UK Judge: Musicians have a right to 5 hours home practice
NewsAnnette Carrabino, who six years ago won a case against the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, over her children’s piano playing reminds us today of the central points of that judgement.
District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe ruled at Westminster magistrates’ court that ‘Play is absolutely an entitlement unless its extent makes it a nuisance.’ She set a limit of five hours playing per day on Mondays to Saturdays between 9am and 9pm, with three hours on Sundays ending by 5pm, and up to 1030 pm on certain exceptional occasions.
This appears to be a precendetial judgement for all musicians, professional and amateur, who need to practise at home.
Someone ought to tell the over-zealous Lewisham Council that RBKC were made to pay all costs of the case as punishment for bringing a pointless prosecution.
What about music teachers, does this mean that they are limited to 5 hours of teaching time per day?
I think it would. It would also be much easier for the local council to sanction a music teacher as there are specific rules regarding running a business from your home, particukarly over noise and antisocial hours.
The 5-hour limit was applied by a specific judge in a specific case brought before the court. It does not have any wider legal force. More generally, councils do not tend to monitor noise emanating from domestic premises unless someone complains.
We’re having the same issue in NYC. Apparently music is no longer appreciated as an art that must be practiced.
Wow. So a judge who’s probably not even a musician knows how many hours are needed.what about those who teach in their homes? Oh I get it. Let’s just ban all music except in public places where we have to pay to listen to it so we can continue the societal slide into zombie-dom. Why is this suddenly an issue, or seemingly so? It’s not like the number or frequency of musicians practicing at home has increased all of a sudden. The world has gone mad.
Decibel is decibel, whether it’s Handel or a hammer.
Where I live, local regulations allow home renovations from 7 am to 10 pm, so yes, my millionaire downstairs neighbor has all the right to redo his bathroom, then his kitchen, then his closet, then his living room, then his bedroom, all year round, and then all over again, year after year…
It works out because I’m an orchestral tympanist and I practice at home.
The other neighbors in the building are not so lucky.
Brilliant , clap clap clap
Fiona did remind Lewisham of this judgment but was sadly bullied into moving home.
https://youtu.be/gIQ-if1xm7U
Thanks for posting the link Pat. The sounds of unthinking officialdom in action. We saw it in action last weekend.
I practice at home but wouldn’t want anyone to have to listen to it for 5 hours. Seems that some sort of soundproofing requirements would make more sense than arbitrary limiting of hours.
No practice, no music for us audience. Practicing should definitely be a right
The idea that a govt. official can dictate the hours of musical practice crosses over the insanity border.
Now, if the British could just figure out how to feed the population………….
On the contrary, Norman, this judgement appears to refer to the child’s right to play (which, has rarely, if ever, constituted grounds for a statutory noise nuisance), rather than setting a precedent for musicians to practice. “‘Play is absolutely an entitlement …” not “The right to lay a musical instrument is absolutely an entitlement…”
Actually sonicsinfonia, the full judgement states, very explicitly with respect to the playing of musical instruments, whether child or adult, professional or amateur “play is absolutely an entitlement”.
If so, then I am glad to hear it. That is not how the quote attributed to the judge appeared. Reading the full quote does indeed state that play[ing a musical instrument] is absolutely an entitlement unless its extent makes it a nuisance…
In other words, instrument playing is a normal household activity and neighbours have no right to expect absolute peace and quiet. The only things that can make music playing a nuisance are factors such as volume, duration and the time of day the instrument is being played at.”.
That is far from carte blanche to play as long or as loudly as you wish.
Nobody has mentioned how for some musicians, having neighbours in very close primary can negatively affect the physical way a musician can practice. I live in a small railway cottage ( two up two down). I am a professional pianist and I rarely practice at home because I know I have two neighbours on either side at home all day, every day. I live in the south of England where house prices are beyond most musicians reach. I have another piano I use in a a freezing cold church as I am also an organist. Being a musician is extremely difficult these days. I long to be able to practise freely and without tension knowing that I have neighbours that could potentially make life very difficult for me.
Simon, you do have the right to play your piano at home. It is a wonderful freedom to enjoy your music in your home, and when music is your passion it is very, very stressful when that freedom is taken away from you. Nonmusicians might not understand. If you want to explore your rights further, perhaps you want to obtain a full copy of the judgment in the Carrabino vs RBKC case?
It is appalling that under current UK legislation, unaccountable, and often-times bullying, council officers are able to involve themselves on behalf of complaining residents. The complaining resident then doesn’t feel they have to compromise because they have the council on their side, while we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for unyielding, intransigent neighbours against the powerless musician.
It is my understanding that the UK is alone in granting this sort of power to ill-equipped council officers. Most other countries treat such disputes as “neighbour disputes” to be fought on an equal footing with eachother, not at taxpayer expense. If neighbours had to fund their own disputes then they would be more willing to reach an agreement without the use of the courts at taxpayer expense.
