London Couple's £3.6 Million High Court Fight Over Luxury Flat Defects
A couple who purchased a luxury waterside apartment in London are embroiled in a £3.6 million High Court dispute with developers, alleging a catalogue of defects including badly fitted toilets, persistent odours from neighbouring properties, and leaky plumbing systems. Julian Thirsk, aged 54, and Emma King, 49, invested nearly £700,000 in their apartment situated on the banks of the former reservoir, now the picturesque Woodberry Wetlands nature park near Finsbury Park in north London, back in 2012.
Prestigious Development with Alleged Flaws
Their flat forms part of a prestigious development comprising over 5,000 homes overlooking the idyllic nature park, which attracts birdwatchers and walkers and was officially inaugurated by Sir David Attenborough in 2016. However, Mr Thirsk and Mrs King are now locked in a multimillion pound court battle with Berkeley Homes over a series of alleged construction deficiencies in their property.
Among the numerous complaints, the couple assert that defective toilets have leaked on six separate occasions and even pose "a risk of personal injury due to their pans being installed in a manner which fails to prevent users being tipped forward." They also contend that the three bedroom apartment suffers from inadequate water pressure and that the bath plug fails to seal correctly, causing the bath to drain too rapidly for practical use.
Additional Grievances and Legal Claims
Further issues cited include "wobbly tiles" on the terrace, unpleasant smells permeating from other flats, and rooms overheating because a "curtain wall" designed to mitigate solar heat transfer is not functioning properly. The couple are seeking over £1.2 million in compensation, with a High Court judge estimating that combined legal fees could reach approximately £2.4 million.
Legal representatives for two companies within the Berkeley Homes group are refuting liability and accuse the couple of exaggerating the problems associated with their flat. According to court documents, Mr Thirsk and Ms King, a research director at an international professional services firm, paid almost £700,000 for their flat in 2012, which included a £30,000 parking space.
Development Background and Initial Agreements
The apartment is located within a block that features an on site gym, swimming pool, and a 24 hour concierge service. The Woodberry Downs development is a 30 year initiative aimed at replacing older housing on the edge of the former reservoirs with luxury modern designed blocks. Commencing in 2009, the project is anticipated to eventually encompass more than 5,500 properties, set amidst leafy garden spaces and within metres of the water's edge.
The two reservoirs, previously closed to the public since the 19th century, now host a sailing lake and nature reserve, with reed fringed ponds attracting migratory birds, butterflies, moths, dragonflies, and frogs. Mr Thirsk and Mrs King state they first noticed "defective construction works" after moving into their flat in June 2012 and ultimately agreed a list of remedial works with Berkeley Homes (Capital) Plc in 2014.
Remedial Works and Ongoing Disputes
This work was intended to address the ventilation system, sunlight and temperature controlled automatic blinds, flooring, plumbing, and other "snagging" issues. They vacated the property to facilitate the work in July 2014, returning in March 2015, but allege it was not executed adequately and that several defects persisted.
They are now pursuing claims exceeding £1.2 million, covering the costs of rectifying the alleged problems and associated losses, including rental expenses incurred during their temporary relocation. For the couple, barrister Daniel Benedyk outlines in court documents that the flat's issues are extensive, impacting toilets and plumbing, ventilation, heat regulation, floors, and the terrace.
Specific Allegations and Counterarguments
He referenced the "defective installation of toilets within the main bathroom and the en suite bathroom to the master bedroom contrary to manufacturer instructions and/or the poor quality of their components." This has allegedly caused flooding on six occasions and presents an ongoing risk of flooding to the property and other flats within the block.
The fitting of the toilets also purportedly creates a "risk of personal injury" and potential water damage due to improper installation. Additional problems encompass defective fixing of toilets to walls, inaccessible cisterns preventing maintenance, and flooring issues where tiles have arched, loosened, and cracked due to inadequate expansion joints.
The "curtain wall" system, designed to prevent heat transfer, has not achieved the desired effect, leading to significant "solar gain." The outdoor terrace paving is described as unstable, with a "lack of soundproofing" in key areas and "external odours" entering the kitchen from adjacent properties. Fire safety concerns are also raised, including allegations that fire escape steps are too narrow and positioned too far from their door.
Mr Benedyk argues that "work has not been carried out in a workmanlike and/or professional manner and/or with proper materials." The claim is directed against Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd, as freeholder, and Berkeley Homes (Capital) Ltd, as the entity responsible for post move in work.
Defence and Legal Proceedings
However, Berkeley Homes (North East London) contends it has not been the couple's landlord since 2015 when their lease was transferred to another company and denies liability regardless. Barrister Laura Adams, representing Berkeley Homes (Capital), denies liability for any alleged defects and suggests many purported problems could be resolved if the couple permitted worker access.
She informed the court: "To the extent that there are allegedly outstanding defects at the property, these are not necessarily defects for which Berkeley Homes (Capital) is liable but has offered on a number of occasions to address. The claimants however have refused access to the defendants when they have sought to carry out works and/or investigate the allegations made on multiple occasions."
Addressing specific complaints, she stated that toilets were properly installed with no injury risk, and any necessary minor works could be completed with access. Defects to tiles due to lack of expansion joints were denied, as such joints are not recommended by manufacturers for small spaces like the flat. She admitted minor remedial works are required but deemed replacing all floor tiling as "disproportionate and unnecessary."
She further denied that any defect has rendered the dwelling unfit for habitation, noting the couple have occupied the property for over nine years post 2014 works without health or safety risks. The London Fire Brigade reportedly found "no significant failure to comply" with fire safety regulations during a visit.
Costs and Future Trial
The case recently reached the High Court for a decision on permissible expenditure for each side in bringing the dispute to trial. While the couple's costs budget was agreed at approximately £1.15 million, there was contention over Berkeley's combined budget of £2.1 million. Judge Roger Ter Haar KC set their costs at just over £1.2 million, describing the initial amount as "prima facie disproportionate" since it nearly doubled the claim amount and approached twice the claimants' budget.
The case will now proceed to a full trial of Mr Thirsk and Mrs King's claim at a later date, unless the parties reach an out of court settlement.
