Quiet Enjoyment and Household Noise From a Landlord Upstairs

The Dispute

An owner lived with family on the upper floor of a house and rented the lower unit to a tenant of several years. After the tenant complained in writing of stomping, dropped objects and other household noise, the landlord took several steps to reduce sound transmission. These included carpeting the stairs, placing rugs and runners in high-traffic areas, discontinuing use of a massage chair identified as a source of vibration, and attempting to limit household activity during evening and early morning hours. The tenant maintained that the noise continued and sought compensation together with an order requiring further steps upstairs.

The Parties’ Positions

The tenant applied to British Columbia’s Residential Tenancy Branch, claiming compensation under section 67 of the Residential Tenancy Act for loss of quiet enjoyment, including freedom from unreasonable disturbance under section 28. The tenant sought $10,000 for loss of quiet enjoyment, calculated as a percentage of rent paid during the period in dispute, as well as $5,000 for lost rideshare income. The tenant said disturbed sleep caused later starts, shorter working hours and days not worked. Under section 62, the tenant also sought an order requiring the landlord to take further steps to prevent or eliminate the disturbances. In support, the tenant relied on video and audio recordings made inside the rental unit and testified that verbal complaints had been made before the first written complaint.

The landlord resisted the application on the ground that the tenant had not established substantial interference with quiet enjoyment. The landlord’s position was that some sound transmission between floors was reasonable and expected in a 33-year-old multi-level house, and that the household engaged only in ordinary day-to-day activities. The landlord relied on photographs showing the carpeting and other mitigation measures, as well as communications in which the tenant acknowledged that the noise situation had improved. The landlord also submitted that the $10,000 quiet enjoyment claim was unsupported and that the $5,000 lost-income claim was speculative and lacked documentary evidence of actual income loss.

The Outcome

The arbitrator was not persuaded that the tenant’s recordings established excessive noise substantially interfering with quiet enjoyment. Some recordings captured rubbing or scraping consistent with an object contacting the recording device or microphone, while others contained little or no discernible noise. The arbitrator also noted that several recordings contained ambient sounds from inside the rental unit that were more prominent than the noises alleged to have originated from upstairs. The sounds that were captured were found to amount to ordinary household sounds associated with occupation of a multi-unit residential property.

The arbitrator preferred the landlord’s evidence that reasonable steps had been taken after the complaints, including carpeting, rugs and other efforts to reduce noise transmission. The tenant failed to establish that the landlord had breached the Act, regulations or tenancy agreement, or that any resulting loss had been proven. The arbitrator also found that the tenant had not produced documentary evidence establishing either a quantifiable loss of quiet enjoyment or an actual loss of income. The monetary claim was therefore dismissed without leave to reapply.

On the requested compliance order, the arbitrator accepted that the landlord had responded reasonably to the tenant’s concerns and found no basis to order further compliance under section 62. That claim, together with the tenant’s request to recover the filing fee, was also dismissed without leave to reapply. The entire application was dismissed.

For the landlord, the result defeated $15,000 in claimed compensation as well as the requested order requiring further changes within the home.

Key Lessons for Resident Landlords and Their Tenants

• Test recordings against the testimony they are intended to support. In this dispute, recordings that captured contact with the recording device, little discernible noise, or more prominent sounds from inside the tenant’s own unit did not establish substantial interference with quiet enjoyment.
• Respond to complaints with reasonable measures that can later be demonstrated through evidence. The photographs, carpeting, rugs and other mitigation steps supported the landlord’s position that the complaints had been taken seriously and addressed.
• Support monetary claims with evidence capable of establishing the loss claimed. The absence of documentary evidence proving a quantifiable loss of quiet enjoyment or an actual loss of income was an additional reason the tenant failed to establish entitlement to the compensation sought.

The result rested on the recordings, photographs, communications and testimony before the arbitrator at this particular hearing. A dispute based on materially different evidence may be decided differently.

ATAC LAW represents landlords and tenants at Residential Tenancy Branch hearings, including disputes involving households living under one roof.

Conducted by Raymond Jin, Associate Lawyer at ATAC LAW, who represented the landlord at the hearing.