Latest news with #boundarydispute
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Daily Mail
Nightmare neighbour dubbed the 'human wrecking ball' by a judge has been freed from prison under Labour's early release scheme
A neighbour from hell who tore the roof off the home of the people living next door in a war over a garden fence has been released from prison after serving just three months of a four and a half year sentence. Mark Coates, 57, was branded a 'human wrecking ball' by a judge after he tore the tiles and chimney pots off his £450,000 home before throwing them to the ground. After he had finished destroyed his own roof he moved over to his neighbours and began demolishing their property. The wrecking spree was the culmination of a bitter seven year boundary dispute over the location of a garden fence. In March, Coates who was dubbed 'Britain's worst neighbour', was sentenced to four years and four months behind bars after he was found guilty of causing more than £200,000 of damage to the homes. But now Coates, a father-of-five, has been freed under the Government's controversial early release scheme. His victims, David Greenwood, 70, and Janice Turner, 66, claim their lives were made 'hell' by Coates and say they are now 'living in fear' and 'have lost all faith' in the British justice system. Coates, who vowed in court never to stop pursuing the case, is living with his family just a few miles away from the pair. The couple said the move made a 'complete mockery of the British justice system' and had put enormous stress on them. Mr Greenwood, a mechanic, said the early release scheme, introduced by the Government last year to ease pressure on prisons, was a charter which favoured criminals over their victims. 'It's an absolute farce,' he said. 'This wasn't some piffling sentence for shoplifting. This was a serious crime which wrecked our home in an attempt to totally destroy our lives. 'It's a disgrace he has been freed from prison. We are devastated and it has put enormous stress on us. 'He is under a curfew at night but we live in fear of what he might do during the day. It's taking a huge toll on us. 'The early release scheme is a move that favours criminals over their victims and completely undermines the authority of UK courts. 'It's absolutely ridiculous. Why would the Crown Prosecution Service and the police bother to bring cases against criminals if they're just going to be freed?' Coates was sentenced to four years and four months behind bars at Lewes Crown Court in March. After a trial he was found guilty of two counts of criminal damage where he caused £200,000 worth of damage to the two properties in Robertsbridge, near Hastings, East Sussex in June 2024. The 57-year-old father-of-five smashed a hole through the roof of his semi-detached home before clambering out. He then began tearing off the tiles and chimney pots off the £400,000 home before throwing them to the ground. When he had largely destroyed his own roof he moved over to his neighbours' home and began tearing the tiles from their home. Ms Turner, 66, called police but was left crying in the garden as she watched Coates start to demolish her home. Video of the incident, captured by police, showed Coates armed with a hammer methodically smashing up the roof of both homes. A two hour police stand-off ensued before Coates was finally arrested and taken into custody. Residents living close to the victims said the dispute had had a massive effect on the whole community and branded Coates 'one of the worst neighbours in Britain.' Sentencing him, Recorder Ben Williams KC sentenced Coates said the destruction of the two homes was a clear 'revenge attack' on his neighbours. He said Coates had fallen on the houses 'like a human wrecking ball' which had left the couple upset and traumatised. The incident happened on June 10 last year and brought to an end the long-running dispute between the neighbours which started when a fence panel fell down. When a new fence separating their two gardens was erected the two neighbours disagreed over where the boundary was. Lewes Crown Court heard that, after years of litigation, the case had eventually gone to the High Court. The warring neighbours had been warned by High Court judge, Mr Justice Morgan, that persisting in the row could result in financial ruin for one or both of them before a ruling was made against Coates. Coates was found in contempt of the High Court, handed a £475,000 court bill and was ordered to sell his home to pay for the huge sum. As a result his property was to be sold to reimburse the victims' legal fees as well as to pay for the damage caused to their property. But just three days before he was due to hand over the house keys, Coates decided to cause massive damage to the properties. Ms Turner said Coates smashed most of the tiles off his own roof before clambering onto her roof and starting the same. She said: 'He was picking some of them up and throwing them into the garden and towards me. I was standing by my greenhouse and I felt debris from the roof go past my face.' She said when the hole was big enough to climb through Coates clambered out onto the roof. The 66-year-old added: 'He completely removed the best part of the roof at the rear of my property.' A video, captured from a police body-worn camera, shows officers trying to reason with