Accountant loses battle over £1.5m ‘Versace Tower' flat ‘missing a bathtub'

Telegraph

07-04-2025

An accountant has lost a court fight after complaining that the bathroom of her £1.5 million flat in a south London block nicknamed the Versace Tower had no bath.
Mi Suk Park said she was promised 'the ultimate in luxury' when she paid a £381,000 deposit on a two-bedroom flat and parking space in the 50-storey Thames-side Aykon London One tower in the redeveloped Nine Elms district.
The building was nicknamed the Versace Tower because of its interiors, which were designed with the fashion house.
The off-plan purchase was made in November 2015 after Ms Park, 54, viewed a brochure and floor plan and made the 'lifetime decision' to buy the flat, intended to be the 'main home until retirement' for her and her husband.
However, Central London county court was told she refused to move in and then sued for £700,0000 because the built apartment was 'materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description'.
Her main complaints were over a one square metre utility cupboard, which she said impinged on an 'open plan living space', and that one of the two bathrooms did not have a bathtub.
Ms Park refused to complete the purchase and purported to rescind the contract in a letter dated 14 Oct 2022. Subsequently, the defendant served notice to complete on Nov 2022 and then issued a notice of termination on Jan 9 2023.
Ms Park started proceedings in April 2023, but her case was thrown out after Judge Alan Johns ruled that the 'small' cupboard being moved to a different place had not affected the property's value.
'The utilities cupboard always had to go somewhere – this was not the introduction of a new factor which reduced the usable area of the apartment,' he said. 'Buyers in this development were more likely to be interested in buying in an up-and-coming area and the Versace branding, rather than the position of the utilities cupboard.'
Ms Park had sued for more than £700,000 over the deposit she paid, money to cover five years' rent and other claimed losses.
But lawyers for developer Nine Elms Property Ltd, a Jersey-based entity owned by a parent company in Dubai, insisted her deposit had been forfeited. They argued that the brochure was for illustrative purposes only and an example of a 'typical layout'.
Nazar Mohammad, for Ms Park, who runs an accountancy business in Surrey, told the judge that 'irredeemable breaches' of the contract included the fact that 'the utility cupboard impinges on the living space. It cannot be altered ... the second bedroom is smaller ... the second bathroom has no bathtub'.
But barrister Rupert Cohen, for the developers, said the brochure had shown example apartments and pointed out that 'at the top of each page ... it says 'typical layout'.'
Judge Johns ruled that it was 'common sense that changes may be made to the plans', adding: 'I have reached the firm conclusion that the repositioning of the utilities cupboard was not a material change.'
Regarding the bathroom, he said: 'Many modern purchasers would prefer a walk-in shower. The claim is dismissed.'