High News: Couple who took neighbours to court over sound of high heels clicking on t

[Maverick]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116077/Couple-took-neighbours-court-sound-high-heels-clicking-floor-lose-case-hit-140-000-legal-bill.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Couple who took neighbours to court over sound of high heels clicking on the floor lose case and are hit with £140,000 legal bill

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

UPDATED: 21:18 GMT, 16 March 2012

A couple who went to court over their upstairs neighbours’ noisy wooden floor must foot a £140,000 legal bill after their appeal was rejected.

Hameed and Inam Faidi said they were driven to distraction by the sound of heels clicking on the £100,000 oak flooring – but judges at the Appeal Court in London ruled that their neighbours should not have to rip it up or cover it.

The problems began when the inhabitants of the flat in Eaton Mansions, Sloane Square, laid timber flooring

The Faidis, whose son lives in their flat in Belgravia, lost an initial case last year against the Marshall Islands-based Elliott Corporation, which bought the leasehold apartment above theirs for £4.7million in 2010.

In their appeal, their lawyers argued that the bare wooden floor violated a condition of the lease stating that every room, except the kitchen and bathroom, must be carpeted.

Lord Justice Lloyd said this condition was ‘waived’ when the freeholder of the flat approved renovation works, including the wooden floors and under-floor heating system. The judge added that laying carpet over the ‘very expensive’ oak would ruin the effectiveness of the heating system, as well as the ‘clean finish’ of the flat.

The noise of high heels on wooden floors from the flat above has led one couple all the way to the Court of Appeal

The court heard that the legal bills for the case stood at £140,134 – a sum that must now be paid by the Faidis.

Lord Justice Jackson said: ‘If the parties were driven by concern for the well-being of lawyers, they could have given half that sum to the Solicitors Benevolent Association and then resolved their dispute for a modest fraction of the monies left over.’

And, commenting generally on the misery caused by neighbours’ disputes, Lord Justice Ward added: 'Not all neighbours are from hell. They may simply occupy the land of bigotry.

'There may be no escape from hell, but the boundaries of bigotry can, with tact, be changed.

'Give and take is often better than all or nothing'.

The Faidis, whose son currently lives in the flat, which is part of the Grosvenor Estate, told the court they never had cause to complain until a timber floor was installed in the upstairs flat.

Their lawyers argued the sound of clicking heels resounded into their flat and the bare wooden floor violated a condition of the lease demanding that floors of every room except the kitchen and bathroom must be covered with carpet and underlay.

An architect had testified that the oak planks are 'floating” on batons above a concrete base and modern sound insulation in the gap not only meets minimum standards laid down by the landlord, but is a 'considerable improvement” on standard carpeting.

The Faidis had not complained of any unusual activities in the flat above them, No. 8, and the judge said that, laying carpet over the 'very expensive' wooden floor would destroy the effectiveness of the under-floor heating and ruin the 'clean finish' of the radiator-free flat.

'The aesthetic attraction and the adoption of the particular style of using wooden floors would be lost, and the choice of under-floor heaing, to the exclusion of all else, would be rendered not merely futile but positively disadvantageous,” the judge said.

The multi-million pound penthouse is situated just off London's exclusive Sloane Square

Bemoaning the huge legal costs of the case, Lord Justice Lloyd, with the backing of Lords Justice Ward and Jackson, emphasised 'the very great desirability of resort to methods short of litigation to resolve disputes of this kind between neighbours.'

Lord Justice Jackson said: 'This case concerns a dispute between neighbours which should have been capable of sensible resolution without recourse to the courts.'

The dispute over noise has seen the case go all the way to the Court of Appeal in London

[HappyinHeels]

I'd put this into the category of "idiotic lawsuits brought on by complete morons". Life is not lives in a bubble and is lived in a somewhat imperfect world. Life can enormously enjoyable but can also be a little bumpy so my advice is to wear a helmet. HappyinHeels

[DProud2700]

I say score 1 for the justice system and 0 for a frivilous lawsuit.

[Shafted]

And the lawyer is laughing all the way to the bank.

[yozz]

As someone who has put in an expensive wooden floor in an apartment I know quite something about what the issues are here. I made a whole study about how to put it 'floating' so that the noise for the downstairs neighbors would be minimal. My neighbors can still hear things, but they would also hear the people that lived in the apartment before me and they had a carpet. If people walk predominantly on their heels and have a very heavy tread, it can cause quite some noise. Hence I can understand perfectly that the judge in his verdict mentioned that after all the work they did for the insulation, the sound with a carpet directly on the floor would not be less. I always keep my neighbors into account and try not to walk on heels at stupid times and when I walk with heels, try to do it carefully. And I prefers heels that do not make much sound. This is just normal respect. At the same time, I do not overdo it because I believe that I also have a right to enjoy my apartment. This is life: a collection of compromises. If you do it right, you do not have to pay lawyers. My neighbor does not complain. He only mentions occasionally that he can hear something, but then he mentions that he can hear another neighbor much more. That guy has put his parquet floor directly on the concrete. I know of apartment buildings where the rules say that if neighbors complain about this, you have to take it out, and you cannot move in until you sign the rules. The rules say specifically that parquet has to be floating. There will always be people who cannot handle any type of noise. They should not go live in an apartment. I think the judge did very well. Y.

[JeffB]

And the lawyer is laughing all the way to the bank.

Indeed. He who claims those juicy billable hours is the real winner in nutty lawsuits like this one.

[CassieJ]

Before we bought a house, we had neighbors in apartments that expected to have a noise level from their neighbors that can barely be expected living on a 30 acre farm in the middle of nowhere. Some people are just unreasonable and everyone else suffers from their expectations. Most lawsuits end up in court because one party is totally unreasonable. A few are legitimate disagreements and sometimes, both parties are unreasonable.

[Dr. Shoe]

It reminds me of the woman who complained to her neighbouring farmer because his sheep kept bleating at night. What did she expect when buying a house in the country?