Parliament Master Belleringer has been killed with more than £ 100,000 court bill after tearing his banker neighbor’s £ 2m West London house during a neighbor’s battle.
Retired Financer Nicholas Partic-Helli bought his Mews Cottage at Dysbowe Road in Fulham in August 2023, planned to build a dream house for his retirement with his wife, Lisa.
But 64 -year -old, when he arrived on the day of completion to find his new neighbor – Parliament Belleringer Adrian Udal, 65, he was surprised, – demolished safe doors and roller gate from front of his house.
Mr. Udal insisted that he had the right to do what he had done because he was the owner of the land, but the couple last month won the matter and won the matter after Sri Udal’s works “desired destruction” and “cautious employed”.
And now Mr. Udal – A medieval building next to Westminster Abe at the St. Margaret Church, a medieval building that serves as a place of worship for the Houses of Parliament – has faced more than £ 100,000 bills after he was ordered to pay the legal costs of the case.
In a small hearing in the Mayor and City County Court, Judge performed or ordered him to pay £ 85,000 towards the estimated £ 100,000 of his neighbors.
.jpeg)
For what they did, the couple will also have to pay £ 10,000 compensation, as well as the significant cost of their own lawyers, which have not been revealed in the court.
Sri Udal is an experienced bell-ringer, whose Belji role secretary involves liaasing with the pastor when special churches, state and parliamentary events require beatinging, while they are proud of “Rug” in the new year almost every year since 2000.
He also works as a broadcast editor and has a keen interest in antique watches, while his wife, Helen, is also a campaignologist, who is the Bell Tower Captain in Church Pimlico in St. Gabriel.
Mr. Partik-Heli is a retired financial and former managing director and heads of sales for North America’s investment banking experts.
During the test last month, the judge perforce was told how two neighboring houses are in an unusual layout, with the partic-heelis home located behind the property of Mr. Udal and is available in a drive and through a route, which passes in their house part and their courtyard.
The court heard that the drive and passage are owned by Mr. Udal, but the Partickel-Helise has the right to go to their home.
Explaining the background of the part, Mark Warwick Casey, for Partik-Heli, said: “The day of completion, Mr. Partik-Heli arrived at the property at around 12.10.
“He was amazed to find Sri Udal and another person. Both people were in the process of destroying the doors and gates. They were also cutting the wiring that connected the property with various services.
“Shri Udal, or anyone was not given any advance warning on their behalf, that such an extraordinary behavior was going to be done.
“Mr. Partik-Heli tried to remain calm. He contacted his Solicitor, he felt helpless.
“Mr. Udal and (other men) continued till about 5 pm with the work of their demolition.
“Their actions were clearly pre -employed. Any amount of persuasion, including police involvement, has been motivated to re -re -, or to regret his functions.
“These tasks, and the effects of the material have been severe, their calm pleasure and the actual pleasure of their home have been interrupted.”
The couple filed a lawsuit against Sri Udal for an prohibition, which has the right to install new gates during the inauguration, which leads to their home, which refers to “safety concerns” in the rich road.
He said that he knew before going before a struggle between the previous owner of his house and Mr. Udal, but thought it was decided until Mr. Udal was seen to destroy the disputed gate.
Through his Solicitor, he contacted him two months before the move, stating that he once planned to install “better looking and more functional gates”, although he clarifies that he would welcome Mr. Udal’s input on the style and design of those gates.
But in response, the couple alleged that their new neighbor on July 13, 2023, buying their sets of metal barriers, stated how to remove and install new gates, which Mr. Warwick claimed that “he was planning to fulfill the destruction of the existing gates”.
When the day of completion has arrived, “Mr. Udal and his partner duly set up about destroying the gates and disconnecting services through the driveway”, he said.
His barrister claimed that Mr. Udal “planned carefully” as to what he did and did “.
Shortly thereafter, the couple’s lawyers wrote to Mr. Udal that the removed gates were their assets and it was on their place to decide what options should be made in their place.
“Mr. Udal disagreed,” Casey said, “On September 10, he hung the metal gates, for his own selection, right next to the footpath.”
In the court, the couple insisted that they have the right to park a car in the area as well as the site entrance gate on either side of the opening of Mr. Udal’s house.
But Mr. Udal emphasized his authority that only the property is stretched in front of the property next to the pavement and he has no right to keep the car on his land.
He said that in removing the existing roller gate and door, and to install a new gate next to the pavement at the end of the driveway, he did not do more than assuming his valid rights as a freehold owner of passing between two houses.
Winning the neighbors of Bell Master, Judge Parfit “wrongly slammed the wrongdoing of his” wrongdoing … that any proper and purposeful person should have realized, he would be quite upset and discomfort “and ordered him to pay a loss of £ 10,000.
“Mr. Udal was a poor witness, who could be helpful in his own matter regardless of the reality of any purpose, as prioritizing its perception,” he continued.
“The overall perception was that there was no obstruction to him for a clever argument about truth, at least in terms of legal proceedings, language or other evidence.
“He referred to his destruction of roller shutters and furniture, as he has returned to ‘it’ (former owner). It is also using the expressions used to describe something useful in general – getting some back to the owner – what he was doing as a means of sugar -koting: to destroy the assets of the claimants and closes a roller.
“On the balance of possibilities, the defendant had planned to destroy roller shutters and furniture on the day of completion and perhaps it was expected that this would be a fighting available by the time of the contenders. In any incident, he continued his actions even after coming and it was clear that he objected.”
The judge found that the Gates Mr. Udal was removed and in the correct position and the couple had an right to pass “or with or without passing or or without passing the passage.
He said: “The action of Mr. Udal in relation to Roller Gates and furniture was prepared in an unfair and incorrect way, which takes advantage of the gap between the owners when I think, in my view, best, on completion, and what to feel any reasonable and objective person should feel, he can be very upset for new owners.”
Returning to court last week to decide on cases as a result of his decision, Judge Perfit ordered Mr. Udal to tear the gate installed within two weeks.
He said that the partic-heels would have the right to establish their own, but if this pond is to be done then they have to ensure that Mr. Udal is able to get to go behind his house.
He also ordered them to pay £ 85,000 to their lawyers’s bills – an estimate of more than £ 100,000 – before the later evaluation. The court papers did not reveal the bills of their own lawyers.
Representing himself through a video link, Mr. Udal said that he was planning to challenge the decision on the appeal.