As a professional musician myself, I do, of course, agree that we should be able to practise at home. But councils must nevertheless be empowered to intervene when serious noise nuisance occurs. If anything, councils need more power in that regard — unfortunately, there are some very inconsiderate people and businesses out there, and there needs to be some recourse against them that does not rely wholly on a complainant having the financial means to take legal action privately. In my own experience of making noise complaints about a nearby nightclub (amplified music and noisy customers until 2am, so loud that it is almost impossible to sleep even with windows shut), I found the council to be almost completely toothless when it came to enforcement. The licensing officer was sympathetic to my complaints, but appeared to be powerless to do anything about the nightclub (which received many complaints)… until a stabbing occurred and two people almost died. Only then did the council, after two years of complaints, succeed in enforcing the installation of a noise-limiting device on the club’s PA system.
By the way, the nightclub retained an expensive barrister, and I got the impression that the local council’s legal counsel was afraid to do anything until a serious crime had occurred. Even then, the nightclub’s barrister did his very best to accuse the council officers of bullying, racism, unprofessional behaviour, &c. There is no way that we local residents would have stood a chance if acting in a private capacity.
From the land of licenses being needed to watch TV, this comes as no surprise.
Completely misleading headline and reporting. The judge did not lay down as a matter of law that musicians have a right to practise at home for 5 hours a day. The general proposition that she relied on was that music practice at home was lawful as long as it did not amount to a nuisance as a matter of law. And in the circumstances of that case she determined that piano playing within certain limits would not amount to a nuisance. Your suggestion that ‘this appears to be a precendetial [sic] judgement for all musicians, professional and amateur, who need to practise at home’ is dangerously misleading. For a start, decisions of magistrates are not binding on other courts on the law. Secondly, a different court could legitimately come to a quite different conclusion as to what amounts to a nuisance on the particular facts of the case before it. All that can be said with any real certainty is that a Council which seeks to ban music practice simply because can be heard by a neighbour is applying the wrong test.
Legal precedents have established that the playing of musical instruments at home, without more, cannot be a statutory nuisance. The Law has to date always been on the side of the musician as detailed in Christie v Davey [1893] Ch 316, and Nelsovil Ltd v Barnard (1961) 179 EG 447. In fact, in these precedents there were no time restrictions except, as the judge North J commented in Christie v Davey, “it would be reasonable for cello practice to cease at 11pm, except for finishing a piece started before 11pm”.
Environmental health officers do not understand the law, they have a very flawed interpretation of it, and they now routinely exercise their power (or abuse it) according to their own limited understanding of the law and their own biases. The written judgement in the Carrabino vs RBKC case is a clear, detailed, affirmation of these precedential cases in a modern-day context and is considered informative enough to be included in Practical Law practice notes on environmental regulation and nuisance.
Jazz would have been out of luck given how Charlie Parker practiced 12 to 16 hours a day during his formative years. Indian classical music would have been out of luck given how Ravi Shankar practiced at least eight hours a day during his formative years.
Parker’s neighbors complained bitterly, his mother protecting him, while Shankar was in a sequestered setting.
Unfortunately the “precedential” judgment didn’t set a precedent at all, since it was given in the magistrates’ court. Such decisions are of zero precedential value as a matter of English law. No court in the UK would feel bound to follow it. In addition it is very unlikely that the district judge decided any point of law to the effect that musicians have a right to play music at home for five hours a day. The five hours a day referred to is more likely to be what the district judge thought was reasonable in that specific case (though without reading the district judge’s ruling I can’t be sure).
Dear “A Lawyer”
Perhaps you work for Lewisham Council and are seeking to validate the ridiculousness of your officers’ actions. It is not correct that “Such decisions are of zero precedential value as a matter of English law”. Judge Roscoe’s written judgment is very full and considered, and cites several important precedents which have ALWAYS been in favour of the musician(s)..
The cases the judgement refers to are: Ball v Ray (1873) LR 8 Ch App 467; Christie v Davey [1893] Ch 316; Vanderpant v Mayfair Hotel Company, Limited [1930] 1Ch 138; Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940] A.C. 880; Nelsovil v Barnard (1961) 179 EG 447; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council (No 2) [2001] Q.B. 1; Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd. [2013] Q.B 455; and Coventry v Lawrence [2014] A.C.822.”
You may wish to familiarise yourself with these legal precedents. It would be foolhardy of any lawyer to disregard this important recent judgment against RBKC, and very foolish of Lewisham Council to disregard it. RBKC’s foolishness reportedly wasted between £200,000-£300,000 of taxpayers’ money AND the Council was ordered to pay the Carrabinos’ legal costs in full as well (rumoured to be very substantial). Lewisham Council has been warned.
No doubt the district judge gave a very learned ruling which was correct in that particular case. But it won’t be a precedent, for the reasons given by me and (more eloquently) by Rog and Tribonian.
One might assume that the use of the word “precedent” in this context was intended to be informal.
The Carrabino vs RBKC case received widespread media coverage and is included in Practical Law practice notes on environmental regulation and nuisance. The judgement provides a clear, detailed example of a judge affirming the precedential cases in a modern-day context. It will surely be read by other judges and considered as an informative judgment. Councils would (or should) know about this case and be wary of being liable for full costs of such a lawsuit going forward, as RBKC was.
