Q: I previously briefly mentioned quiet enjoyment in May 2010, but today I need to elaborate based on this question: Does the law
allow for a single tenant to host an event which will disrupt the peace and
quiet of other tenants?
A: Yes, as long as there is no
continuous, long term disturbance.
Quiet
Enjoyment
Based on
case-law, all landlords are under an implied
obligation to allow their tenants “quiet enjoyment” of the rental premises.
No one, including the landlord, his/her employee or agent shall interfere with
a tenant’s right to possession of and to the lawful use and enjoyment of the
premises.
Substantial Interference
It has long been
understood that the word “quiet” in quiet enjoyment does not mean the absence
of noise, although a number of cases on the subject have been noise
related. “Quiet” in this context means without interference.
Interference with the right of quiet enjoyment must be substantial and what amounts to substantial will always depend on
the facts of the case.
For example: London Borough of Southwark
v Mills, Baxter v LB Camden [1999]
3 WLR 939
Mills & Baxter were
tenants in government properties owned by the Borough. Their complaints
related to the lack of soundproofing in the apartments, which meant they could
hear the daily activities of their neighbours, such as walking across the
floor, using the toilet, watching television, so they brought actions in nuisance
against the Borough.
House of Lords' decision:
There was no nuisance. Nuisance is based on the concept of the reasonable user, and.the use of the apartments was reasonable. The claimants had not sought to argue that the neighbours created excessive noise or act in ways which were unreasonable. The Borough could not therefore be liable for authorising a nuisance that did not exist.
There was no nuisance. Nuisance is based on the concept of the reasonable user, and.the use of the apartments was reasonable. The claimants had not sought to argue that the neighbours created excessive noise or act in ways which were unreasonable. The Borough could not therefore be liable for authorising a nuisance that did not exist.
.
A temporary interference is also unlikely to give rise to a successful claim.
Essentially, in order to be successful in claiming a breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant a tenant must prove that:
A temporary interference is also unlikely to give rise to a successful claim.
Essentially, in order to be successful in claiming a breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant a tenant must prove that:
1. there has been a new activity after the grant of
the lease; and
2. that there has been serious and persistent disturbance to the tenant’s occupation of
the premises.
