The East Dulwich properties at the centre of the loft conversion row
(Picture: Champion News)A millionaire couple who lost a bid to force their neighbour to tear down her loft extension for being too close to their home have been left with a £130,000 legal bill.
Liz Peck, who runs a gender-neutral children’s organic clothing business, and her singer-songwriter husband Adam accused neighbour Debbie Ranford of “trespassing” on their East Dulwich property when she built a roof extension to her flat.
Mrs Ranford’s builder used “infill” material on the Pecks’ side of the boundary, prompting the couple to sue to try to force her to dismantle the entire extension.
Judge Simon Monty QC concluded there had been a “very minor” trespass across the property boundary, but agreed the Pecks had attempted to use a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” by bringing the case to court.
He awarded the Pecks £200 in damages, but has now ordered the couple to pick up lawyers’ bills totalling around £130,000.
“I do not believe that any court would direct the mandatory removal of a soundly constructed dormer which had caused and was causing no damage purely because of what was at best a minor trespass,” he told Central London county court.
“I entirely reject Mr and Mrs Peck’s case that the trespass was cynical and calculated. On the facts, it was not.”
Mrs Ranford, who works for a City bank, had been a friend of the Pecks prior to the legal battle, which stemmed from her construction of a loft room in 2014 — done with the Pecks’ consent.
A Party Wall Notice was signed by the couple, but Mrs Peck, 49, said she was shocked to later discover the extension had encroached on to their property, believing there would be a gap between the two homes.
Their barrister, Richard Egleton, argued Mrs Ranford had opted not to leave a gap in order to secure a larger loft room and called the infringement a “clear trespass”.
However Mrs Ranford fought the case, arguing the work to join the properties was “unavoidable” and only infill material to guard against weather damage was over the line.
The court heard Mrs Ranford had sought to avoid the “enormous costs” of a trial and offered her neighbours £13,000 to settle the case earlier, but it had been refused.
Calling Mrs Ranford the “successful party”, the judge added her settlement offer had been “very generous”. The Pecks must pay £70,000 of their own costs plus 80 per cent of their neighbour’s bill.
