I came home to find my nightmare neighbour knocking down my DOOR – he claimed it was his right to do it
A RETIRED banking boss was shocked after discovering his neighbour had knocked down his door.
Nicholas Patrick-Hiley and his wife Lisa won £10,000 in a court battle with Parliament's master bell-ringer Adrian Udal, 65 after the latter ripped out the front gate of their £2million home in Fulham, West London.
5
5
5
Former Panmure Gordon Securities top executive Nicholas, 64, purchased the property in August 2023 to commemorate his retirement.
But the homeowner's mood was dampened when he arrived to find the door and roller gate demolished by the bell ringer.
Udal claimed that he had merely been asserting rights over land he owns when ripping out the previous gate and installing a new one at the end of the driveway.
The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing "security concerns" in the affluent street.
Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the couple, ordering Mr Udal to pay the couple £10,000.
Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer at St Margaret's Church next to Westminster Abbey, which acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament.
The neighbouring homes have an unusual layout, with Patrick-Hileys' home situated behind Mr Udal's property and is reachable via a drive and a passageway, the court heard.
Mr Udal owns the drive and passageway which the Patrick-Hileys pass through to arrive at their home, but the couple maintain the right to use it.
Mr Udal insisted that their rights over the passage did not include passing through by car or parking a vehicle on it.
Representing the Patrick-Hileys, Mark Warwick KC told Mayors and City County Court that the incident began when they found Mr Udal destroying the door and gate at around 12pm on move in day.
Moment neighbour smashes flats with axe in horror siege - before donning scuba gear, clutching spear & hiding in bathtub
The bell ringer continued with the demolition works into the early evening accompanied by another individual.
"They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services," Mr Warwick KC said.
"No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen.
"His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions.
"The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted."
Ultimately, Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the Patrick Hileys, stating that Mr Udal was "a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality".
He added: "Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.
"I also find that his actions...removed the claimants' internet cable for about six weeks; they also led to a lack of privacy and meant that Mrs Patrick-Hiley in particular felt uneasy about coming home after dark.
"This [behaviour] was inappropriate and unneighbourly and my impression of Mr Udal is that he is likely, if given the opportunity, to think of other ways in which he can interfere with the claimants' rights if his own ability to believe his own arguments and language constructions manages to suggest them.
"It follows that the claimants' rights need to be vindicated by the granting of declarations and injunctions for their reasonable protection and to limit the risk of a repetition.
"The removal of the roller gates and furniture was a trespass to property and the general conduct on 25 August 2025 was a nuisance and in particular a wrongful interference with the claimants' easements.
"The defendant's conduct has continued as a sporadic and occasional interference."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Jury in Australia's mushroom murder trial retires to consider verdict
MORWELL, Australia, June 30 (Reuters) - The jury in the trial of an Australian woman who allegedly murdered three elderly relatives of her estranged husband using poisonous mushrooms retired to consider its verdict on Monday, in a case that has gripped the country. Erin Patterson, 50, is charged with the murders of her mother-in-law Gail Patterson, father-in-law Donald Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, in July 2023. The prosecution alleges she served them death cap mushrooms in a Beef Wellington alongside mashed potato and green beans, before destroying evidence and lying to the police and medical workers to cover up her crimes. She denies the charges, that carry a life sentence, with her defence calling the deaths "a terrible accident". On Monday, presiding judge Justice Christopher Beale ended a five-day summary of the evidence to the jury capping some of the final court proceedings in the trial, now in its tenth week. Ian Wilkinson, the sole surviving lunch guest who has attended almost every day of the trial, sat with relatives a few feet from Erin Patterson, seated in the dock at the rear of the court. The case at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates Court in Morwell, a former coal mining town whose best-known tourist attractions until the trial were a rose garden and a regional art gallery, has fascinated Australia. Members of the public have queued for hours for the limited seats in Court 4 where the trial is taking place, while television crews and photographers have been camped outside the building. State broadcaster ABC's daily podcast on the trial is the country's most popular, while several documentaries on the case are already in production.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Boy to go on trial accused of murdering Harvey Willgoose, 15, at school
A 15-year-old boy who stabbed another teenager at a school is due to go trial accused of murder. Harvey Willgoose, also 15, died after he was stabbed through the heart at All Saints Catholic High School in Sheffield on February 3. A teenager, who cannot be named, has admitted Harvey's manslaughter but denies murdering the Sheffield United fan and will go on trial at Sheffield Crown Court on Monday. The boy, who cannot be named, has also admitted possession of a bladed article. The incident at the school in February shocked Sheffield and the nation. Harvey was remembered as a 'social butterfly' who 'deserved so much more' and 'had dreams, plans and a future ahead of him' at his funeral in February. The service was broadcast on a big screen outside the building for those who could not fit inside, and some mourners wore T-shirts with pictures of Harvey's face and anti-knife crime slogans. His cousin Lana Swirles told the congregation: 'His laughter was contagious and his kindness knew no bounds. 'His adventurous spirit inspired us to enjoy life and seek out joy in the little things.' The service heard how he loved fishing with his grandfather, was 'never far from a scrape' and his mother Caroline recalled that as a little boy his catchphrase was: 'Isn't it a lovely day?' She told mourners: ' One of Harvey's great gifts was his love of people, his kindness to others and his ability to talk to anyone.' Sheffield United was 'the great love of Harvey's life', the service was told, and his coffin was wrapped with a Bramall Lane design. Harvey's parents have been prominent campaigners against knife crime since their son's death and they met Home Secretary Yvette Cooper about the issue in March.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Landlord sparks fury for implementing outrageous $50-a-night charge: 'How is this fair in any way?'
