Kingston Love Me Do Brides owner Sharon Underwood sues landlords over leaks that ‘ruined dresses and her marriage’

A bridal boutique owner is seeking more than £500,000 in compensation from her landlords, claiming constant leaks at her Kingston-upon-Thames store not only destroyed hundreds of wedding dresses but also contributed to the collapse of her marriage.

Sharon Underwood, whose company Love Me Do Brides Ltd has been featured on popular TV shows such as C4’s We Married at First Sight and the BBC Don’t Tell the BrideHe claims the extensive damage left him “in despair”.

Ms Underwood, 57, opened a two-storey “flagship” boutique in Kingston-upon-Thames in 2005, after opening a successful first store in Surrey.

But she claims the facility, where trade has been carried out for more than 14 years, has suffered from constant leaks and dampness that have destroyed or damaged hundreds of garments, including wedding dresses, veils and tiaras.

This led to hundreds of items being thrown away or donated to charity, while many more were sold at discounted prices due to damage or became obsolete after long-term storage, leading to significant lost profits.

Ms Underwood claims the ongoing problems at her shop caused her “serious mental distress”, leading to the “breakdown of her marriage” and “feelings of entrapment, shame and despair”.

He eventually vacated the premises in 2019 and is now taking legal action against his former landlords, father and son Muhammad and Areeb Azam, for over £500,000 in stock, profits and other damages.

The store was supposed to be her “flagship boutique, a source of pride and professional achievement” but turned into a nightmare due to leaks and moisture, her lawyers said.

But the homeowners dispute her claim, arguing they cannot be blamed for the damage and saying they are “deeply concerned about the accuracy” of the losses Ms Underwood claims to have suffered.

Central London District Court heard Ms Underwood began her career in the wedding industry in 2003 and opened her first boutique in Walton-on-Thames in 2004, before expanding by opening a second store in 2005.

According to the business’s website, it has won many bridal industry awards as well as been featured on TV and glossy magazines. OK! And Hello!

In 2007, Ms. Underwood herself appeared on the show’s first episode from the Walton store. Don’t Tell the Bride On BBC3, she helps save a devastated bride’s wedding by supplying her with a new dress after the groom botches his first choice.

Judge Simon Monty told KC the new shop was much larger than the Walton branch, occupying the ground floor and basement of a double-fronted building in Park Road, Kingston.

But Ms Underwood claims there were problems from the start, including a lack of potable water, the tank becoming unusable due to the smell of gas, followed by increased humidity and repeated leaks.

“There were significant problems with moisture and leaks, which caused a lot of damage to the stock and eventually forced the plaintiffs to take out all the stock and cease trading in this store,” said her lawyer Antonida Kocharova.

Ms Underwood claims the leaks are coming from a variety of places, including the flat roof and awning, as well as two adjoining flats owned by the homeowners, the Azams.

As evidence, he described a specific incident in 2014 when he received a call from an employee who said there was a leak in the basement kitchen, which was also used as a stock room, and water was running down the walls.

“The clothes just below the leak were so badly damaged that they had to be thrown away or given to charity,” he told the judge.

“When the water came down from the ceiling, it hit the boxes, and then when it spread, it was absorbed by the boxes.”

Ms. Underwood said 75 items, including wedding and bridal dresses, veils, tiaras and hoop skirts, were so badly damaged they could not be sold, while the other 106 items had to be sold at a discount.

In a leak that occurred in the same region in 2015, 79 items were lost and 155 items were sold below their real value. He described the carpet in the basement as “soaked”.

“There was carpet on the stairs,” he said.

“It used to be wet enough to leave footprints.

“We were always moving things around. The leak would resolve and we’d move it somewhere else, and then there’d be another leak.”

She told the judge that giving so many dresses to charity meant she had to visit local shops because it would be embarrassing to return to the same shops.

Ms Underwood suffered “serious mental distress”, her lawyer told the judge: “This included significant debts caused by the breakdown of her marriage and ongoing problems, feelings of entrapment, shame and despair.

“The evidence shows that the Kingston store was intended to be a flagship boutique, a source of pride and professional achievement, but has instead been marred by permanent disrepair and disrepute.

“Mental distress, inconvenience and ill health were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ breaches as the continued lack of repair rendered the premises unfit for its intended purpose.”

“During this time Ms Underwood worked long hours trying to run the business from two stores with a small staff and had limited time available to arrange a mass move.

“The problems became such a daily part of the plaintiffs’ existence that Ms Underwood did not realize the extent of her losses until she vacated the property and received legal advice.

“Witness accounts…describe the daily reality of working in a dangerous, unpleasant and embarrassing environment, including repeated water damage, dangerous electricity and cursed basement facilities.

“Staff were exposed to electric shock when using sockets.”

Ms. Underwood and the company are suing Mohammed Azam as the freeholder of the building, Areeb Azam as the lead tenant, and both as owners of two adjacent apartments where some of the alleged leaks originated.

Ms Kocharova argued that they had breached their obligations as landlords by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent parts of the building from falling into disrepair and causing water intrusion.

“The plaintiffs’ case is that the loss and damage complained of arose not only from the defendants’ breach of contract and lease, but also from their failure to take reasonable care in respect of the retained and adjoining parts of the building,” he said.

Landlords should have understood that if the shop was affected by leaks and dampness, stocks could be damaged and the business could suffer losses.

“The alleged losses in respect of damaged wedding dresses and related stock are therefore not far-fetched, but are the natural and foreseeable consequence of disrepair,” he said.

“In the case of wedding dresses, it was noted that stock had to be sold below value, not only because of direct damage, but also because it had gone out of fashion while in storage.”

Attorney Ben Maltz, on behalf of the landlords, argued that “clear and unequivocal wording” in the lease made it clear that the rental property did not include the basement area.

Problems with a flat roof, awning or store frontage will also be the tenant’s responsibility as they are part of the physical characteristics of the building.

He said that in the case filed against the property owners who own the adjacent flats, the flats would have to be used in a way that would damage the shop or there would be negligence on the part of the owners.

“It is argued that there is no clear evidence that leaks from apartments are linked to the same recurring problem/defect,” he said.

“The passage of time between leaks indicates different causes. In fact, Ms Underwood accepts that the first leak in Flat 4 on 9 June 2017 was caused by the tenant’s child leaving the bathroom running.

“In relation to the leaks in Flat 1, it is submitted that there is no convincing evidence that the three leaks in a four-year period were caused by the same cause.

“The time gaps between each of these leaks and the fact that the third leak was at a different location…suggest from Chamber 1 that there was no permanent or recurring leak for which the defendant could be held liable for nuisance and/or negligence.

“In fact, the third leak was caused by concealed faulty piping that had to be accessed by cutting through the ceiling of the building to locate and fix the defendants’ workers, after which the hole in the ceiling was plugged.”

Dampness in the basement and water seepage through the flat roof were also already known when the lease was signed, so a claim for damages resulting from nuisance or negligence cannot be made, he said.

Mr. Maltz also questioned whether Ms. Underwood’s figures for lost dresses and lost profits were accurate, noting that she did not provide evidence of this in many cases.

The landlords are also counterclaiming for payment of £28,000 of unpaid rent and a further £10,855 due under the terms of the tenancy.

The trial continues.