London man sues landlord for £100k for demolishing his flat while he was asleep inside

A resident who claims that his landlord began knocking down his London flat while he was in bed inside is seeking up to £100,000 in damages.

Nicola Saia lived at The Cricketers, near the Oval in Kennington, before the building was destroyed. The building was a former music pub that hosted The Pogues, Happy Mondays, and Fairport Convention before being converted into flats.

Mr Saia claimed that he was woken by loud banging at 9am on 18 July 2023. He went into the living room to find debris falling from the ceiling, with landlord Ravinder Laly and builders present and a hole above, he said.

Shortly after, the front gate of The Cricketers was boarded up, effectively trapping him inside, he said.

Although the flat was unfit to live in, Mr Saia said he had to stay until the council accepted he was homeless and offered temporary housing on 29 July 2023.

He is now suing Mr Laly and property company RSL Slough Ltd for harassment and unlawful eviction, claiming he suffered "shock, stress, anxiety and inconvenience". He is seeking up to £100,000 in compensation.

However, Mr Laly denies harassment or unlawful eviction, disputing that Mr Saia was legally a tenant of his or the company at the time.

Central London County Court heard that the property, once a legendary venue, had fallen into decline and was earmarked for demolition by 2023, before being completely levelled in 2024.

Mr Saia's barrister, Kevin Brown, told Judge Karen Evans-Gordon that two weeks before the work began, Mr Laly had sent him a message “stating that the roof would be coming off and that demolition would start”.

“On 18 July 2023, Mr Saia was woken at about 9am by loud banging from the roof,” the barrister said.

“He went into his living room and found debris falling from the ceiling. Mr Laly was in attendance with builders and a hole had been made through the roof/ceiling of the living room, bathroom and one of the bedrooms.

“Mr Laly left the premises and locked the gate with the claimant inside.”

Soon after, the front gate of the Cricketers was also boarded up preventing access and exit, said the barrister. A large padlock was clamped on the gates outside the property, effective trapping Mr Saia inside, the court heard.

Setting out his case against Mr Laly and the company, Mr Brown claimed: “The method of harassment and eviction was particularly shocking and impacted the claimant physically.

“Mr Laly sent repeated messages that the property would be demolished with him in occupation from 23 May 2023.

“The defendants cut off the water supply for a period in June 2023, and there was no water to the property at all from 25-29 July 2023.

“They barricaded and locked the entrance to the premises while Mr Saia was in occupation, he was trapped in the property on 18 and 25 July 2023.

“The defendants ultimately demolished the roof of the property on 18 July 2023, while the Claimant was still in occupation.

“These steps made the property uninhabitable and were designed to force the claimant to leave without a court order, which he did on 29 July 2023.

“Mr Saia has suffered harm and damage to his mental health, and remains traumatised by the experience.“

In court documents, Mr Saia’s barrister argued that he had the right to respect for “quiet enjoyment” of his flat and that his landlord accepted that he did not have to pay rent as he would act as “property guardian” instead.

The drive to cut off his WiFi and water and then to proceed to rip off the roof over his head was done without proper notice having been served, seeking possession, or a court order obtained, he submitted.

“The fact that there was permission for demolition cannot amount to permission to demolish the building while it is still under occupation,” he said.

But Ben Leb – for Mr Laly and the property company – denied that Mr Saia was actually a tenant of the property, since he was not charged rent.

He had no right to protection from eviction and nothing that was done by Mr Laly amounted to harassment, said the defence barrister, adding that his clients are also counter-suing for Mr Saia trespassing on the property.

“It is clear that neither the defendants nor Mr Saia intended their relationship to bear the hallmarks of a tenancy or lease,” he told the judge.

“Mr Saia had no exclusive possession of either the property or the flat. He did not pay any rent.”

He added: “Mr Laly, acting on behalf of RSL Slough Ltd, has given notice to Mr Saia to vacate the property and Flat 4 because in accordance with the defendants' stated plans the property was due to be demolished.

“The notices were given on 21 February 2023 and 9 June 2023.”

He said that his clients had a “licence” to enter the property as they did.