A COUPLE claim their next-door neighbour built a loft conversion so close to their home it has caused their wall to crack.
Liz and Adam Peck are so desperate for Debbie Ranford’s extension to be torn down they are suing her for “trespassing”.
4
4
4
Banker Mrs Ranford’s add-on was installed just one inch from the Peck’s attic before the gap between the dormers was closed with infill.
And Mr and Mrs Peck allege it has resulted in water leaking into their £1.5million house in East Dulwich, south east London, with a “big crack” appearing in the wall.
They are now suing their neighbour, demanding she dismantles the extension or pays them compensation.
Central London County Court heard Mrs Ranford started construction work on her two-storey flat in 2014 after getting consent from the Pecks.
But Mrs Peck said she was horrified when she learned that, in order to get a bigger loft room, Mrs Ranford instructed her workmen to build on the boundary line and encroach onto their property.
Mrs Ranford is fighting the case, claiming the Pecks consented to her building on top of the “party wall” separating the two homes.
She also claims that the work carried out to join the two was “unavoidable”.
The judge was told that both sides had been friendly before the row erupted, and Mrs Peck had even been given a torchlit tour of the extension after a dinner party in April 2014.
Most read in The Sun
But giving evidence, the 49-year-old told Judge Simon Monty QC that the work they consented to should have stopped short of the boundary between the two properties.
Their own loft conversion was itself just under an inch back from the party wall, and they are said to have understood Mrs Ranford’s room was to be positioned to leave a gap to allow for maintenance.
The first the Pecks knew of it having been joined was when a roofer investigating the cause of a leak shouted that her neighbour had built over the boundary, she said.
“We had no awareness that next door had built up and onto our property,” Mrs Peck, who runs a gender-neutral organic kids’ clothing business, told the judge.
“To see that, you have to be right at the end of our garden.
“Given the party wall notice we had signed, we had no cause to check on the works.”
Her husband, a singer-songwriter, added: “It was quite a shock to understand and discover that something very different had been built.”
Representing the couple, barrister Richard Egleton said Mrs Ranford had opted not to leave a gap between the two extensions because she did not want to have a smaller loft room.
Instead, the builder had extended the party wall upwards to use as the outer wall of Mrs Ranford’s loft room, with the space between the two dormers filled with material on the Pecks’ side to prevent weather damage.
‘TRESPASSING’
The barrister claimed the work had resulted in a “clear trespass” and that Mrs Ranford should be ordered to dismantle the dormer in order to remove the parts of the extension works which are on the Pecks’ side of the boundary and the party wall.
“The only person to benefit from this [trespass] is the defendant Mrs Ranford, though the defendant seeks to suggest that the work carried out is to the benefit of the claimants,” he told the judge.
“The defendant Mrs Ranford, on discovering that the claimants’ extension was 1.5cm or thereabouts from the party wall, did not wish her extension room to be smaller than shown on her architect’s plan – to allow for a bigger gap between the two dormers and hence easier maintenance – and so decided to proceed with the option of making the room bigger by building on the party wall.”
He added: “The claimants also contend that the works have interfered with the structural integrity of their property and caused damage in that in 2015, and again in 2018, they experienced leaks and cracks in the party wall at first floor level.
“The damage amounts to a nuisance.”
Mr Egleton said the clash between the neighbours had “blighted” both of their properties, since neither would be able to sell while the dispute rages on.
Mrs Ranford had herself failed twice to sell her flat, he said.
Giving evidence, Mrs Ranford said that building on the party wall and joining the dormers was “unavoidable” due to fire regulations and for the purpose of weather proofing.
It was quite a shock to understand and discover that something very different had been built.
Adam Peck
None of her actual extension is on the Pecks’ side of the boundary, just the infill material she said.
“We have not crossed over the wall in terms of our building,” she told the judge.
“The only overlapping part beyond the party wall is for the purpose of weather proofing.”
She added: “The pragmatic solution is to appoint a surveyor to advise us on a next step.
“We were always willing to follow a joint surveyor.”
The Pecks are asking for a “mandatory injunction requiring the removal of that part of the defendant’s dormer extension which is built on the party wall” or damages.
If the dormer extension is allowed to remain, they want Mrs Ranford to re-do the weather-proofing by replacing the infill.
Mrs Ranford is disputing the Pecks’ claim on the basis that it was filed too late after the work was carried out in 2014 and there had been no directly-related damage.
The trial continues.
4
