Notting Hill stylist sues neighbours for ‘ruining’ handbag collection

A stylist from Notting Hill is suing her downstairs neighbours because the dust from building work ruined her £14,500 designer handbag collection, London’s High Court heard.

Maria Serra is seeking £250,000 in damages from David Harvey, an estate agent, and his wife, Katherine, over claims that dust generated from renovations on their flat damaged her 26 vintage handbags from designers including Chanel and Paco Rabanne.

She claims the couple created a “dust ingress” while building an extension onto their basement flat, making her £570,000 home “uninhabitable”.

Lawyers representing Mr and Mrs Harvey have derided Ms Serra’s claims as “frankly absurd”, and say she has “grossly inflated” the value of her handbag collection, which can be cleaned at “minimal” cost.

At a High Court hearing before Judge Margaret Obi, lawyers for Ms Serra said in written submissions there had been “a history of disagreements” between the parties.

Ms Serra bought her ground floor flat in the converted house in Chesterton Road, Notting Hill, in 2008, two years after the Harveys bought their £580,000 basement flat in the same building.

Mr Harvey, who runs estate agents Horne and Harvey in St James’, commissioned workers in 2016 to build a “conservatory-type” extension at the rear of his flat.

Gavin Hamilton, representing Ms Serra, claimed her client’s flat had been “pristine” and “dust free” before the building works started.

Ms Serra alleges the extension caused so much dust to leak out from the basement that it ruined her £14,500 collection of handbags and forced her to move out.

Mr Hamilton told the court: “Ms Serra kept the flat in good condition. It was free of dust prior to the works. There is no rational explanation for the presence of dust inside the flat other than it must have come from the works below.”

He accused the couple of failing to have any plastic sheeting in place to contain the dust within their flat and that they have broken the terms of their lease by causing “nuisance, damage or annoyance” to Ms Serra.

Ms Serra is seeking repair costs of £9,685, future repair costs of £105,110, indemnity against a service charge of £7,777 and an as yet unspecified amount for damaged fashion items including 26 handbags that she says now need either replacement or costly repairs.

She is also demanding storage charges to the tune of £25,435 for her high-fashion goods and mortgage payments of £116,777 from 2016 to date, on the basis that she was forced to leave the flat and has not returned.

Mr and Mrs Harvey have said they are not liable for anything.

Edward Blakeney, representing the couple, said council inspectors had attended the build after Ms Serra complained and found “there was no sign of dust or dusty works”.

He insisted the extension was built in a “responsible and reasonable” way.

“Even if the claimant has suffered substantial damage to the ground floor flat, which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied, that is not sufficient to make out a claim in nuisance,” he told the court.

Mr Blakeney, describing the scope of the damages as “remarkable”, said: “The reason she [Ms Serra] is claiming damages for items that may seem trifling and that are still functional is because of her particular line of work.

“The claimant’s image and that of the ground floor flat is so fundamental to the work she undertakes that everything must be pristine, even if it can still be used.”

He added: “The claimant grossly inflated the value of her handbag collection and a claim for reinstatement value unjustified when the items can be cleaned.

“Upon cleaning, the claimant’s losses will be minimal.”

The case was due to be heard in a four-day trial this week, but was adjourned after a short hearing as a result of issues relating to last minute evidence being submitted.

It will now return to court at a later date.