to be there? I mean, when they cook something I can smell it, which kind of indicates to me that if there was a fire I wouldn't have a problem being able to smell smoke...

[DiamondJoe]

As for floor coverings, we've got some soundproofing mats and thick underlay but it doesnt make a great deal of difference - probably because they have a large open plan area under several of our rooms, so its hard to block it all out from our end.

[quarterday]

As for fire insulation, what is meant to be there? I mean, when they cook something I can smell it, which kind of indicates to me that if there was a fire I wouldn't have a problem being able to smell smoke...



I think if that is the case you've got to do something otherwise in a fire situation you or a child sleeping could be asphyxiated by smoke..... Go and see building control. If you get nowhere open communications with the insurer of the building. They dont do it very often but insurers can insist on "risk improvements" mid-term; and as the people below you have punctured the fire break this is very likely to be fertile ground for action on their behalf to be enforced either statutorily by Building Control or, conceivably, the material damage insurer.

[DiamondJoe]

I've spoken to building control and they have no record of any planning permission or of any building control certificates being issued.

I'm now absolutely convinced that the work done doesn't meet building regs with regards to fire insulation and soundproofing.

When I bought in 2007 I (along with the 2 residents of the 2 ground floor flats) became a joint freeholder.

If I was to approach the insurers re the fire regs, and building control re fire/soundproofing standards, what are the possible outcomes? If, for example, they say that the work needs to be done to a proper standard, would we all be responsible for paying for it or would it just fall on the individual that did it incorrectly (and, apparently, illegally) in the first place?

[quarterday]

I think that the present owner of the flat that has been the subject of unauthorised works would be liable to put things right. If as you say you are one of the freeholders you ought to stir up the hornets' nest, as previously suggested. Even if lessees are also co-owners of the freehold that doesn't mean they can drive a coach and horses through the terms of the lease. This is one of those occasions when it would have been more comfortable for neighbours to have had an impartial and independent freeholder, but I suggest you ask the planning department and building control to take enforcement action; and unless the recalcitrant neighbour is prepared to put things right immediately the freeholders ought to engage a specialist; probably a solicitor, to serve the requisite s146 notice on the recalcitrant lessee for the breaches together with the freeholders' costs in the matter

[DiamondJoe]

"Even if lessees are also co-owners of the freehold that doesn't mean they can drive a coach and horses through the terms of the lease"

I don't honestly know if there's anything specifically in the leases about soundproofing and fire regs, I'd have to check. If there isn't, would they still be liable for action with regards to fire regs and soundproofing laws?

[quarterday]

I have never come across a residential lease and I've read hundreds if not thousands of them wherein the lessee can carry out alterations (without formal consent) if by so doing he causes nuisance to other occupiers of the building

[leaseholdanswers]

"Even if lessees are also co-owners of the freehold that doesn't mean they can drive a coach and horses through the terms of the lease"

I don't honestly know if there's anything specifically in the leases about soundproofing and fire regs, I'd have to check. If there isn't, would they still be liable for action with regards to fire regs and soundproofing laws?

Gosh there is no simple answer. The modification should meet current standards and practices, but if say he replaces the plaster ceiling correctly there may be no need for insulation or improve noise insulation outside his demise ( the space in between flats)or to a standard greater than the original construction/conversion.

In fact if the insulation is not fire rated he could be increasing or creating a risk irrespective of the pot lights. They in turn may a trespass on to the common area as the space in between is often the freeholders.
It may be that the alteration of the flat layout and perhaps wood floors rather than carpet in your flat are a combination of circumstances.

In short you need professional advice for a chartered building surveyor after inspection and a little opening up.

if the flats have been converted into two separate dwellings, building regulations is mandatory and in 99% of cases planning too. The local authority can deal with that.

[DiamondJoe]

I have never come across a residential lease and I've read hundreds if not thousands of them wherein the lessee can carry out alterations (without formal consent) if by so doing he causes nuisance to other occupiers of the building

That's great, thanks

[DiamondJoe]

The modification should meet current standards and practices, but if say he replaces the plaster ceiling correctly there may be no need for insulation or improve noise insulation outside his demise ( the space in between flats)or to a standard greater than the original construction/conversion.

.

This is all really helpful, thanks.


I'm a bit confused on this bit though, it seems contradictory. This suggests that it should meet current standards etc but also suggests that if someone is replacing a ceiling, they do not need to consider fire regs/building regs and noise insulation at all as long as the plaster ceiling is done right?

