Accountant who bought £1.5m London apartment sues for money back over ‘bathroom with no bath'

Independent

27-03-2025

An accountant who says she was promised "the ultimate in luxury" when she bought a £1.5m Versace-designed London flat is suing to get her money back - after discovering her bathroom had no bath.
Mi Suk Park paid a £381,000 deposit on a two-bed apartment and a parking space in the 50-storey Aykon London One tower in Nine Elms, dubbed the "Versace Tower" after a high-profile collaboration between developers and the fashion house to design the interiors.
The off-plan purchase was made after Ms Park, 54, had viewed a brochure and floorplan and made the "lifetime decision" to splash out on the deluxe pad, which - she told Central London County Court - was intended to be her and her husband's "main home until retirement".
But instead she ended up refusing to move in and suing for more than £700,000 after complaining that the built apartment was "materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description" that she had seen before paying the deposit.
Her gripes include one bedroom being smaller than she expected, one of the two bathrooms not having a bathtub, an intrusive utility cupboard which "impinges" on what she expected to be an "open plan living space" and a two-year delay in the apartment being ready.
She is now demanding over £700,000, comprising the deposit money she paid and cash to cover five years' rent and other losses she says she suffered.
But developer Nine Elms Property Ltd - a Jersey-based entity owned by a parent company in Dubai - is fighting the claim and countersuing the accountant for not completing the purchase, insisting her deposit has been forfeited.
The company's lawyers are arguing that the brochure that Ms Park saw before putting her money down was for illustrative purposes only and made clear that what was being shown was simply an example of a "typical layout".
Nazar Mohammad, for Ms Park, who runs an accountancy business in Surrey, told Judge Alan Johns that Ms Park had agreed the deal in November 2015 and paid her deposit towards a purchase price of £1,524,400.
"The apartment was an 'off plan' purchase on the 29th floor facing the west and, when built, it would have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with a bathtub in each critically," he said.
"It was to be an open-plan layout. The defendant provided a plan appended to the sales and purchase agreement, and she signed the same plan.
"The flat was meant to be ready to move into in 2020 and Ms Park sold her home in 2019 in preparation, he continued.But when it was finally ready in 2022 and she saw it, she was deeply unhappy.
"On delivery of the apartment, the claimant refused to complete the purchase as the apartment was materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description," he told the judge.
"The defendant's expert and the defendant accept that the built apartment is not the same as the plan attached to the contract dated November 6, 2015."
He said "irredeemable breaches" of the purchase contract include 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."
He said the brochure promised that "AYKON Nine Elms will present a unique landmark…feature floor-to-ceiling windows …Panoramic views of London" and that, "Put simply, life at AYKON Nine Elms will represent the ultimate in luxury, the ultimate in Versace'.
"Without qualification, the brochure describes it as the ultimate in luxury and combines it with panoramic views. The expectation raised and the price demanded is matched," he said.
Accusing the developer of "misrepresention" and having "induced" the sale to Ms Park with the brochure and floor plan, he continued: "The court must not lose sight of the fact that this was a high specification, high-end apartment, and small/compact, for which the claimant agreed to pay a large sum of money.
"The issue for the court is whether the defendant acted within the terms of the contract when the variations to the structure and layout of the expected apartment were made, and whether these alterations were material.
"The claimant does not accept that the defendant is entitled to enforce the contract. The breaches of contract by the defendant are such that it has not delivered the bespoke apartment which she had an expectation to deliver."
In the witness box, Ms Park told the judge that it had been a "lifetime decision" to splash out on the £1.5m designer apartment and it was to be her and her husband's "main house until retirement".
She insisted what she had seen in the brochure and plans before putting her money down were "structural elements which should have been fixed".
But Rupert Cohen, cross-examining for the developers, said the brochure had shown example apartments and pointed out that "at the top of each page...it says 'typical layout'."
"You may call me careless, but I didn't see 'typical" as an important word," she replied.
Mr Cohen told the judge: "Ms Park refused to complete and, instead, purported to rescind the contract by letter dated 14 October 2022.
"Subsequently, the defendant served notice to complete on 22 November 2022 and, following the claimant's failure to complete, a notice of termination on 9 January 2023. Ms Park issued these proceedings on 21 April 2023.
"The court is invited to grant the declarations sought in the counterclaim, namely that the contract has been terminated and the...payments forfeited to the defendant."
Ms Park is claiming her £381,000 deposit money, £131,000 rent she has paid since 2020, £150,000 over the sale of her house, which she says could have realised more if she had not hurried the sale through to meet the 2020 completion date, plus around £45,000 of additional losses.
The case continues.