A court in China recently ordered a woman to compensate her former upstairs neighbor, Zhang, 19,600 yuan (RM11,879) after opposing what she perceived as his noisy routines.
Zhang, who previously lived in the flat above the woman identified as Wang, took legal action after she attempted to limit the noises he made during routine activities, particularly at night, such as using the toilet.
According to the South China Morning Post, Wang was accused of retaliating against Zhang with loud noises.
Zhang tried to accommodate Wang’s sensitivity to noise by carpeting his floors and wearing soft slippers following her complaints in January 2022 about the perceived noise from his flat.
However, Wang’s sensitivity intensified over time, leading to several complaints about “minor noises,” such as “brushing his teeth, bathing, or accidentally dropping bottle caps”. She also asked Zhang to avoid using the toilet “after 10pm”, as quoted.
ALSO READ: Neighbours in Johor have a ‘who can scream the loudest’ competition over midnight prayers
When Zhang inadvertently violated these “noise rules”, as quoted, Wang would respond by blasting loud music from a speaker or knocking on the ceiling with a stick.
Despite Zhang’s numerous police reports and the confiscation of Wang’s stick and speaker, she continued to make loud noises, which frustrated Zhang and prompted him to move out in July.
Zhang then rented another flat in the same block and attempted to lease his previous unit to new tenants, but these efforts failed due to Wang’s harassment of the new tenants.
Earlier this year, Zhang sued Wang for 33,000 yuan (RM19,998) to cover moving expenses and compensation for the “mental distress” he endured.
ALSO READ: Man drives car into couple’s vehicle due to noisy argument
Wang argued that her actions were a response to the noise Zhang made initially and claimed it was his choice to move out, refusing to pay the amount demanded.
A lower court sided with Zhang, ruling that the noises he made were “reasonable” and describing Wang’s retaliatory actions as “extreme and inappropriate.” Wang’s appeal against the verdict was subsequently denied.
