Bauexperte
2012-07-10 22:14:51
- #1
Dispute over soundproofing
The required soundproofing in a condominium complex is generally based on the protection values that were valid at the time of the building’s construction. There is no general entitlement to maintain an existing impact sound insulation that exceeds the minimum requirements.
Background
Two condominium owners are in dispute over the level of impact sound insulation that the owner of the apartment above must ensure.
The building was constructed in 1966. When the owner of the apartment on the 1st floor purchased his apartment, the apartment above on the 2nd floor was carpeted in the living room and hallway. After the tenant moved out, the new tenant replaced the carpet in the living room with laminate and the hallway with tiles. The new flooring was laid on a soundproof mat on top of the originally existing parquet floor. In the other rooms, the tile flooring remains unchanged.
The owners of the lower apartment complain that since the carpet was removed, they have been subjected to unreasonable noise disturbances from impact and airborne sound in their apartment. They demand that the owner of the upper apartment install improved impact sound insulation.
Decision
The owner of the upper apartment cannot demand improved soundproofing.
The standard for the obligations arising between condominium owners regarding soundproofing is § 14 No. 1 WEG. According to this, every condominium owner is obliged to use the building components within his separate property, including the floor covering, only in such a way that no other condominium owner suffers disadvantages beyond what is unavoidable in orderly communal living. Moreover, a condominium owner must be responsible for the activities of his tenant.
For the assessment, DIN 4109 is to be applied here. Although the regulation only specifies - and legally non-binding - minimum requirements for avoiding unreasonable disturbances related to soundproofing in building construction, DIN 4109 nevertheless carries significant weight when it comes to determining what impairments from airborne and impact sound condominium owners must tolerate.
The time of construction is decisive
The 1962 edition of DIN 4109 is decisive here, as the soundproofing that the owner must guarantee is generally based on the protection values valid at the time of the building’s construction. Later changes to the values, such as those introduced by the revised DIN 4109 in 1989, have no effect on the relationship between condominium owners. Otherwise, one owner would be required to improve existing soundproofing retrospectively when the protection level is increased to avoid claims by other owners. Such an obligation is not mandated by law.
Renovation does not entitle to better soundproofing
The fact that the tenant replaced the existing floor covering does not justify applying the edition of DIN 4109 in effect at the time of the renovation. The replacement of flooring concerns only the apartment’s fixtures. There are no lasting effects on the building structure as long as the screed and ceiling below the floor covering—as in this case—are not altered. In such cases, the soundproofing requirements remain unchanged. Any expectation among other condominium owners that due to the renovation the currently valid soundproofing standards must be met is not sufficiently supported by external circumstances—unlike in the case of structural alterations to the building.
Also, the fact that there was previously carpet in the upper apartment has no significance for the soundproofing. However, in individual cases, a higher protection level than specified by DIN 4109 may apply. This requires that the community rules contain provisions on soundproofing that go beyond the minimum standard or that the residential complex has acquired a special character due to actual circumstances, such as the furnishings present at its construction or the residential environment.
This is not the case here. The carpet was only installed after the building was constructed. The owners of the lower apartment therefore have no right to maintain the sound situation created by this, not least because the owner’s choice of floor covering is ultimately incidental.
This applies even if the covering remained in the apartment for a long time and the soundproofing was better with this covering. This does not restrict the owner’s freedom regarding the future design of his separate property. There is no general right to maintain existing impact sound insulation; there is only a right that the impact sound remains within the minimum soundproofing requirements.
(BGH, judgment of 1 June 2012, V ZR 195/11)
Source: Haufe Online Redaktion 09.07.12
Kind regards
The required soundproofing in a condominium complex is generally based on the protection values that were valid at the time of the building’s construction. There is no general entitlement to maintain an existing impact sound insulation that exceeds the minimum requirements.
Background
Two condominium owners are in dispute over the level of impact sound insulation that the owner of the apartment above must ensure.
The building was constructed in 1966. When the owner of the apartment on the 1st floor purchased his apartment, the apartment above on the 2nd floor was carpeted in the living room and hallway. After the tenant moved out, the new tenant replaced the carpet in the living room with laminate and the hallway with tiles. The new flooring was laid on a soundproof mat on top of the originally existing parquet floor. In the other rooms, the tile flooring remains unchanged.
The owners of the lower apartment complain that since the carpet was removed, they have been subjected to unreasonable noise disturbances from impact and airborne sound in their apartment. They demand that the owner of the upper apartment install improved impact sound insulation.
Decision
The owner of the upper apartment cannot demand improved soundproofing.
The standard for the obligations arising between condominium owners regarding soundproofing is § 14 No. 1 WEG. According to this, every condominium owner is obliged to use the building components within his separate property, including the floor covering, only in such a way that no other condominium owner suffers disadvantages beyond what is unavoidable in orderly communal living. Moreover, a condominium owner must be responsible for the activities of his tenant.
For the assessment, DIN 4109 is to be applied here. Although the regulation only specifies - and legally non-binding - minimum requirements for avoiding unreasonable disturbances related to soundproofing in building construction, DIN 4109 nevertheless carries significant weight when it comes to determining what impairments from airborne and impact sound condominium owners must tolerate.
The time of construction is decisive
The 1962 edition of DIN 4109 is decisive here, as the soundproofing that the owner must guarantee is generally based on the protection values valid at the time of the building’s construction. Later changes to the values, such as those introduced by the revised DIN 4109 in 1989, have no effect on the relationship between condominium owners. Otherwise, one owner would be required to improve existing soundproofing retrospectively when the protection level is increased to avoid claims by other owners. Such an obligation is not mandated by law.
Renovation does not entitle to better soundproofing
The fact that the tenant replaced the existing floor covering does not justify applying the edition of DIN 4109 in effect at the time of the renovation. The replacement of flooring concerns only the apartment’s fixtures. There are no lasting effects on the building structure as long as the screed and ceiling below the floor covering—as in this case—are not altered. In such cases, the soundproofing requirements remain unchanged. Any expectation among other condominium owners that due to the renovation the currently valid soundproofing standards must be met is not sufficiently supported by external circumstances—unlike in the case of structural alterations to the building.
Also, the fact that there was previously carpet in the upper apartment has no significance for the soundproofing. However, in individual cases, a higher protection level than specified by DIN 4109 may apply. This requires that the community rules contain provisions on soundproofing that go beyond the minimum standard or that the residential complex has acquired a special character due to actual circumstances, such as the furnishings present at its construction or the residential environment.
This is not the case here. The carpet was only installed after the building was constructed. The owners of the lower apartment therefore have no right to maintain the sound situation created by this, not least because the owner’s choice of floor covering is ultimately incidental.
This applies even if the covering remained in the apartment for a long time and the soundproofing was better with this covering. This does not restrict the owner’s freedom regarding the future design of his separate property. There is no general right to maintain existing impact sound insulation; there is only a right that the impact sound remains within the minimum soundproofing requirements.
(BGH, judgment of 1 June 2012, V ZR 195/11)
Source: Haufe Online Redaktion 09.07.12
Kind regards