A landlord has sparked outrage after trying to charge her tenant $50 per night for having his girlfriend stay over. British property strategist Jack Rooke read out the shocking email exchange between homeowner Rita and her renter Cameron. Rita had emailed Cameron to inform him of a little-known 'house rule' that imposes additional charges for overnight guests. 'It's been brought to my attention that your girlfriend has stayed overnight on multiple occasions this month. As outlined in the House Rules, overnight guests must be pre-approved and are limited to two nights per calendar month,' Rita's email read. 'Beyond that, a £25 ($A52.50) per night charge applies to cover shared space use and utilities. This will be included in your next invoice.' However, Cameron pointed out that there was nothing in his tenancy agreement about guest charges or pre-approvals - as he slammed Rita for 'running a guest policy like a boutique hotel'. 'Who exactly is keeping tabs on my bedroom?' Cameron replied. The landlord insisted the rules were shared in his 'welcome email' and are 'clearly displayed on the hallway noticeboard'. 'Excessive overnight visits put pressure on the household. I've had complaints. If you want to avoid future charges, please limit stays or register guests in the log book provided,' Rita responded. Furious, Cameron fired back: 'Let me get this straight. You're charging me £25 ($A52.50) per night because my girlfriend stays over a couple of times a week? That's £200 ($A420) a month... for someone sitting on a sofa and using the kettle. 'You've made up some "guest log" system that isn't in the tenancy. There's no approval process in the contract. No mention of fees,' Cameron replied. 'I live here because it's what I can afford. Now you're trying to backdoor in hotel charges? No. I won't be paying.' He added that if the charge appears on his invoice, he will submit a formal complaint. While Rita understood his frustration, she warned him not to 'speak to me like that'. 'These rules are there to keep things fair,' she said. 'Other tenants manage their guests without issues, but I've had complaints in your case. This isn't personal. If you need me to resend the house rules, I will. If you can't follow them, I'll have to review whether this tenancy is still working.' However, Cameron refused to back down as he called on the landlord to 'review' his tenancy agreement as he feels this arrangement won't work for him. 'You know what? Review it. Go ahead. If you genuinely think having my girlfriend stay over three nights in a month is causing long-term impact to your kettle and your precious hallway, then this probably isn't the right place for me either,' he said. 'You've decided you're running a guest policy like this is some boutique hotel. You're billing tenants for having a personal life, and then acting shocked when someone pushes back. "House rules were made clear"? No, they weren't. 'You sent a welcome email with your preferences. That's not legally binding. The tenancy agreement says nothing about guest logs, pre-approvals or £25-a-night fines. You're trying to invent policies mid-tenancy and dress them up as boundaries. 'It's not professional. It's not legal. It's you overreacting. So yeah - review the arrangement. And while you're at it, review your understanding of landlord responsibilities.' It's unclear what happened next - but Jack disagreed with the landlord's move. 'She sounds like she's got control problems, we don't like people with control problems,' he said. The video has been viewed 540,000 - with many divided over the situation. 'If this is a shared house and he's renting a room, I'm actually with the landlord. It's not fair to his other room mates to pay extra for his girlfriend. If he's renting the place solo, he's in the right to invite anyone he likes over as often as he pleases,' one said. 'I'm on the landlord's side, other than it should be included in the tenancy agreement. If it's not in the tenancy agreement, then it's not a valid charge. But a charge for additional guests is reasonable,' another suggested. 'Well, first of all, a housemate snitched. Second, that's actually mad. Third, I've had housemates whose girlfriend pretty much were there all the time. Still snitching on them for that is crazy,' one explained. 'Doesn't matter if the landlord found out, they're not allowed to police when you have guests,' another added. RITA: It's been brought to my attention that your girlfriend has stayed overnight on multiple occasions this month. As outlined in the House Rules, overnight guests must be pre-approved and are limited to two nights per calendar month. Beyond that, a £25 ($A52.50) per night charge applies to cover shared space use and utilities. This will be included in your next invoice CAMERON: I've read the tenancy agreement. There's nothing in there about guest charges. No mention of pre-approvals either. Also, who exactly is keeping tabs on my bedroom? RITA: The rules were shared in your welcome email and are clearly displayed on the hallway noticeboard. Excessive overnight visits put pressure on the household. I've had complaints. If you want to avoid future charges, please limit stays or register guests in the log book provided. CAMERON: Let me get this straight. You're charging me £25 ($A52.50) per night because my girlfriend stays over a couple of times a week. That's £200 ($A420) a month, Rita. For someone sitting on a sofa and using the kettle. You've made up some "guest log" system that isn't in the tenancy. There's no approval process in the contract. No mention of fees. I live here because it's what I can afford. Now you're trying to backdoor in hotel charges? No. I won't be paying. And if this appears on my invoice, I'll be submitting a formal complaint. RITA: Cameron, I understand you're frustrated, but please don't speak to me like that. These rules are there to keep things fair. Other tenants manage their guests without issues, but I've had complaints in your case. This isn't personal. If you need me to resend the house rules, I will. If you can't follow them, I'll have to review whether this tenancy is still working. CAMERON: Rita, You know what? Review it. Go ahead. Because if you genuinely think having my girlfriend stay over three nights in a month is causing long-term impact to your kettle and your precious hallway, then this probably isn't the right place for me either. You've decided you're running a guest policy like this is some boutique hotel. You're billing tenants for having a personal life, and then acting shocked when someone pushes back. "House rules were made clear"? No, they weren't. You sent a welcome email with your preferences. That's not legally binding. The tenancy agreement says nothing about guest logs, pre-approvals or £25-a-night fines. You're trying to invent policies mid-tenancy and dress them up as boundaries. It's not professional. It's not legal. It's you overreacting. So yeah - review the arrangement. And while you're at it, review your understanding of landlord responsibilities.
