A couple who built an extension two and a half inches into their neighbour's land have been told to demolish the £80k addition to their home.
Shabaz Ashraf, 45, and his wife Shakira, 40, were also handed a £200,000 legal bill for their troubles after their neighbours took them to court over the 68mm-long incursion into their garden. Neighbours Avtar Dhinjan and his wife Balvinder complained that the extension to the Ashraf's £700,000 home was "encroaching" into their space.
The Mirror reports that the roof overhang into the Dhinjan's garden was around 98mm, or 3.86 inches. The Dhinjans claimed the Ashrafs "intended to annoy" them with the invasion of their garden and had even told them to 'go to court'; the new extension was built to replace an ageing one constructed in the 1970s.
The argument over the home in Ridgeway Gardens, Redbridge, north London, began in 2019 when the extension was built. Central London County Court heard that the extension was making the Dhinjans' home damp and "mouldy" because there was no room for air circulation outside.
They pleaded with the judge for an injunction requiring the Ashrafs to tear down the encroaching wall. Judge Richard Roberts has accepted the request, and hit out at the "high-handed" couple for "trespassing", ordering them to knock down the offending wall and move it back.
The Ashrafs had sought to defend the case by making a case for squatters' rights, as the extension was identical in size to the old one built in the 1970s. But Rachel Coyle, for the Dhinjans, told the court that the rebuild went beyond the footprint of the old extension.
Ms Coyle said: "There was an encroachment which, while de minims in valuation terms, causes significant injury to the land belonging to the claimants. The defendants' continued course of conduct intended to annoy.
"Only removal and building it where it should be will prevent mould and damp, failing which the claimants' extension will become virtually uninhabitable. The injury is not one that can be compensated in money."
Issuing his decision, Judge Roberts said: "One of the sad features of the case is that before the parties began building new extensions to the rear of their property, they lived in harmony and were on good terms. The defendants say they built the wall in exactly the same position as the previous wall, which was in position for 41 years. I find that that is, to the defendants' knowledge, wholly untrue.
"The joint expert surveyor concluded in his report there was an encroachment of 68mm. I can see from the pictures that the breeze blocks have been built outside the existing boundary, so the notion that they built inside the existing boundary line is not sustainable because the pictures show where the existing boundary line is.
"Their new wall is clearly outside that wall. The wall erected by the defendants is encroaching on the claimants' land.
"The claimants put their case for an injunction on this basis. They say this is a case where the defendants acted in a high-handed manner throughout and have deliberately overridden the claimants when they were saying there was an encroachment on their land."
The judge also found that the Ashrafs had been notified that their new extension would be "encroaching" before they completed the project, but they had carried on regardless. He found that Mrs Ashraf had said to her neighbours during a row over the issue: "If you think we have come over, then go to court."
He added: "This was exactly what was said by them (the defendants) on 29 April: 'If you think we have come over, go to court. We will only move the wall if the court tells us'.
"From the very get-go, the defendants, when confronted with the fact that this would be a trespass, have simply ignored it and said 'go to court'. This is a case where the defendants have acted in a high-handed manner and have simply not told the truth from the very start and, when told that there was an issue here, have carried on regardless."
The judge said he would make an injunction, directing the Ashrafs to remove the extension wall. He also told them to reinstate a fencepost they removed as part of the works, and made a declaration that the fence between the two houses belongs to the Dhinjans.
As well as having to pay their own costs, Judge Roberts ordered Mr and Mrs Ashraf to pay their neighbours' legal fees - estimated at almost £100,000, with £49,009 upfront. The total cost of the case was estimated by lawyers outside court at around £200,000, on top of which Mr and Mrs Ashraf will face the unspecified costs of tearing apart and rebuilding their extension.
Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - sign up to our daily newsletter here.
