Soundproofing between maisonettes - sharing costs

[marcofoo]

Hi all,

I live in a maisonette (a converted townhouse). We shared freeholders are looking to install soundproofing within the 1st floor floorboards and ground floor ceiling. We are on good terms and we we would like to work out the fairest way to share the costs. Currently there is a minor disagreement over whether the costs should be split 50/50 however we are both happy to follow best/legal practices and wish to avoid the need for sound test costs or similar.

To keep this discussion impartial I will refer to the occupant of:

Ground floor as Party A.
1st floor as Party B.

Party B wishes to keep the original floorboards as the final finish (made good, sealed and stained) however Party A would prefer that an extra layer (underlay/wood or carpet) is fitted on top of the floorboards. Party A is pondering whether Party B should be responsible for a greater share of the costs if it is to be a floorboard finish. Party B however thinks that Party A has more to gain from the works in terms of noise reduction.

When Party B moved into the property there was a wood floor floor with cheap MDF underlay. This flooring has since been taken up to reveal the floorboards.

As Party B is refurbishing the entire 1st floor all soundproofing will be installed at 1st floor level (not ground floor ceiling). We are in agreement that the following would be a suitable method of soundproofing up to floorboard level:

http://www.soundstop.co.uk/solutions/floor_access/under_floor/floor_solution_3.php

Knowing that lease documents often specify suitable types of flooring we have reviewed our contract packages. The attached images are the only pages with reference to nuisance or noise. There is not any particular reference to flooring within any of the contract documents.

Questions to consider:

Is the 1st floor/ground floor ceiling split 50/50 by an imaginary line?
Should costs legally be shared 50/50?
Is there a legal requirement to keep noise under a certain dB level, regardless of floor finish?
Do any of these documents make legal reference to everyday foot traffic noise?
If the 1st floor was purchased without soundproofing does Party B retain a right to keep it that way?

Thanks in advance.

Untitled

• marcofoo
• 29 May 2014
• 1

Untitled

• marcofoo
• 29 May 2014
• 1

Untitled

• marcofoo
• 29 May 2014
• 1

Untitled

• marcofoo
• 29 May 2014
• 1

 

[footprints]

I would think 50/50 more than fair, as it is on the party B not to cause noise to the neighbour however simply laying a suitable floor covering like standard carpet or rugs would all you might expect, so go on do tell us! Are you A or B

 

[marcofoo]

Soon, soon.

 

[doitall]

Floor boards are about the worst matterial for transmitting noise, especially below. You can get special sound mats that work well, but I think you should get it fitted after a long discussion with an expert.

A suspended floor with an air gap would be the best way

 

[marcofoo]

Floor boards are about the worst matterial for transmitting noise, especially below. You can get special sound mats that work well, but I think you should get it fitted after a long discussion with an expert.

A suspended floor with an air gap would be the best way

I forgot to mention a key consideration for Party B...

The 1st floor joins into two staircases (one up, one down). If there is any considerable height added to the of the floor (25mm+) then the top/bottom steps are going to look out of place.

 

[doitall]

And possibly not legal if they are different heights.

Any floor contact with the joists will transmit sound.

At best the boards can be taken up and a sound mat over the joists, then the boards, then you can put something on the boards ans finish with the carpet.

Needs an extert to survey and advise.

 

[marcofoo]

How about the cost issue? Are most in agreement that 50/50 is the norm?

 

[joe-90]

Not really. The one experiencing the noise should pay. The other one doesn't care.

 

[MarkBarl]

The solution proposed looks to be the best of both worlds with an acceptable height gain and a reasonable sound reduction. I am assuming that "Impact uplift" refers to noise directly transmitted through the structure by footfall and furniture moving etc. 15db is a significant reduction.

While it is true that party A benefits the most from the noise reduction it should be recognised that Party B in order the retain the aesthetic of the floor boards without causing nuisance to Party A should be a factor. If it is agreed that bare floorboards are retained, I would suggest a 50/50 split. If a floor covering is required by Party B then a split in their favour would be appropriate, as they have no benefit.

In either event, I would think that any unequal split should be in favour of Party B as they get less tangible benefit.

Just to add, as all the work will be done from Party B's property and they suffer the inconvenience (even though they were refurbishing), that may well sway the split in their favour.

My 2ps worth.

 

[marcofoo]

So just to summarise a few key points mentioned:

> Underlay/carpet or rugs are not going to have the same level of noise reduction as in-built soundproofing.

> Exposed floorboards (with no soundproofing) are the worst possible option.

> joe-90 thinks that Party A should pay as they are the sufferers. Despite this, Party B is happy to cooperate and contribute.

> MarkBarl thinks that soundproofing within the floor space and exposed floorboards is a fair 50/50 agreement as both parties get a satisfactory outcome. He goes on to say that anything additional (i.e. carpet) to this should be split in favour of Party B (i.e. Party A pays for the added benefit).


Having done a bit more research it seems that there is no legal requirement to pay for soundproofing. Furthermore soundproofing could be installed from ground floor ceiling level as an equal alternative, however the results will be less effective.

Agreed?

If the building was a new build then Building Regs would require sound tests and sign off, however this building is 100+ years old and the structure is what it is.

Agreed?

The lease images that I have shown stipulate that both parties must simply not cause a nuisance to one another. The Oxford Dictionary defines 'nuisance' as: 'An act which is harmful or offensive to the public or a member of it and for which there is a legal remedy.'

In legal terms I do not think that everyday foot traffic, TV, cooking etc would be considered to be a nuisance.

Is this also agreed?


All further feedback welcome.

 

[joe-90]

You have to stop the sound vibrations getting into the structure. Once they're in you can't get them out, no matter what you do. A top quality underlay and decent carpet is your best bet. In this way, Group A benefit from sound reduction and group B have a nice carpet to walk on. If it were me and I lived below I'd offer them top quality underlay fully fitted at no expense. If they want to upgrade the carpet at the same time then they can pay for that.

 

[marcofoo]

You have to stop the sound vibrations getting into the structure. Once they're in you can't get them out, no matter what you do. A top quality underlay and decent carpet is your best bet. In this way, Group A benefit from sound reduction and group B have a nice carpet to walk on. If it were me and I lived below I'd offer them top quality underlay fully fitted at no expense. If they want to upgrade the carpet at the same time then they can pay for that.

As stated originally:

'Party B wishes to keep the original floorboards as the final finish (made good, sealed and stained).'

 

[footprints]

I had a noisy neighbour once who played loud music at all hours and believe me had I been a shotgun owner there would have been a couple of loud noises he might not have enjoyed

 

[joe-90]

You'll have to move then. It's the only realistic solution. I doubt they'd let you pull all their floorboards up to soundproof, and that's the only realistic solution, and even that is a compromise.

 

[doitall]

If P"B" wants floor boards then taking them up and laying a sound mat over the joists is the only option, other than a false ceiling below, which maybe the easy option