Coates and coax him down from the roof. But he told officers: 'I've had this house stolen off me by a judge and corrupt police. I'll cause as much damage as I can to devalue the house.' He told officers his aim was to cause as much damage as possible to ensure a jury trial in crown court where he said he would expose 'corrupt' officials who had fraudulently deprived him of his home. In mitigation Richard Body, defending, said Coates was a dedicated family man who had a previous good character. He said: 'However he has an aspect of his character that is stubborn which is how he has got himself into this very unfortunate position.' Coates, who was cleared of two counts of causing fear of violence or harassment, was handed an indefinite restraining order not to approach the victims. In September 2024 - three months after the attack - Coates was jailed for 16 months for contempt of the High Court which had to be served separately to the criminal conviction. Mr Greenwood said: 'Mr Coates was also serving a sentence of 448 days in prison for civil contempt and was not due to be released from that sentence until December 2025. 'He was then due to start his criminal sentence so should still be in prison. Remission and the early release scheme do not apply to sentences for breaches of orders of the civil courts.' He believes the release of Mr Coates from prison is unlawful. He said: 'He has served just a fraction of his civil sentence and none of his criminal sentence. It's a total joke. No one - neither the police, courts or prisons - seem to know what they're doing.' A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Offenders released on Home Detention Curfew are subject to strict conditions and will be sent back to prison if they break the rules.'
Telegraph
04-07-2025
- Telegraph
My neighbourly dispute over a tree ended up with tears (and a poem)
Good fences make good neighbours, so they say – as long as they are in exactly the right place. If not: costly carnage in court. This week saw yet another utterly preposterous boundary dispute end in a rout when an octogenarian pensioner lost her seven-year £280,000 legal battle over a strip of land between their houses that was just inches wide. Christel Naish, 81, had complained that Dr Jyotibala Patel's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on her property in Ilford, east London, and after several rounds of litigation, the case ended up in the High Court. At the High Court, senior judge Sir Anthony Mann didn't mince his words, criticising both the parties for the 'ridiculous' row after hearing that the tap has now been removed by Dr Patel. 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter – this brings litigation into disrepute,' he said. 'Why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies?' Why indeed? The answer would appear to be; it just does. In May, a judge at Central London county court was exasperated enough to ask both sets of lawyers in a boundary dispute over guttering: 'How much are the parties pouring down the drain on this?' Around £150,000 as it happened – an insane amount to most of us, but then logic plays no role in such litigation. In March last year, a father of five was jailed for contempt and faced a £475,000 legal bill in a row over a garden fence in Robertsbridge, near Hastings, and was told by a judge he will have to sell his family home to meet the costs. And in November, an argument over a village brook in Thrussington, Leicestershire saw neighbours run up a £300,000 bill which is now water under a bridge. But not all disputes end up in court. Sometimes they are played out in person. I have in my time known a shared hedge to cause a complete breakdown in relations because one side felt the ivy was an eyesore and the other that it was a haven for wildlife. A number of years ago, we arranged to have the towering tree at the end of our garden pollarded so we could have at least a little sunlight. As the tree surgeon climbed up, he joked: 'I can guarantee that within half an hour the neighbours from two doors down on each side will be up in arms.' At least I thought he was joking, until someone started hammering on the door 15 minutes later. A woman I'd never seen before was standing there in tears – accusing me of killing the London plane tree, but stormed off just as I was about to reply. After that, another woman shouted from her garden (yes, two doors along) that we were ruining her view and a third came to the door to officiously announce she was calling the council to check the preservation status – even though I assured her we had already been given the go-ahead by officialdom. Finally, just as the doorbell stopped ringing; a single sheet of paper floated down from the letterbox. It was the Gerard Manley Hopkins poem Binsey Poplars, a lament dedicated to a row of cherished trees, cut down to the detriment of landscape and locals alike. And just in case the metaphor was lost on me, the line 'All felled, felled, are all felled' had been vigorously underlined. I have to say I was grudgingly impressed. Fast forward a few years, every last branch and leaf has grown back on our London plane. But what was that I saw late last year in that crying neighbour's garden? A tree surgeon hacking back her own copper beech. I saw her. She saw me. That look was enough. And best of all, it didn't cost a penny.
