A judge ordered 65-year-old Parliament bell ringer Adrian Udal to pay a couple £10,000 after his ‘unjustifiable and unneighbourly’ move to dismantle their house gate
Parliament’s top bell ringer must stump up a five-figure penalty after ripping out his neighbour’s door – after he stunningly claimed he had the right to do so.
Adrian Udal, 65, has been ordered to pay a retired banking boss and his wife £10,000 after he was caught trying to remove the front gate to their home. Nicholas Partick-Hiley, 63, had planned to create a retirement paradise for himself and his wife Lisa when, in August 23, they bought their mews cottage in Fulham. But the two were shocked to witness what a judge described as “wanton destruction” as Mr Udal demolished the door and roller gate to their new home.
The bell ringer, who works at the Houses of Parliament’s St Margaret’s Church, located next to Westminster Abbey, had claimed he was exercising his rights as a landowner when he installed a new gate at the end of the driveway on the day they moved in. He lived to the left of their driveway, with his home extending above the entryway which leads to the Partick-Hiley’s home.
But furious Mr Partick-Hiley and his wife sued for an injunction against him, with Mark Warwick KC, representing the Patrick-Hileys, telling Mayors and City County Court Mr Partick Hiley was “astonished” when they discovered him ripping out the gate at 12pm.
The ex-financier “endeavoured to remain calm” and reached out to his solicitors, he added, but was left feeling “helpless” as demolition work continued for the next five hours. The couple claimed they had the right to put up new gates across the opening leading to their home, registering their “safety concerns” in the plush West London neighbourhood.
Mr Warwick KC added they were “also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services” with Mr Udal providing “no advance warning of any kind”.
The couple added that Mr Udal was also involved in a dispute with the previous owner of their home, and alleged he had plotted to finally remove the gate as they moved in.” The solicitor concluded: “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.”
Judge Nicholas Parfitt ruled that his conduct was “unjustifiable and unneighbourly”, and ordered him to pay out £10,000, adding in his ruling that “any reasonable and objective person” would realise would cause the home’s new owners distress.
He said: “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.”
He said the incident was a “wrongful act of wanton destruction…which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort”.