Suki Johal, a deputy district judge, has won a three-year battle over her potted plants, hanging baskets and paving on the patio of her £1.5 million flat in Wimbledon, south west London.
The landlord, a leaseholders’ controlled residents management company, argued that Suki Johal, 51, was in breach of lease for the patio and had not obtained permission.
It was argued that the hanging baskets were also a health and safety hazard, according to MailOnline which carried the story.
The website reports:
“During a hearing at Central London County Court in December 2018 she [Suki Johal] was cleared of any wrong doing and given the right to keep her £50,000 patio, which measures 42 feet by 22 feet.
Judge at war with her neighbours over PAVING SLABS at her £1.5m flat
Dispute over potted plants, hanging baskets and paving slabs between a judge and her neighbours has gone on since 2016 Row erupted when Deputy District Judge Suki Waschkuhn, who uses her maiden name Johal in her professional life, started renovating the patio at her flat She was ordered to halt
“The case was listed for five days but lasted only two. Judge Alan Johns QC ordered the company to pay half of her costs as well as their own, with the total legal bill amounting to £250,000.”
But Ms Johal has issued fresh proceedings demanding £500,000 from the directors of the management company. She claims the dispute has caused her depression, for which she required counselling and medication, and damaged her professional reputation.
Suki Johal told MailOnline:
‘I’m not going to let the matter rest. I’ve got my patio but these people have made my life hell over trivial matters. I’ve got considerable financial resources and legal knowledge so they’ve chosen the wrong person to mess with.
‘This whole incident has drained me and has had a terrible impact on my mental and physical health. For weeks I could not sleep as I fought to save my patio.
‘The patio is my oasis, my escape after a stressful day because I do a very demanding job but these people tried to take it away from me.’
The residents’ management company unsuccessfully complained to the Bar Standards Board in 2017 claiming that Suki Johal’s emails to them amounted to harassment.
She claims she spent £100,000 fighting this complaint, which forms part of her damages claim.
The 104 leaseholders have had to pay £2,000 each to deal with the legal costs of the dispute – so far – and Suki Johal has also had to contribute.
Ms John is married to Wolf Waschkuhn, and the couple own houses in Switzerland and Italy as well as the flat in Wimbledon, according to MailOnline.
Suki Johal told the MailOnline:
“I fought and won the battle for my patio, now I’m going to fight for my name and get justice for what they did to me. This whole thing has been very costly and I don’t see why I should pay for it.’
In his judgment on the patio issue, Judge Johns said that Ms Johal’s failure to allow an inspection of it had prompted ‘something of a war’. The whole matter could have been averted.
For those, like the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, who advocate leaseholder empowerment and the end of third-party commercial landlordism in residential property, this case of middle class neighbours at war is pretty lowering.
Barristers – 3 Dr Johnson’s Buildings
Barristers, Family Barristers, 3DJB, Family Law, Civil Barristers, Housing barristers, divorce barristers, Direct Access Barristers
Related posts:
Small claims court exit fee battle fails … but it has cost Fairhold thousands
Brixton Hill Court wins right to manage after first effort cost £25,000
Plantation Wharf pensioner wins 28-day reprieve on forfeiture
From Tokyo, leaseholder wins back £100 ground rent at Maltings Court
Tchenguiz’s compo claim ‘liberally interspersed with assertions of fraud, falsity, dishonesty …’, says judge
Steve Norris, of Soho Estates, has skin in the game when he opposes commonhold
It would be interesting to learn of the early stages of the trouble that erupted between the RMC and the leaseholder. As the article reports that the judge found that the whole issue could have been avoided if the leaseholder had permitted members of the RMC to inspect what she had done to the area in question, it would be interesting and helpful to learn why the judge found in the leaseholder’s favour.
There is that famous phrase…..…there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth
I cannot help think that there is a great deal more to this argument than hanging baskets and thickness of paving flags, much more but, that would not create the simple one-line sound bite this newspaper article wants to give
I find the following comment about the Judge hearing the case particularly puzzling
“He also accepted that she had provided notification of all the work that was being carried out to the patio in advance of it taking place and had received consent for it, something that the management company claimed she had not”
So the lessee claims to have consent, yet the management company claim never to have issued such consent…very puzzling this I would have thought should have been a very easy matter to resolve.
I would have thought a democratically run management company would have seen legal costs running up, (solicitors requiring regular top of funds to keep the fire going) would have put a stop by possibly trying mediation. Is it the case that one head strong member of the board plunged the company into this ruinous course of action?
I suspect the issue over the patio is a conductor of anger from one or both sides incurred about matters wholly unrelated to baskets and slabs.
It is a reminder that whilst Commonhold may ease some problems experienced under leasehold, this type of problem could happen under either system and is a risk of living in close proximity to other people where co-operation and understanding is required