The Independent
02-07-2025
- The Independent
Pensioner's ‘ridiculous' seven-year £280k court fight with neighbour over tiny strip of land
An angry pensioner has lost a "ridiculous" £280,000 fight with her doctor neighbour over "inches" of "dead space" separating their homes, with a judge slamming the tiny strip as "not worth arguing about". Christel Naish, 81, and her neighbour, Dr Jyotibala Patel, fought a bitter seven-year court war after Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on the tiny strip of land between their houses, which she claimed she owned. The dispute escalated into a costly boundary dispute, with the neighbours arguing over a "few inches" of "dead space" - barely enough for a person to squeeze into sideways - between their houses in Ilford, east London. They each laid claim to the strip, with a judge at Mayors and City County Court finding for Dr Patel and her husband, Vasos Vassili, last year. But Ms Naish fought on - in what High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann branded a "ridiculous" dispute - only to have her case thrown out this week at the High Court. Rejecting her appeal, Sir Anthony said the disputed strip of land between the houses is "dead space, and one would have thought it was not worth arguing about." The court heard Ms Naish first moved into the semi in Chadacre Avenue as a teenager with her parents and, although she moved out, frequently returned as she worked from there in the family's tarmac business. She eventually moved back permanently after the death of her father in 2001, with Dr Patel and husband Vasos Vassili buying the house next door for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge that the dispute began due to Ms Naish repeatedly complaining that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. They felt forced to sue their neighbour, believing they couldn't sell their property due to "the blight" on it from the unresolved row, he said. At the county court, they claimed the tiny gap between the houses, created when the previous owners of their home built an extension on a previously much wider gap in 1983, was theirs. They insisted that the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering hanging above, as she claimed. After hearing the trial, Judge Hellman found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and meaning they own the gap between the houses. However, he found against them on Ms Naish's counterclaim, under which she sought damages for damp ingress into her conservatory caused by them having installed decking above the level of her damp proof course. The judge found that, although the damp problem was already in existence, the installation of the decking screed was a 20% contribution to it, and awarded Ms Naish £1,226 damages. However, because he had found against her on who owns the gap between the houses, he ordered that she pay 65% of her neighbours' lawyers' bills - amounting to about £100,000 of an approximate £150,000 bill - on top of a similar six-figure sum she ran up herself. Concluding his judgment, he said: "Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours." However, Ms Naish continued to fight and took her case to the High Court in May, which Sir Anthony blasted as bringing "litigation into disrepute" since Ms Naish no longer has any problems with the tap and pipe, meaning the row is over "dead space." The court heard the legal costs of the appeal process itself would add more than £30,000 to the total cost of the case. "Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter," Sir Anthony told Ms Naish's lawyers during the appeal hearing. "You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? "It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation - on both sides, no doubt." Appealing, Ms Naish's lawyers argued that Judge Hellman had considered the issue of where the boundary lies in the wrong way, without taking notice of the fact that both houses were already built when crucial conveyancing documents were drawn up. The judge should have looked at the houses and decided that a reasonable buyer would expect the boundary to lie a few inches past Ms Naish's wall so that her overhanging guttering was over the land. Giving judgment, Sir Anthony said he disagreed with Judge Hellman's reasoning, but had come to the same decision - that the boundary ran along the line of Ms Naish's house and so the land belongs to her neighbours. "I think that a purchaser standing with the plan in his/her hand and looking at the position on the ground is unlikely to look much beyond the obvious flank wall of the house. That would be an obvious boundary feature which fitted with the plan. "I do not think the parties would cast their eyes upwards and see the guttering and re-shape their view of the boundary to the plane of the exterior face of the guttering. That does not seem particularly