Invest in high quality electronic piano and get headphones. The touch on some of them is every bit as realistic as a real piano, they don’t go out of tune, they’re so much lighter and easier to move. And no body has to listen to someone playing their Czerny etudes over and over.
Electronic instruments have some uses, but the touch is never “every bit as realistic”. In any case, it is not just about the touch, but also the sound, the weight, &c. A more sensible option is to use the mute/practice pedal on an upright (this puts a layer of felt between hammers and strings, thus reducing the sound significantly) — this has relatively little impact on the touch and weight, but does make it almost impossible to get a clear sense of the dynamics or voicing within the texture. Ultimately, a serious pianist must spend at least some of his/her practice time playing for real on a real instrument.
The article’s comments about this being a “precedent” are wrong in just about every way possible.
No decision of a district judge in England is ever a precedent for anything. Only judgments of the High Court and above (Court of Appeal, Supreme Court) create binding precedents.
A precedent’s significance depends on the facts. Five hours’ music practice a day might be a reasonable imposition on neighbours in certain circumstances, not in others. There might also be an issue about tenants’ covenants if Lewisham Council is the landlord of the premises.
The underlying principle in relation to nuisance (as opposed to noise covenants in a lease) was set out by the Court of Appeal in Sturges v Bridgman in 1879, in language which would now trigger allegations of classism, white privilege, and who knows what else:
“As regards the first, it may be answered that whether anything is a nuisance or not is a question to be determined, not merely by an abstract consideration of the thing itself, but in reference to its circumstances; what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey; and where a locality is devoted to a particular trade or manufacture carried on by the traders or manufacturers in a particular and established manner not constituting a public nuisance, Judges and juries would be justified in finding, and may be trusted to find, that the trade or manufacture so carried on in that locality is not a private or actionable wrong.”
One might assume that the use of the word “precedent” in this context was intended to be informal. It is fair to say that the Carrabino vs RBKC case set a precedent (with a small “p”), in that it provides a clear, detailed example of a judge affirming the precedential cases in a modern-day context. It will surely be read by other judges and considered as an informative judgment.
The Carrabino vs RBKC case received widespread media coverage and is included in Practical Law practice notes on environmental regulation and nuisance. Councils would (or should) know about this case and be wary of being liable for full costs of such a lawsuit going forward, as RBKC was.
Throughout history, the playing of musical instruments has been considered to be a normal domestic activity and so a reasonable use of a family home. In fact, in the concurring judgement of Mellish LJ to the precedent from Ball vs Ray (1873), piano playing was held out as the archetypal normal use of a family home. (Ball v Ray (1873) LR 8 Ch App 467, concurring judgment of Mellish LJ at p 471).
And a reasonable, normal, use of a family home cannot be a Statutory Nuisance. The judgement in the Carrabino vs RBKC demonstrates that judges today are still affirming these principles.
Unfortunately environmental health officers do not understand this nuance (as the ruling against RBKC points out) and it is unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives powers to environmental health officers these officers should not have and affords them the authority to implement laws they do not understand.
As I understand it, the ruling was the right of a child to play, as in have playtime, not an adult professional musician to play an instrument.
The order that Lewisham placed is actually pretty typical across the country.
End of day if the noise is a neighbour nuisance then it’s a nuisance. The source really doesn’t come into it. They are domestic residences in the end.
Can you imagine being at home and listening to five hours of tepetion and mistakes forced on you? One has to be reasonable.
The sounds of outdoor”music” is bothering/infuriating people in an area of Sydney Aust. too but govt is allowing it to a point ,saying it’s sharing musical “culture”
The specific outdoor music l’m talking about is huge Pop concerts so I am soooo pleased I don’t live there
Relevant Case Law
In Christie v Davey [1893] Ch 316, North J considered whether giving the use of a dwelling for musical lessons for 17 hours per week together with additional practice of the piano and violin, singing and evening musical performances, and cello practice up to 11pm at night constituted a nuisance to the adjoining (semi- detached) house in Brixton. North J found that there was no nuisance caused by these activities: see pp 327-8.2 North J commented that it would be reasonable for cello practice to cease at 11pm, except for finishing a piece started before 11pm;
In Nelsovil Ltd v Barnard (1961) 179 EG 447, Glynn-Jones J considered a claim for (amongst other things) damages for nuisance said to have been caused by piano practice by a professional concert pianist in his parents’ flat in Kensington. The piano practice included some repetition of parts of pieces which would “make his playing a little more irritating”. The Judge regarded this as reasonable and as a legitimate use of the flat, and dismissed the claim for damages for nuisance.
And in Ball v Ray and the concurring judgment of Mellish LJ: “we are not to consider the noise of horses from that stable like the noise of a pianoforte from a neighbour’s house, or the noise of a neighbour’s children in their nursery, which are noises we must reasonably expect, and must to a considerable extent put up with.”