London man wins payout after landlord demolished his flat while he was asleep inside

A squatter living in an iconic London music venue has won a damages payout for "harassment" after the owner began demolishing the building while he was asleep in bed inside.

Nicola Saia, had been living in a flat at The Cricketers, in the Oval, Kennington, formerly a legendary music venue which hosted multiple high profile acts over the years, including The Pogues, Happy Mondays, early reggae pioneer Desmond Dekker and folk rock band, Fairport Convention.

Mr Saia, who had formerly stayed in the condemned building with permission as a property guardian, claimed that building owner Ravinder Laly repeatedly made threats that the roof would come down around him if he didn't get out, finally making good on his pledge in July 2023.

Waking up to loud banging at 9am, he said he went into his living room to find debris falling from overhead and a hole through the ceiling.

Mr Saia sued Mr Laly and his property company RSL Slough Ltd for harassment and unlawful eviction, claiming he suffered “shock, stress, anxiety and inconvenience” - and demanding up to £60,000 compensation.

Mr Laly denied any acts of harassment or unlawful eviction, disputing that Mr Saia was legally a tenant of him or the company at the time.

The case ended in partial victory for Mr Saia at Central London County Court when the trial judge, Recorder Tom Shepherd, found that Mr Laly had harassed him by following through earlier threats that he would remove the roof over his head.

But he dismissed claims of harassment by cutting off Mr Saia’s WiFi and “trapping” him in the property by boarding it up, as well as finding that he was not a legal tenant of the flat where he was living and that there was no breach of the Protection from Eviction Act, under which the bulk of his damages claim was made.

Mr Laly’s “oppressive” conduct had begun earlier when he messaged Mr Saia that “the roof would be coming down”, said the judge.

“I accept Mr Saia’s evidence that what happened was that he was asleep and that agents instructed by Mr Laly turned up at the property and were indeed starting to remove the roof while in the knowledge that he was still inside.”

Although accepting that Mr Saia was legally “trespassing” at the time, the judge said Mr Laly could have pursued other options rather then taking down the roof - such as erecting fences or barricades around the property to prevent Mr Saia from re-entering while he was out.

“I find that this was unacceptable and oppressive, and was clearly calculated to cause alarm and distress," he said.

“He could have gone to court and got a possession order and if he wanted to use force he could have ensured that bailiffs were instructed.

"The simple fact that Mr Saia was effectively a squatter did not mean he could go and take the extreme steps which I find were taken.”

Mr Laly had made threats to remove the roof from July 3 2023 onwards, said the judge, who added: “the roof was indeed removed from the property”.

“It was the imminency of the threats to demolish which I find stepped over the line,” he explained.

Mr Saia's barrister, Kevin Brown, had told the court 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," said the barrister.

“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.”

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

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

The judge found Mr Laly also harassed Mr Saia by briefly cutting off water to his flat.

Ben Leb - for Mr Laly and the property company - had said his clients had a “licence” to enter the property as they did, adding that his clients were also counter-suing for Mr Saia trespassing on the property.

Ruling on the counterclaim for trespass and damages against Mr Saia, the judge found that he was “technically a trespasser”, but rejected claims for alleged damage done by him, awarding nominal compensation of just £1.

He awarded Mr Saia £2,000 damages under his harassment claim.