Father and son hit with £20k court bill after laundry left on patio of neighbour’s London flat

A father and son are facing a £20,000 court bill after a neighbor dispute over access to the passage escalated and resulted in the family’s laundry being left to dry on a private veranda.

Musician Jodie Schloss accused Robin Larkins and her father Derek Larkins of harassment and trespassing.

The row centered on a passage leading to the backyard of the Victorian villa at Swiss Cottage, Strathray Gardens, where Mrs Schloss and Robin Larkins reside.

Although the passage formed part of Ms Schloss’s home, for many years she had allowed other residents of the five-storey building, where prices for flats often exceeded £2 million, to use it for garden access.

But after Mrs. Schloss decided to revoke this access, a heated dispute arose with Robin Larkins and her elderly father, Derek, who had long served as the property’s gardener and maintenance man.

Ms Schloss claimed that the passage gate next to her front door had been forced open twice and once the lock had been changed without her knowledge.

Frustration came to a head when Robin Larkins’ family laundry was discovered drying on their private porch at the rear of the property.

He sought an injunction to prevent further attacks and despite both men agreeing never to set foot in his passageway again, father and son were handed a £20,000 bill for the case.

Lord Mayor and Judge Stephen Hellman, sitting in the City County Court, said the fact that the door had been forced twice by Derek Larkins and his son had been there once meant a large costs bill was in order.

The court heard Ms Schloss and Robin Larkins owned garden flats in large detached villas on an affluent North London street.

Each has the right to use the garden; Robin Larkins has access to the garden directly from the back door, and Mrs. Schloss has access to the garden from her own property.

According to the court, for 30 years people living in other flats of the house were also able to use the garden and access it through the passage next to the flat to which Ms Schloss gave the keys.

But when he changed his mind and wrote to others withdrawing his consent last August, citing “legitimate privacy concerns”, a violent row broke out between neighbours.

In court, her lawyer, John Clargo, said Ms. Schloss no longer wanted people walking along the walkway because it was an “invasion of her sense of privacy” having it so close to her front door.

However, although she was able to access the garden herself from the back door of her flat, Robin and her father complained that other residents were denied access to the garden.

The lawyer said the duo then began a campaign of “trespassing and harassment”.

“On September 1, 2025, Derek Larkins insisted that he had the right to use the gate and Robin Larkins threatened to dismantle the gate,” he told the judge.

“Later on September 1, 2025, he overheard two men in the hallway discussing whether he was outside, and on the morning of September 2, he saw that the lock on the door was damaged.

“He felt vulnerable and left his flat. When he returned to collect his belongings on 6 September 2025, he noticed further damage to the lock and deduced from the CCTV footage that this had been done by Robin Larkins.

“Robin telephoned the police when she was told Derek Larkins and someone else were in the corridor. Robin was persuaded to give Larkins a key, but when she watched CCTV footage of her father using a crowbar, she decided not to.”

“On October 2, 2025, Robin Larkins changed the lock on the door and failed to provide the key despite requests from Ms. Schloss’ attorney.

“The locks were changed again as Ms. Schloss was not given a key. On March 22, 2026, Derek Larkins forced the lock and they used the gate multiple times on that date and on March 24, 2026.”

“On April 9, 2026, Robin Larkins’ family’s laundry was hung on Mrs. Schloss’ porch.”

Asking for an injunction to prevent any trespass, Mr Clargo described the two men’s behavior as “unreasonable”, saying Ms Schloss was right about the passage and that no tenants other than Robin Larkins had access to the garden.

Mr Larkins, who represented himself in court, insisted they did so because they wanted to protect other neighbours’ access to the garden.

“This whole argument doesn’t really affect me because I have direct access to the garden from my apartment,” he told the judge.

“The real problem is the residents in the building who have been using this common area from the side passage for 30 years.

“For 30 years everyone had access to the common garden.

“People paid a service fee for garden maintenance. Everyone in the building contributed and everyone had access to the garden.

“The pass is the only way [for the other residents] Having access to the backyard.

“I’m here today because I believe the residents in the building have the right to use the common garden.”

When told that their behavior in the dispute could be considered “unreasonable”, Robin Larkins replied: “My behavior was only because we believed we were in the right and that all people in the building should have access to the garden.

“There is no ill will in this.”

Regarding the laundry left on Ms. Schloss’s porch, she said her housekeeper had unknowingly hung it there and was told not to do that again.

But Mr. Clargo said the evidence showed that other occupants of the house did not have the right to use the garden or Ms. Schloss’s passageway.

And although Robin Larkins has a “non-exclusive right to use the garden,” he continued, she has neither the need nor the authority to use Mrs. Schloss’s passageway to get there.

After a three-hour hearing, Judge Hellman accepted the legally binding undertakings of the father and son not to enter the porch or hallway again until the case is heard in full at a later date.

“I can understand how the letter from Ms. Schloss came as a shock,” he said.

“It is a sad fact that for most of the other tenants there is no way of accessing the garden other than through the passage.

“The defendants’ position is that they are primarily trying to protect what they understand to be the rights of tenants.

“Secondly, Derek has worked as the property’s gardener and general maintenance man for many years and this includes accessing the manholes in the passage and uses this passage to enter and exit the garden.”

He later learned that the two men were required to pay Ms. Schloss’s lawyers’ bills, in part because of their actions regarding Derek Larkins forcing the door with his son.

Having agreed to make commitments in court, Robin and Derek Larkins are now legally bound not to set foot on Ms. Schloss’s porch or walkway without permission.

The case will return to court for a full hearing at a later date unless the parties reach an agreement first.

Telling them there was “overwhelming evidence” that Ms Schloss was right to use the bypass, the judge warned the men of even bigger “eye-watering” court bills if they continued fighting and lost.