When “It’s Just Noise” Isn’t Good Enough: A Strata Wake-Up Call
- leigh_oliver
- Jun 6
- 2 min read
If you’ve ever lived in strata, you’ve probably heard it before:
“That’s just apartment living.”
But a recent tribunal decision shows that excuse doesn’t always hold up — especially when common property is involved.
The Case: Noise Through the Walls
In Haramis v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 51923, a lot owner brought an application because of persistent noise coming from a neighbouring unit’s bathroom.
The issue?Water pipes inside the shared wall were transmitting loud, intrusive noise into the bedroom next door — particularly at night.
This wasn’t just a minor annoyance. The owner argued it was significantly disrupting sleep and impacting their wellbeing.
The Key Question
Was this:
Just an unavoidable “building feature”?
OR
A failure by the strata company to maintain common property?
The Tribunal’s View: It’s a Maintenance Issue
The Tribunal found that the owners corporation had breached its duty under section 106 of the legislation.
Why?
Because the obligation to maintain common property is strict — not “reasonable”, not “best efforts”.
If common property isn’t functioning as it should, the strata company must fix it.
And importantly:
The pipework was common property
The noise was excessive (“offensive” based on acoustic testing)
The issue had worsened over time (not original condition)
👉 That meant it was no longer “serviceable” — and therefore, a breach.
“But It’s Expensive and Disruptive…”
The proposed fix wasn’t small. It involved:
Opening up the wall
Installing acoustic insulation
Rebuilding sections of the structure
The owners corporation argued it was too invasive and disruptive.
The Tribunal didn’t accept that.
Maintenance obligations don’t disappear just because the work is inconvenient.
Not a Nuisance Between Neighbours
Another interesting point — the strata company tried to frame this as a dispute between two owners.
That didn’t work either.
The Tribunal made it clear:
The neighbour was using their bathroom normally
The issue was the infrastructure, not the behaviour
👉 That puts responsibility squarely back on the strata company.
The Takeaway for Strata Schemes
This decision reinforces a few critical points:
1. The duty to maintain common property is strict. It’s not about doing your best — it’s about ensuring things actually work properly.
2. “Building feature” is not a defence. If it causes a problem, it may still be a defect.
3. Noise can be a maintenance issue. Not all noise complaints are behavioural — some are structural.
4. Cost and disruption don’t remove the obligation. If it needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed.
Final Thought
This case is a good reminder that strata living isn’t a free pass for poor building performance.
If common property is causing real impact — whether it’s water ingress, structural issues, or even noise — the strata company has a responsibility to act.
And if they don’t?Owners have options.
Resources
🎧Notebook LM discussion
Comments