Couple who claim sitting on toilet in their luxury London flat carries ‘risk of personal injury’ in £3.6m court fight
A couple who bought a luxury seaside flat in London have sued in a £3.6 million High Court case after complaining that the toilets in their home posed a risk of people falling while sitting on the toilet.
Julian Thirsk and Emma King spent nearly £700,000 in 2012 on their flat near Finsbury Park in north London, on the banks of the former reservoir and Woodberry Wetlands, now an idyllic nature park dubbed “London’s best kept secret”.
Its flats are part of a prestigious 5,000-plus residential development overlooking the nature park, which is popular with bird watchers and walkers and was officially opened by Sir David Attenborough in 2016.
But Mr Thirsk, 54, and Ms King, 49, are now locked in a multimillion-pound court fight with developers Berkeley Homes over a series of alleged “flaws” at the property.
Among other complaints, they say the faulty toilets leaked six times and even “posed a risk of personal injury because the pans were positioned in a way that failed to prevent users from tipping forward.”
The couple also claim the three-bed flat had poor water pressure and the bath stopper was not closed properly, causing the bath to run too fast to be used.
They also complain about “shaking tiles” on the terrace, odors coming from other flats, and rooms overheating because the “curtain wall” designed to keep out solar heat is not working properly.
They are now suing for more than £1.2 million in damages, in a case where a High Court judge said lawyers’ bills were also likely to be around £2.4 million.
But lawyers for two companies in the Berkeley Homes group deny liability and accuse the couple of exaggerating problems with their flats.
Mr Thirsk and Ms King, a research director at an international professional services firm, paid almost £700,000 for their flat in 2012, according to documents lodged at the High Court.
The £30,000 flat, which has parking space, is located in a block on the site that has an on-site gym and swimming pool, as well as a 24-hour concierge service.
The Woodberry Downs project is a 30-year program to replace old housing on the edge of old reservoirs with luxury, modern-design blocks.
The project, which began in 2009, is expected to eventually include more than 5,500 properties located around lush garden areas and meters from the water’s edge.
Closed to the public since the 19th century, the two reservoirs now host a sailing lake and nature reserve with reed-lined ponds that attract migratory birds, butterflies, moths, dragonflies and frogs.
Mr Thirsk and Ms King say they first noticed “defective building work” after moving into their flat in June 2012 and eventually agreed a list of works to be carried out with Berkeley Homes (Capital) Plc in 2014.
The work included work on the ventilation system, automatic shutters with sunlight and temperature control, floor works, plumbing and other “blockages”.
They left to allow the work to be carried out in July 2014 and returned in March 2015, but said the work had not been adequately done and some defects remained.
They are now suing for more than £1.2 million, including the cost of fixing the alleged problems and other losses related to the defects, including the cost of rent when they had to move.
Lawyer Daniel Benedyk said in court documents on behalf of the couple that the problems with the apartment were numerous, affecting the toilets, plumbing, ventilation, heat, flooring and terrace, among other things.
He cited “improper installation and/or poor quality of components of the toilets in the master bathroom and master bedroom ensuite in contravention of manufacturer instructions.”
This “resulted in six floods and… indicates there remains a risk of the property and other properties in the block of flats being flooded,” he said.
The way the toilets are installed also creates “a risk of personal injury due to the placement of the pans in a way that does not prevent users from tipping forward.”
Additionally, there is a “risk of water damage to the property and other properties within the Riverside Apartments due to the pans being installed in a manner that pulls on connected water service pipes and may cause these pipes to separate.”
The issues also included “improper fixing of toilets to adjacent walls and incorrect installation of the toilet flush plate in the main bathroom of the property, which obstructs access to the toilet’s cistern and therefore prevents the claimants from servicing the cistern, including treating mold growth.”
He said proper expansion joints were not taken into account when laying the flooring, resulting in the tiles becoming “arched”, loosening and cracking.
“This was caused by the expansion and contraction of tiles and screed combined with temperature changes, without restraint, without expansion joints to absorb excessive movement,” he said.
He said that the “curtain wall” system, designed to prevent heat transfer from outside to inside, did not create the desired effect.
Instead, the property experienced significant “solar gain” when the property was heated by sunlight passing through the glass.
“Exterior patio decking is unstable and/or subject to ‘shaking’ of a number of decking slabs,” he continues.
He said the master bedroom, lounge, main bathroom and hallway “lacked soundproofing” to prevent the noise of pipes, and also complained about “external odors” entering the kitchen from the neighboring property.
The couple also has complaints about fire safety; There are also claims that fire escapes are too narrow and too far from doors.
Mr Benedyk said the couple’s claim was that “the work was not done skillfully and/or professionally and/or with appropriate materials”.
Their claims are against Berkeley Homes (North East London) Ltd as the owner and Berkeley Homes (Capital) Ltd as the Berkeley company that carried out the work after they moved out.
But Berkeley Homes (North East London) says the couple have not been landlords since 2015, when their lease was transferred to another company, and still denies liability.
Laura Adams, a lawyer for Berkeley Homes (Capital), denies that she is responsible for the alleged defects and says many of the alleged problems could have been resolved if the couple had allowed workers access.
“To the extent that there are alleged defects in the property, these are not necessarily defects for which Berkeley Homes (Capital) is responsible but have been proposed to be addressed on various occasions.
“However, on more than one occasion, plaintiffs refused to meet with defendants when they sought to conduct business and/or investigate the allegations.”
Referring to individual complaints, he continued: “The second defendant submits that the toilets at the property were properly installed and that there was no risk of personal injury.
“Should any remedial works become necessary, minor support works to the toilet can be completed provided claimants allow access as requested.”
Defects resulting from the absence of expansion or movement joints in the tiles were also ruled out because such joints are not recommended by the makers in an area as small as that of the apartment.
He continued: “No tents, arches or raised tiles were observed on the property by the defendants.
“Without prejudice to the above denial, it is accepted that there was mortar missing in small areas in the corridor and that a hollow sound was heard when tapping some areas, indicating that a full bed of adhesive had not been laid.
“It is accepted that minor improvement works were required, which the defendant was willing and able to complete, but it is denied that the entire flooring needed to be removed and replaced.
“This is disproportionate and unnecessary.”
“The claim that any defect in the property rendered the property uninhabitable was rejected. “The claimants have occupied the property for over nine years without any risk to their health or safety since the agreed 2014 completion of works.
“The defects alleged by the plaintiffs include, among others, separate claims relating to three wobbly patio tiles and small areas of missing grout on the floor tiles.
“It is argued that in reasonable construction these defects would not, individually and/or collectively, render a property uninhabitable.
“Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to specify which of the defects they allege makes the property unsuitable for occupation.”
He said London Fire Brigade also visited the property and there had been “no significant failures” to comply with fire safety regulations.
The case recently reached the Supreme Court, where a ruling was reached on the amounts each side could spend to take the dispute to court.
Although it was agreed that the couple’s cost budget could be around £1.15 million, there was a disagreement over Berkeley’s total cost budget of £2.1 million.
Judge Roger Ter Haar KC, who put its costs at just over £1.2 million, said the amount put forward by the Berkeley companies as a budget was “prima facie disproportionate”.
“The amount put forward is slightly less than twice the amount currently requested,” he said. “Secondly, the amount advanced is approaching double the plaintiffs’ agreed budget amount.”
The case will now proceed to a full hearing on Mr Thirsk and Ms King’s claims and will be heard at a later date unless the parties reach an agreement out of court.