plausible. "Nor do I think that the purchaser would be aware that foundations protruded beyond the flank wall - if indeed they do, there was no actual evidence of that, only a bit of speculation on the probabilities. "So the natural view of the boundary at this point would be the flank wall. It is the obvious topographical feature which bears on the question. "In my view, the judge reached the right conclusion on the position of the boundary, albeit my reasoning differs from his." The judge rejected Ms Naish's appeal and also dismissed her challenge to the decision on the damp issue, under which she was claiming extra damages. "The judge's conclusion was that 20% of the damp problem was attributable to the claimants' decking and he was entitled to reach that view," he said. "It is particularly undesirable that this already unfortunate litigation should be cluttered up by such unworthy points taken on this appeal." Ms Naish's appeal against the amount of her neighbours' costs she must pay will be decided at a later date.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- Yahoo
Pensioner's ‘ridiculous' seven-year £280k court fight with neighbour over tiny strip of land
An angry pensioner has lost a "ridiculous" £280,000 fight with her doctor neighbour over "inches" of "dead space" separating their homes, with a judge slamming the tiny strip as "not worth arguing about". Christel Naish, 81, and her neighbour, Dr Jyotibala Patel, fought a bitter seven-year court war after Ms Naish complained that Dr Patel's garden tap and pipe were "trespassing" on the tiny strip of land between their houses, which she claimed she owned. The dispute escalated into a costly boundary dispute, with the neighbours arguing over a "few inches" of "dead space" - barely enough for a person to squeeze into sideways - between their houses in Ilford, east London. They each laid claim to the strip, with a judge at Mayors and City County Court finding for Dr Patel and her husband, Vasos Vassili, last year. But Ms Naish fought on - in what High Court judge Sir Anthony Mann branded a "ridiculous" dispute - only to have her case thrown out this week at the High Court. Rejecting her appeal, Sir Anthony said the disputed strip of land between the houses is "dead space, and one would have thought it was not worth arguing about." The court heard Ms Naish first moved into the semi in Chadacre Avenue as a teenager with her parents and, although she moved out, frequently returned as she worked from there in the family's tarmac business. She eventually moved back permanently after the death of her father in 2001, with Dr Patel and husband Vasos Vassili buying the house next door for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge that the dispute began due to Ms Naish repeatedly complaining that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. They felt forced to sue their neighbour, believing they couldn't sell their property due to "the blight" on it from the unresolved row, he said. At the county court, they claimed the tiny gap between the houses, created when the previous owners of their home built an extension on a previously much wider gap in 1983, was theirs. They insisted that the boundary between the two properties was the flank wall of Ms Naish's house and not the edge of her guttering hanging above, as she claimed. After hearing the trial, Judge Hellman found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and meaning they own the gap between the houses. However, he found against them on Ms Naish's counterclaim, under which she sought damages for damp ingress into her conservatory caused by them having installed decking above the level of her damp proof course. The judge found that, although the damp problem was already in existence, the installation of the decking screed was a 20% contribution to it, and awarded Ms Naish £1,226 damages. However, because he had found against her on who owns the gap between the houses, he ordered that she pay 65% of her neighbours' lawyers' bills - amounting to about £100,000 of an approximate £150,000 bill - on top of a similar six-figure sum she ran up herself. Concluding his judgment, he said: "Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours." However, Ms Naish continued to fight and took her case to the High Court in May, which Sir Anthony blasted as bringing "litigation into disrepute" since Ms Naish no longer has any problems with the tap and pipe, meaning the row is over "dead space." The court heard the legal costs of the appeal process itself would add more than £30,000 to the total cost of the case. "Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter," Sir Anthony told Ms Naish's lawyers during the appeal hearing. "You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? "It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation - on both sides, no doubt." Appealing, Ms