Parliament bellringer faces losing £1m London home after tearing out neighbour’s gates

A High Court judge has ordered the sale of a £1 million London home belonging to Parliament’s chief bellringer following a disastrous court battle with his next-door neighbour.

Retired financier Nicholas Partick-Hiley, 65, purchased his £2m mews cottage in Disbrowe Road, Fulham, in August 2023, intending to turn the property into a dream retirement home alongside his wife, Lisa, 63.

However, he was shocked when he arrived on completion day to find his new neighbour – master bellringer Adrian Udal, 66 – tearing down the front door and roller gate securing his property.

Mr Udal insisted he had a legal right to take action because he owns the land the gate was built on, but the couple sued and secured a victory last year after Judge Nicholas Parfitt branded Mr Udal's actions "wanton destruction" and "carefully pre-planned".

The bellringer – who was appointed secretary of the belfry in 2021 at St Margaret’s Church, a medieval building next to Westminster Abbey acting as a place of worship for the Houses of Parliament – was left facing a bill exceeding £100,000 after being ordered to pay damages and legal costs.

On Friday, after being informed that Mr Udal has "no intention" to pay what he owes, a judge at the High Court ordered the sale of his home to pay off his debts to his neighbours.

“The claimants are out of pocket and owed a considerable amount of money, which is ever increasing,” said the judge, Deputy Master Martin Dray.

“The defendant has made no attempt to repay any part of it...quite the contrary, he has disclaimed any liability to pay one penny piece.”

He granted the couple an order, enabling them to enforce charging orders already made over Mr Udal's property by selling it to recover their debts.

Mr Udal is a veteran bell-ringer, whose role involved liaising with clergy when bellringing is needed for special church, state and parliamentary events, while he is proud to have “rung in” the New Year almost every year since 2000.

Mr Partick-Hiley is a retired financier and former managing director and head of sales for North America investment banking specialists Panmure Gordon.

During the trial at Mayor's and City County Court last year, Judge Parfitt was told how the two neighbouring homes are in an unusual layout, with the Partick-Hileys’ house located behind Mr Udal’s property and reachable across a drive and through a passageway, which passes under part of his house and into their courtyard.

The drive and passageway are owned by Mr Udal, but the Partick-Hileys have the right to pass over it to get to their house, the court heard.

Explaining the background to the row, Mark Warwick KC, for the Partick-Hileys, said: “On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10.

“He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man. The two men were in the process of destroying the door and gate. No advance warning of any kind had been given by Mr Udal, or anyone on his behalf, that such extraordinary behaviour was going to happen.

“His actions were plainly carefully pre-planned. No amount of persuasion, including the involvement of the police, has caused him to resile, or seemingly regret, his actions.

“The impact of these actions, and contentions, has been serious, their quiet enjoyment and actual enjoyment of their home has been disrupted.”

The couple sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, claiming the right to put up new gates across the opening which leads to their house, citing “security concerns” in the affluent street.

They said they were aware of a conflict between their home’s previous owner and Mr Udal before moving in, but thought it was settled until Mr Udal was witnessed dismantling the disputed gate.

Through their solicitors, they had contacted him two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install “better looking and more functional gates” once they moved in, although making clear they would welcome Mr Udal’s input on the style and design of those gates.

But in response, the couple alleged thattheir new neighbour began to plot how to remove and install new gates, buying his own set of metal barriers on 13 July 2023, which Mr Warwick claimed showed that “he was planning to carry out the destruction of the existing gates”.

In court, the couple insisted they have the right to erect and site entrance gates “on either side of the opening that runs under part of Mr Udal's house”, plus the right to park a car in the area.

But Mr Udal insisted that their right only extends to having the strip gated at the front of the property next to the pavement and they have no right to have a car on his land.

He said that in removing the existing roller gate and door, and installing a new gate next to the pavement at the end of the driveway, he had done no more than assert his legitimate rights as freehold owner of the passage between the two homes.

Handing victory to the bell master's neighbours, Judge Parfitt slammed his “wrongful act of wanton destruction...which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort” and ordered him to pay £10,000 in damages.

“Mr Udal was a poor witness who came across as preferring his own perception of what might be helpful to his own case, regardless of any objective reality,” he continued.

“The overall impression was that truth for him, in the context of legal proceedings at least, was no obstacle to a clever argument about language or the other evidence.”

He said what Mr Udal had been doing was “destroying part of the claimants’ property on the very day they were moving in and would have expected to find the roller shutter and furniture providing a secure and private barrier between the road and their new house.

“On a balance of probabilities, the defendant had planned to destroy the roller shutter and furniture on the day of completion and perhaps hoped that it would be a fait accompli by the time the claimants arrived. In any event, he continued his actions even after they had arrived and it was clear that they objected.”

The judge found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the couple have a right “to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles“ down the drive and passage.

He added: “Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction designed, in my view, to, at best, take advantage of the gap between owners occurring at completion, and conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.”

The judge later ordered Mr Udal to pay £85,000 up front towards the couple's lawyers' bills, on top of the £10,000 damages, with interest accruing daily.

But having failed to pay, the case came back to court today, with the couple applying for an order for possession and sale so they can get the money they are owed.

Giving judgment, Deputy Master Dray said there had been a “frosty conversation” between the neighbours after Christmas last year when Mr Udal – who had already lost a bid to appeal – “made it quite clear he had no intention of making any payments”.

He said that Mr Udal had not engaged in the proceedings relating to the sale of his house, but that he could not be allowed to “derail” the case, and went on to make the order in his absence.

“It seems to me that, on the evidence before the court, the scales are tipped decisively in favour of the claimants, and making an order enforcing the charging orders by way of sale and possession,” he said.

The sale order is to enable the couple to enforce a debt from the original case which now stands at around £104,500, but Mr Udal was also ordered to pay a further £25,000 in costs of the hearing today.

The judge said that possession of the house would have to be handed over within 28 days. However, if Mr Udal pays up before 2 October, the order will not be enforced.