Former banker sued by millionaire Knightsbridge neighbours over leaking shower claim
A former Goldman Sachs banker has been sued for more than £100,000 by his millionaire neighbors in Knightsbridge after he allegedly collapsed the ceiling of his leaky shower.
Swedish real estate magnate Samuel Wagner and his wife Jennifer have found themselves in the private Lennox Gardens World War II apartment building due to “inconvenience and neglect related to leaks” and other problems in their upstairs neighbor Leda Sara’s flat. They have been evicted from their £1.4million home in the Grade II-listed building three times and face thousands in repair bills.
Ms Sara, a Goldman Sachs banker, interior designer and estate agent for the mega-rich, bought her own flat for £1.6 million in 2014 and began gutting and renovating it before renting it out.
But now a lawsuit has been filed by Mr and Mrs Wagner for more than £100,000. Wagner said multiple leaks from the upstairs apartment, as well as “excessive heat loss, vermin, dust and garbage accumulation” during the renovation, caused “inconvenience” and forced them to move to a rented house three times.
They also claim delays in confirming the leaks had been fixed caused the sale of their flat to be “priced out”, costing them £60,000, and are demanding the former banker pay them compensation.
But Ms Sara, 50, is defending the case, claiming she had no responsibility to the neighboring couple and blaming the contractors who carried out the renovations for any problems.
He also objects to the amounts requested by Mr. and Mrs. Wagner.
Lennox Gardens is one of the most exclusive garden squares in Knightsbridge, with houses on the square valued at up to £40 million.
The houses surrounding the gardens were built around 1886, when the 1,139 acres of private communal gardens in the center were located on the site of the former Prince’s Cricket Ground of the late 19th-century Prince’s Club.
The mayors and the City District Court heard Ms Sara, who now runs her own company focusing on acquiring and managing luxury properties for “high net worth individuals”, bought the flat above Mr and Mrs Wagner’s home in 2014 and immediately ran into problems with her downstairs neighbors as she proceeded to dismantle the furniture, kitchen, bathroom and partition walls as well as the lowered ceiling.
“The plaintiffs’ claim is that these early works caused problems such as excessive heat loss and pests, as well as accumulations of dust and garbage,” the couple’s lawyer, Joseph Meethan, told Judge Stephen Hellman.
He told the judge that additional work to the flat in 2019 forced the couple to temporarily move out of their home, where a leaky shower caused their ceiling to collapse and “flooding” in their home caused by a faulty sprinkler system upstairs led them to move twice more the following year.
The couple decided to move into the house in 2020 and leave their neighbors’ problems behind, but they sold the flat which collapsed in 2022, costing them more than £60,000 in extra second home stamp duty because they were unable to sell the flat within the three-year limit after buying the other property.
The lawyer now said that the loss of this sale was due to Ms. Sara’s failure to provide evidence that the leaks were fixed within the required time frame.
He told the judge: “A number of leaks… have affected Chamber 4.
“On 18 August 2019, a damp area appeared on the ceiling of Flat 4. This was due to a leak from the shower in Flat 5… The ceiling of Flat 4 collapsed and the plaintiffs moved in from 27 September 2019 to 4 November 2019.
“Further leaks occurred in the common area of the building in October 2021, July 2022 and October 2022, and another leak occurred in the kitchen of Flat 4 on August 1, 2022.
“It was the defendant’s responsibility to ensure that the outcome of the works was of high quality. The ongoing problems with leaks show that this was not done.
“The plaintiffs had to leave their homes three times due to the defendant’s poor choice of contractor and lack of care for the neighbors. The defendant should be responsible for the damages resulting from this.”
However, Faisel Sadiq, on behalf of Ms. Sara, denied that he was obliged to make any payment. He told the judge: “The plaintiffs are suing for nuisance and negligence that occurred during the work carried out in Flat 5.
“Plaintiffs seek damages for inconvenience and/or inconvenience caused to them in the course of carrying out the works.
“Plaintiffs also seek damages for inconvenience and/or negligence resulting from two leaks into Flat 4.
“Claimants were aware at all times that the work was being carried out by independent contractors.
“Defendant’s general position is that it is not legally liable for the negligence of an independent contractor or for the inconvenience caused by him.
“The plaintiffs cannot succeed in their claims against the defendant. As is clear from the case law, the land owner is not the insurer of all independent contractors performing work on his land.
“Generally speaking, the landowner will not be liable for a nuisance caused by a third party. Where a nuisance is caused by a third party, the landowner will only be liable for the nuisance if he or she was negligent in removing the nuisance after becoming aware that the nuisance had occurred.
“In addition, a landowner may be liable for nuisance caused by an independent contractor if he or she could reasonably foresee that the work he or she instructed the independent contractor to do would result in a nuisance.
“Plaintiffs’ claim is wholly misconstrued as purportedly intended to hold the defendant liable for inconvenience or negligence caused by independent contractors or its tenant. As a matter of law, the claim must be dismissed.”
In relation to the claim for a refund of lost stamp duty “allegedly due to the plaintiff’s inability to sell the property because of the plaintiff’s failure to prove that leaks into Flat 4 had been remedied”, counsel said: “There is no contention that the defendant owes the plaintiffs a duty to provide such evidence.”
“Beyond the plaintiffs’ submission, there is insufficient evidence that the sale of Flat 4 failed due to, or primarily because of, the lack of details provided by the defendant in relation to the remedial works on Flat 5.”
The lawyer added that Ms Sara had brought a claim against a contractor who carried out work at her flat during the disputed period, demanding compensation for damages suffered in connection with their work.
The trial continues.