Naish's lawyers argued that Judge Hellman had considered the issue of where the boundary lies in the wrong way, without taking notice of the fact that both houses were already built when crucial conveyancing documents were drawn up. The judge should have looked at the houses and decided that a reasonable buyer would expect the boundary to lie a few inches past Ms Naish's wall so that her overhanging guttering was over the land. Giving judgment, Sir Anthony said he disagreed with Judge Hellman's reasoning, but had come to the same decision - that the boundary ran along the line of Ms Naish's house and so the land belongs to her neighbours. "I think that a purchaser standing with the plan in his/her hand and looking at the position on the ground is unlikely to look much beyond the obvious flank wall of the house. That would be an obvious boundary feature which fitted with the plan. "I do not think the parties would cast their eyes upwards and see the guttering and re-shape their view of the boundary to the plane of the exterior face of the guttering. That does not seem particularly plausible. "Nor do I think that the purchaser would be aware that foundations protruded beyond the flank wall - if indeed they do, there was no actual evidence of that, only a bit of speculation on the probabilities. "So the natural view of the boundary at this point would be the flank wall. It is the obvious topographical feature which bears on the question. "In my view, the judge reached the right conclusion on the position of the boundary, albeit my reasoning differs from his." The judge rejected Ms Naish's appeal and also dismissed her challenge to the decision on the damp issue, under which she was claiming extra damages. "The judge's conclusion was that 20% of the damp problem was attributable to the claimants' decking and he was entitled to reach that view," he said. "It is particularly undesirable that this already unfortunate litigation should be cluttered up by such unworthy points taken on this appeal." Ms Naish's appeal against the amount of her neighbours' costs she must pay will be decided at a later date.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Yahoo
Neighbours' ‘ridiculous' 7-year garden row racks up £250,000 in legal bills
A seven-year row between neighbours has been slammed as 'ridiculous' by a senior judge. The bitter court fight - which has now racked up £250,000 in legal bills - concerns a strip between two houses in east London. Christel Naish, 81, has argued that her doctor neighbour Jyotibala Patel's garden tap and pipe were 'trespassing' on her property. Following a costly boundary dispute, a judge at Mayors and Cirt County Court last year ruled in Dr Patel's favour. But she is now fighting on at the High Court, despite being told that the case could end up costing about £500,000 if she wins – more than Dr Patel paid for her house. The only person who listens to both sides of an argument is the next door neighbour. — Joey Mate™️ 🇦🇺 🇳🇱 (@Joey1800callme) February 17, 2025 According to the Metro, the pensioner had been left having to fork out for 65% of her neighbours' costs, amounting to around £100,000, on top of the six-figure sum she ran up herself. However, the appeal is costing more than £30,000, the High Court heard, and her lawyers say it could result in 'another £200,000' being blown on a second trial if she succeeds. Senior judge Sir Anthony Mann said of the case this week: 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds about a tap and a pipe that doesn't matter – this brings litigation into disrepute. 'You don't care about the pipe and the tap, so why does it matter, for goodness' sake, where the boundary lies? 'It seems to me to be a ridiculous piece of litigation – on both sides, no doubt.' Dr Patel and her husband, Vasos Vassili, bought the house next door to Ms Naish for £450,000 in 2013. The couple's barrister, Paul Wilmshurst, told the judge that the dispute began due to Ms Naish repeatedly complaining that a tap and pipe outside their house trespassed on her land. Recommended reading: Sunday Times Rich List revealed for 2025 - Who are the wealthiest people in UK? Nationwide issues fresh update on free £100 loyalty bonus for customers Major UK fashion brand to cut 1700 jobs despite having 'best days ahead' At the county court, they claimed the tiny gap between the houses, created when the previous owners of their home built an extension on a previously much wider gap in 1983, was theirs. Judge Stephen Hellman last year found for Dr Patel and Mr Vassili, ruling that Ms Naish's flank wall was the boundary and therefore, they own the gap between the houses. Concluding his judgment, he said: 'Now that the parties have the benefit of a judgment on the various issues that have been troubling them, I hope that tensions will subside and that they will be able to live together as good neighbours.'
