A veteran Parliament bell ringer has been ordered to give up his £1 million London home after failing to pay more than £100,000 owed to neighbours following a bitter dispute over the entrance to their £2 million property. The details were reported by the Daily Mail.
Get breaking news anytime, anywhere. Download the TOI app now!
Adrian Udal, 66, became embroiled in the legal battle after he removed a roller gate and door belonging to financier Nicholas Patrick-Hiley’s mews home in Fulham, west London, in August 2023.
Patrick-Hiley had just completed the purchase of the property and arrived at his new home to find Udal and another man dismantling the gates.
Dispute over access to £2 million home
The Patrick-Hileys had planned to turn the property into their retirement home. However, the dispute with their neighbour soon escalated into a lengthy legal battle.
Udal argued that he was entitled to remove the gate because he owned the land on which it stood. The Patrick-Hileys challenged that position in court and won their case last year.
Judge Nicholas Parfitt described Udal’s actions as a “carefully pre-planned” act of “wanton destruction”.
Udal was ordered to pay the couple £10,000 in damages in June 2025 and was later ordered to cover £85,000 in their legal costs, excluding his own expenses. With interest and further costs, the amount owed had grown considerably.
Court orders sale of Udal’s home
At the latest High Court hearing, Deputy Master Martin Dray was told that Udal had not paid any of the money awarded against him and had indicated that he had no intention of doing so.
“The claimants are out of pocket and owed a considerable amount of money, which is ever increasing,” the judge said.
“The defendant has made no attempt to repay any part of it... quite the contrary, he has disclaimed any liability to pay one penny piece.”
The court subsequently granted the Patrick-Hileys possession and sale orders, allowing them to recover the debt by selling Udal’s property.
The original judgment debt is understood to be around £104,500, while Udal was ordered to pay a further £25,000 in costs related to the latest hearing.
Udal has 28 days to hand over property
Udal has been given 28 days to surrender possession of his home. However, the order will not be enforced if he settles the outstanding amount before October 2.
The judge noted that Udal had not participated in the proceedings concerning the proposed sale of his house. He nevertheless ruled that the case could not be allowed to “derail”.
The decision came after an earlier “frosty conversation” between the neighbours following Christmas, during which Udal allegedly made clear that he did not intend to make any payments. He had also already lost an attempt to appeal the original ruling.
Who is Adrian Udal?
Udal is a veteran bell ringer who has worked in connection with special church, state and parliamentary occasions. He has also spoken of his pride in having “rung in” the New Year almost every year since 2000.
In 2021, he became secretary of the belfry at St Margaret’s Church beside Westminster Abbey. The historic church serves as a place of worship for Parliament.
Patrick-Hiley, meanwhile, is a retired financier who previously served as managing director and head of sales for North America at investment banking firm Panmure Gordon.
Unusual layout at centre of dispute
The neighbouring properties have an unusual arrangement. Patrick-Hiley’s house sits behind Udal’s property and can be reached via a drive and passageway running beneath part of Udal’s home before opening into the couple’s courtyard.
While Udal owns the drive and passageway, the Patrick-Hileys have rights allowing them to use the route to access their home.
The couple had known about an earlier disagreement involving the previous owner of their property and Udal. They nevertheless approached him after buying the house and offered him an opportunity to contribute to plans for “better looking and more functional gates”.
The situation appeared settled until Udal was allegedly seen removing the existing fixtures and preparing to install metal barriers of his own. He had reportedly purchased the barriers about a month earlier.
Udal maintained that he was exercising his rights as freeholder. However, Judge Parfitt rejected his argument and criticised his evidence during the original proceedings, describing him as a “poor witness” who appeared to favour his own interpretation of events over the objective facts.
