I came home to find my nightmare neighbour knocking down my DOOR – he claimed it was his right to do it

The Sun

9 hours ago

A RETIRED banking boss was shocked after discovering his neighbour had knocked down his door.
Nicholas Patrick-Hiley and his wife Lisa won £10,000 in a court battle with Parliament's master bell-ringer Adrian Udal, 65 after the latter ripped out the front gate of their £2million home in Fulham, West London.
5
5
5
Former Panmure Gordon Securities top executive Nicholas, 64, purchased the property in August 2023 to commemorate his retirement.
But the homeowner's mood was dampened when he arrived to find the door and roller gate demolished by the bell ringer.
Udal claimed that he had merely been asserting rights over land he owns when ripping out the previous gate and installing a new one at the end of the driveway.
The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing "security concerns" in the affluent street.
Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the couple, ordering Mr Udal to pay the couple £10,000.
Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer at St Margaret's Church next to Westminster Abbey, which acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament.
The neighbouring homes have an unusual layout, with Patrick-Hileys' home situated behind Mr Udal's property and is reachable via a drive and a passageway, the court heard.
Mr Udal owns the drive and passageway which the Patrick-Hileys pass through to arrive at their home, but the couple maintain the right to use it.
Mr Udal insisted that their rights over the passage did not include passing through by car or parking a vehicle on it.
Representing the Patrick-Hileys, Mark Warwick KC told Mayors and City County Court that the incident began when they found Mr Udal destroying the door and gate at around 12pm on move in day.
Moment neighbour smashes flats with axe in horror siege - before donning scuba gear, clutching spear & hiding in bathtub
The bell ringer continued with the demolition works into the early evening accompanied by another individual.
"They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services," Mr Warwick KC said.
"No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen.
"His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions.
"The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted."
Ultimately, Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC ruled in favour of the Patrick Hileys, stating that Mr Udal was "a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality".
He added: "Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.
"I also find that his actions...removed the claimants' internet cable for about six weeks; they also led to a lack of privacy and meant that Mrs Patrick-Hiley in particular felt uneasy about coming home after dark.
"This [behaviour] was inappropriate and unneighbourly and my impression of Mr Udal is that he is likely, if given the opportunity, to think of other ways in which he can interfere with the claimants' rights if his own ability to believe his own arguments and language constructions manages to suggest them.
"It follows that the claimants' rights need to be vindicated by the granting of declarations and injunctions for their reasonable protection and to limit the risk of a repetition.
"The removal of the roller gates and furniture was a trespass to property and the general conduct on 25 August 2025 was a nuisance and in particular a wrongful interference with the claimants' easements.
"The defendant's conduct has continued as a sporadic and occasional interference."