[JK0]

Gosh there is no simple answer. The modification should meet current standards and practices, but if say he replaces the plaster ceiling correctly there may be no need for insulation or improve noise insulation outside his demise ( the space in between flats)or to a standard greater than the original construction/conversion.

In fact if the insulation is not fire rated he could be increasing or creating a risk irrespective of the pot lights. They in turn may a trespass on to the common area as the space in between is often the freeholders.
It may be that the alteration of the flat layout and perhaps wood floors rather than carpet in your flat are a combination of circumstances.

In short you need professional advice for a chartered building surveyor after inspection and a little opening up.

if the flats have been converted into two separate dwellings, building regulations is mandatory and in 99% of cases planning too. The local authority can deal with that.

Whenever a property is converted, it has to be brought up to the present building regulations. Building Control are the people to go to. If the conversion was done without planning permission either, then notify Planning Department also.

[DiamondJoe]

Great - thanks

[leaseholdanswers]

Great - thanks

I am sorry but that statement is far too general. This is not a property that is being converted but a flat which is most likely limited to work on the plastered finishes and non load bearing internal walls.

So if plastered ceilings are done correctly they would meet fire resistance requirements, and be finished so as to prevent smoke spreading. They are no however smoke proof especially where gaps are present eg light sockets switches etc, nor need he introduce sound insulation.

The area beyond the ceilings are not the responsibility of the flat owner but the freeholder whose burden is based on the earlier post.

The only way to tell is to have a qualified surveyor inspect and advise.

[DiamondJoe]

So this would indicate that in doing the conversion, this person was under no obligation to ensure compliance with sound/fire/building regs as long as they plastered the ceiling correctly? And in fact the freeholder should have taken care of the rest, i.e. the space between the ceiling and the flat above?

[Interlaken]

2 years ago I converted a 1906 ground floor building into a flat from a shop. Upstairs was a 2 bed maisonette.

Once we stripped back the shop suspended ceiling all that remained was 'button board' which was the floorboards on the upstairs maisonette which had just underlay and carpet on top. It was noisy with everyday life from upstairs.

Building regs made me install a special suspended ceiling by Fazbender, I think (got from Jewsons). First 2 layers of 15ml plasterboard was applied to the buttonboard. Then the suspended ceiling was put in leaving a gap of 600ml which had to be filled with Rockwool and 2 layers of 15ml plasterboard boarded over the top for fire protection. That lot took 2 experienced men on £145/day 10 days and the suspended ceiling bit cost about £800. Can't remember how much rockwool but I'm sure you can see how costly it can be doing the job right?

Has it worked? - sort of as upstairs has noisy child who constantly 'dances' but there is mega improvement on how it was originally. Also upstairs report how much warmer they are.

[mk1fan]

600ml

That's not a very big gap. :(think):

[mk1fan]

I am sorry but that statement is far too general.


Not at all. The flat was a single dwelling that was subdivided to provide two separate dwellings. Yes the demise of the original flat may have been limited to the plaster / wall finishes in a larger building but it is still a property. Any sub-division of the property would mean complying with the current building regulations at the time of application.

If no application was made at the time of conversion - which seems likely - then the current regulations would need to be complied with.

[Interlaken]

Mk 1 fan - 60 cm or around 2 foot - seemed like a big gap to me.

[mk1fan]

a gap of 600ml


600ml [millilitres] or 60cl [centilitres] or 0.6 of a litre.

:(think):

600mm would indeed be 60cm or nearly two foot

[Interlaken]

Yes, Mk 1 I can see you are not in the building trade where the term ml means mm. Sorry for the confusion but the gap was 2 foot in old money.

[mk1fan]

Which building trade is that?

[MrPhoton]

Do we need council/strata approval to install soundproofing?

[Interlaken]

Probably not but you could get some advice from your local building inspector as to what they like to see and what they think works.

[mk1fan]

It depends on how and what type / system of sound proofing you are proposing to install.

If you are proposing to retain the existing ceiling and install a false ceiling below it then this would most likely not require Freeholder's Consent or Building Control Approval.

If you are proposing to remove the existing ceiling and replace it then you will definately require Building Control Approval and the Freeholder's Consent.

The ceiling should be providing compartmentation between your flat and the other parts of the building (be they another flat or communal space) as it is a dividing structure.