Our neighbour has to pay us £237,000 after his £4m mansion’s extension crossed 18 INCHES into our home

A MOTIVATIONAL speaker must pay his neighbours £237,000 after his £4million mansion’s extension crossed 18inches into their home.

Tom Gueterbock and his wife Helen sued multimillionaire Alex MacPhail for staging an alleged “land grab” when building a cellar room under the boundary which separates their homes.

5

5

5

Mr MacPhail, 55, is now facing a £530,000 court bill for constructing the house in Wandsworth, south west London, too close to next door.

The Gueterbocks said the basement of his six-bed house crossed the line between their properties by up to 18in in places, tunnelling up to and even underneath the wall of their house in a sought-after street.

The row led to a legal battle, with the couple demanding Mr MacPhail fill in some of his basement and partially demolish his house above ground to move it a few inches further away.

The fight ended last year, and Mr MacPhail agreed to pay his neighbours £237,000 in damages and costs.

His own bills totalled about £283,000, and the work on the passageway will set him back a further £12,000.

However, he is now continuing his fight and trying to force a “developer” he blames for the construction work to cough up the cash instead.

Mr MacPhail says the company, Henderson Court Ltd (HCL), failed him in building the basement bigger than that for which planning permission had been obtained.

And he says the firm, through its insurers, should be held liable for the £530,000 bill he was left facing.

But the company denies any liability, claiming that Mr MacPhail carried out a “self-build” that he alone is responsible for.

HCL claims it was not the “developer” but merely a vehicle through which ownership of the building plots was acquired.

Central London County Court heard that Mr MacPhail’s house was built between 2015 and 2018 as part of a development to replace a block of flats built on a Second World War bomb site.

The plan was for a property more in keeping with the rest of the affluent Edwardian street on which it stood, in Wandsworth’s sought after ‘Toast Rack’ streets.

Mr MacPhail – formerly a successful commodities broker and now motivational speaker – was invited by a business associate to be part of the plan, investing £2.5m to get a plot of land on which his new home would be built.

But web and app developer Mr Gueterbock, 53, – son of Labour peer Anthony Gueterbock, the 18th Baron Berkley – and his wife later objected when they realised that it had been built closer to their home than they expected.

It meant a passageway between the properties had been narrowed to less than 3ft, making access to their back garden and the side door of their house difficult.

Additionally, despite planning permission being granted for a basement directly underneath the new house, the builders had in fact extended it under the alleyway and up to and under the wall of the Gueterbocks’ house, they said.

EXTENSION ROW

They sued, claiming trespass on their property on the basis that the true boundary ran along the centre line of the alleyway between the two houses.

They also alleged that in narrowing the passageway, the MacPhail house had caused “nuisance” in that their right of access along the full width of it had been interfered with.

But shortly before the case was due to reach trial last year, Mr MacPhail agreed to settle the row by paying the couple £100,000 and doing about £12,000 worth of work to the alleyway.

He also agreed to cover their £137,000 lawyers’ bill, leaving him facing over £530,000 in total due to his own £283,000 costs of the case.

However, Mr MacPhail now argues that the bill should be footed by HCL and its insurer, because the company had built the house for him.

His barrister Sebastian Kokelaar told Judge Nicholas Parfitt: “It is Mr MacPhail’s case that he entered into an agreement with HCL pursuant to which HCL agreed to transfer [the property] to him and [his then wife], and to build a new house for them on the property in accordance with a planning consent dated 13 February 2013.

“HCL owed him [and his then wife] a duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill in building the new house; it breached that duty by departing from the planning consent and building the new house in such a way that it encroached unto [next door], thereby exposing him to liability to the claimants in trespass and nuisance.”

The company claims that Mr MacPhail, as well as owners of the other plots on which new houses were built, had developed their own land in a “self-build” capacity, with a third party managing the projects.

But Mr MacPhail insists that the works were not managed on behalf of him and his wife, but on behalf of the company, which had had the house built for him.

‘UTTERLY PERPLEXING’

Although he was at a later stage made a director of the company himself, Mr MacPhail and his then partner had been “customers” of HCL, not property developers themselves, he claims.

“There can be no doubt that HCL failed to construct the new house in accordance with the terms of the planning consent,” said his barrister.

“The drawings, by reference to which the planning consent was granted, showed that the basement of the new house would not extend beneath the passageway.

“For reasons that remain unclear, HCL actually built a significantly larger basement which extends up to the flank wall of the house [next door].

“The evidence shows that Mr MacPhail had only very limited involvement in the construction process, limited to making decisions about internal décor.

“In particular, he had no involvement in, or responsibility for, the decision not to build in accordance with the approved plans, but to extend the basement up to the flank wall of the house.

“That decision was HCL’s and HCL should be responsible for the consequences.

“On the basis that Mr and Mrs Gueterbock’s case on the boundary was correct, the new house encroached onto [next door] at basement level by some 44cm at the front and 26cm at the rear.”

Representing HCL, one of its directors Giles Andrews told the judge that Mr MacPhail, as well as the owners of the other plots on the site of the former flats, had been involved in “self-builds” and so was responsible for what was constructed.

He said the company was not a “developer/contractor” and complained that Mr MacPhail’s decision to settle the case for £100,000 was “utterly perplexing”.

They knew what was being built, he claimed, and their property had not been harmed because the replacement of the flats with better quality housing actually improved the aesthetic quality of the area.

He also said it was down to Mr MacPhail to make sure that what was built was within the planning permission granted.

“Alex MacPhail was the legal owner of the land and he should have satisfied himself it was being built where he wanted it built,” he said.

For the company’s insurer Allianz, Julian Field argued that it should not have to pay if HCL is found liable, but that HCL is not liable in any event.

Mr MacPhail’s agreement for the house to be built was not with the company, and Mr MacPhail had “artificially constructed” a case against it, he told the judge.

“Had [the property] been constructed in accordance with the planning permission that had been obtained, there would have no encroachment,” he added.

“Had it been so constructed, i.e. 90cm from [next door] both above and below ground, there would have been no encroachment.”

The trial continues.

5

5

This post first appeared on thesun.co.uk