[2025] UKUT 342 (LC)

The FTT decided that there had been a breach. It took the view, first, that “the obligation to carpet with underlay did not depend on whether a particular level of sound attenuation was achieved”, and, secondly, that when the lease was granted in 1976, the expression “carpet with underfelt meant “carpet laid contiguously with underfelt or underlay”. It considered that the carpets must be installed so as to cover the entire surface area of the rooms. The covenant did not require that the carpet be installed in any particular way, such as with glue or gripper strips, as the Landlord had argued. It determined that Mr Calnan “is in breach” which indicates that it did not consider the rug on carpet it observed on its inspection was compliant and that the breach was continuing.