Fashion director Paula Reed in legal fight with barrister Tom Grayson Ford over £5.5m Notting Hill home ‘plagued by floods and mice’

A high-profile fashion director is facing charges of “misrepresentation” and “deception” in the sale of his £5.5 million home in Notting Hill, which a top lawyer and his wife secretly claimed had been damaged by floods, leaks and mice.

Former Harvey Nichols fashion director and well-known media personality Paula Reed is being sued by commercial lawyer Tom Grayson Ford and his wife Jessica, who purchased the six-storey property in December 2024.

Mrs. Reed in TV shows Project Podium And 10 Years YoungerHe denies any knowledge of the alleged puddles or mouse infestation in the basement.

The couple claims their basement was flooded due to heavy rain shortly after moving in, they were plagued by “lots of feces” as well as “live and dead mice” and had to deal with a leaking kitchen roof.

They claim they were promised during the sale process that the multimillion-pound house would be “well refurbished and in ‘move-in’ condition”, suggesting the problems were pre-existing and Ms Reed should have been aware of them.

But Ms Reed vehemently denies any prior knowledge of the matters the multimillionaire couple complained about.

In his defense, he argues that the leak in the kitchen may have been caused spontaneously by the Fords removing the “custom-made green roof of ferns and vines” that once covered that part of the house.

The fashion writer and consultant had sold the architect-designed property in Westbourne Grove as she transitioned from a couture career in the city, retreating to Cornwall to renovate a former vicarage; He documented this process in a column. Good Housekeeping magazine.

The Notting Hill house was renovated decades ago by her ex-husband, the famous architect Alfred Munkenbeck.

In the legal battle, the Fords are seeking either the right to return the property or compensation for more than £1 million, arguing that Ms Reed deliberately or “carelessly” failed to disclose alleged defects in the property.

The seven-bedroom, three-bathroom, six-storey townhouse at the center of the fray is located in Westbourne Grove in the heart of stylish Notting Hill, close to Portobello Market.

A host of famous faces have called the area home over the years, including Damon Albarn, Stella McCartney, Robbie Williams, Sir Elton John, David Cameron, Lindsay Lohan and Harry Styles.

Mrs. Reed, formergrazia magazine’s fashion editor sold her property in December 2024, having started a new life in the country after moving to a vicarage in Morwenstow, Cornwall, listed for £1.2 million.

The lawyer and his wife, who have two young children, say in their claim documents that a month after they bought the house and moved in, “when they returned a week later during the New Year’s holiday, they discovered that there had been flooding following heavy rain on January 5, 2025, and such flooding had clearly occurred before.”

“This type of flooding also occurred later during prolonged heavy rain,” they say, and also complain about “other defects and problems” that they say “must have been present by the date of replacement and completion.”

These included a leaky kitchen and a mouse infestation evidenced by “a significant number of rodent traps – both spring and poison – left on the property, as well as the presence of mice – live and dead – in and around the kitchen and ground floor, along with numerous faeces and gaps and crevices allowing entry.”

They accuse Ms Reed of making “a series of separate false statements” [which] demonstrates willingness and intention [Ms Reed] “to conceal the truth and hide matters that could adversely affect the sale of the property” and insist that “they would not have purchased the property on the same terms or at all if the false representations had not been made.”

“In response to pre-contract inquiries… the defendant, the seller of the property, made a number of written misrepresentations which were intended to induce the plaintiffs to proceed with entering into a contract to purchase the property and did so.

“The plaintiffs were persuaded to pay a sum of £5,500,000, together with an additional stamp duty of £571,250 plus other transaction costs, thus causing the plaintiffs a loss.

“Each of the misrepresentations was known by the defendant to be false or had no belief in their truth, alternatively was reckless as to the truth or falsity of the statements made, and plaintiffs are entitled to relief in tort and in equity, including a declaration that they had the right to cancel the transaction and, if they so choose, corresponding relief plus damages; in the alternative, rescission and/or damages in lieu of fraud,” they say.

However, in her response, Ms Reed insists that “the statements she made in response to these pre-contract inquiries were accurate and therefore there was no misrepresentation” or “in the alternative, she genuinely believed the statements to be true and had reasonable grounds for that belief”.

Ms Reed’s lawyer, Faisel Sadiq, said in his defense of the case submitted to London’s High Court that “there was no flooding at the property and no vermin infestation” while he lived at the house.

He says the house was rented out after 2020 and he has not received any complaints or reports of flooding or vermin from tenants.

He notes that the basement, which the couple said was the epicenter of the “flood”, was the “pump room” of a former swimming pool in the garden, now converted into a pond, and that “it did not store water and was not intended for residential purposes when it was built”.

The room was “always damp, the humidity level increases significantly after rain,” he says, adding that “in some cases, after very heavy rains, a few small water spots can be found on the floor.”

He adds that Ms. Reed used it as a warehouse and would deal with the humid atmosphere by placing “moisture absorbers” on the floor.

He denied any attempt by Ms Reed to conceal dampness, saying: “Damp absorbers were present in the pump room when Mr. Grayson Ford inspected the property on September 23, 2024. Damp absorbers were also present in the pump room when the building inspector inspected the property on October 18, 2023.”

Addressing the alleged leak in the kitchen roof, which the couple said needed replacing, the lawyer said: “The extension roof contained soil, ferns and ivy that Ms Reed had placed there in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

“The roof of the extension was impermeable and was designed by Alfred Munkenbeck so that soil and vegetation could be placed over Mrs Reed.

“Ms. Reed notes that in recent photographs of the property sent to her by the plaintiffs, the soil and vegetation appear to have been completely removed from the roof.

“The defendant has no knowledge of the steps plaintiffs and/or their representatives took to ensure that no damage was caused to the roof while soil and vegetation were being removed.”

The case reached court last week for a brief pre-trial hearing before High Court judge Master Katherine McQuail, where Mr Grayson Ford and his wife were represented by barrister Gavin Bennison.

The judge ordered that a specialist building inspector be appointed to investigate the house and provide evidence as to “what condition the property was in when it was completed and whether there were signs of flooding”.

Unless resolved out of court, the case will be heard again at a later date.