We fought to stop our neighbour building a ‘glowing’ glass entrance to their home – now we’ve been hit with £430,000 fee

A COUPLE who fought their neighbour on building a "glowing" glass box next door have now been slapped with an "eye-watering" £430,000 charge.

Andrew and Jennifer Dell, have been embroiled in a bitter war with architect Sophie Hicks over a property in Holland Park, Kensignton, for eight years - and are now clashing over who is responsible for over £2million in legal fees.

The couple were outraged after learning of Ms Hicks' plans to renovate a converted Victorian home and construct an illuminated glass entranceway on the street.

In their objection at the time they said: "We do not all want to live next door to the creative and interesting."

Other fuming locals, including Maria Letemendia, 74, joined the campaign against the famous designer and eventually won their case.

But, the fall out left them with more than £2million in professional and legal costs - after Ms Hicks got away with paying an small amount.

In a bid to resolve the financial woes, the company which owns the freehold to the building, has suggested all residents pay a whopping £430,411.50 on top of their normal service charge.

Andrew and Jennifer slammed the decision, claiming they pulled out of the planning battle back in 2014 and should not be forced to pay.

The furious couple took their fight to the Court of Appeal, where they won the case.

But, in a fresh move to reclaim the money, 89 Holland Park Management Ltd, who own the freehold to the building, have appealed the ruling.

FIGHTING BACK

James Fieldsend, the company's barrister, said: "As has been laboriously repeated by Mr and Mrs Dell on numerous occasions, this case is thought to involve the single largest service charge claim in respect of an individual flat."

However, the cost of the bill should not play a factor in whether they are liable or not to pay, he argued.

"The fact that the clauses in question have resulted in unforeseen costs being claimed from the leaseholders, and even potentially ruinous costs, does not affect the principle of recoverability," he added.

He continued: "The company was empowered, and in certain situations obliged, to take steps to protect the structure and amenity of the building, which was for the benefit of all lessees.

"The service charge provisions should be interpreted in that light, such that the costs of taking those beneficial steps should be recoverable by the company through the service charge, subject to the statutory requirement of reasonableness."

Mark Loveday, the Dell's barrister, said the couple informed the management company that they did not want to sink anymore cash into the legal battle against Ms Hicks.

"By January 2021, the management company had invoiced the lessees in the building a total of £2,763,521.02 in connection with the costs," he told the appeal judges.

"The costs dwarfed the regular costs of maintaining the building.

"For example, in 2019 it appears the company incurred legal and professional fees of £1,292,157, while spending £30,645 on the routine costs of insurance and maintenance of the building.

"The company accepted below that the parties would reasonably have had the possibility of the development of adjacent land in their contemplation and by extension also the possibility of dispute," he said.

"This was not therefore an unforeseen potential head of cost and the necessary clear words are simply not there to include this in the service charge expenditure.

"The parties knew the land was controversial and could be expected to have made express provision for the cost of litigation in relation to it.

"Otherwise, the inevitable conclusion is that they intended to fund any litigation costs in other ways."

CASE CONTINUES

Ms Hicks was originally granted council approval for her subterranean house in 2015, after purchasing the plot in 2011 and dealt with disgruntled neighbours disputing every planning bid.

The determined residents were eventually given the good news in 2021 when Judge Mark Pelling found they could reasonably object to the "glowing glass box" design entrance hall, as well as the extension of the house as it backed onto their own homes.

Although Ms Hicks' plans were squashed, she was not ordered to pick up a large fraction of the "vast and "eyewatering" legal fees.

Judges Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk have reserved their decision on the appeal against the Dell's until a later date.