A couple has alleged they were forced to dress and shower in darkness after their neighbour propped up a mannequin in such a way that it appeared to be peering directly into their bedroom window. Rosie and Christopher Taylor-Davies ended up losing a High Court battle concerning a roof extension built by neighbour Simon Cook.
The husband and wife alleged they'd been forced to live in 'darkness' with their curtains drawn after their next-door neighbour installed a Velux window in his extension that faced directly into their bedroom.
In a move their legal representative said added 'insult to injury', the couple claimed Mr Cook had placed a blonde mannequin dummy in the window, which they say gave the impression of a person watching over their Richmond Park property.
In February 2020, their local council, London Borough of Wandsworth, afforded Mr Cook planning permission for the extension but stipulated that the dormer window should be non-opening and have obscured glass.
Council planning officers waived the terms set out by the council for the Velux, arguing that because it 'faces the sky', it would have less of an impact on neighbours.
As the neighbouring houses are on a slope, with Mr Cook's home being higher up than Mr and Mrs Taylor-Davies' property, a person looking out of the rooflight could see straight into the top floor of their property, as well as into their clear-sided shower box.
Mr and Mrs Taylor-Davies went on to challenge the council's decision not to take 'enforcement action' to ensure Mr Cook obscured the rooflight glass. They ultimately ended up losing the High Court privacy battle which had been a judicial review to try and get the council to take action against Mr Cook.
The couple told the court that, as the window did not have frosted glass, they were left with no choice but to undress behind a bookcase, where they couldn't be seen.
Speaking after the hearing, Mr Taylor-Davies said: "We've lived here for more than 20 years, but we might have to move out because of all this. We can't take a shower or get dressed without being overlooked."
Adding that they'd been left with no other choice but to keep the curtains drawn, Mr Taylor-Davies added, 'It's essentially like living in darkness'.
Arguing before High Court judge, Mrs Justice Lang, Mr and Mrs Taylor-Davies' barrister Stephen Whale, stated that Mr Cook's window had invaded the couple's privacy.
Mr Whale also told the court how the mannequin had only added 'insult to injury', arguing: "It serves to give the impression, as presumably, he intends, that there is a person at the window overlooking their property and invading their privacy.
"It only adds to their distress. The overlooking of their property and the invasion of their privacy as a result of the Velux window is very distressing to them."
He continued: "There is no good reason for the Velux window to have clear glass or be openable as there is another window very close on the opposite wall.
"There would be no loss of amenity to Mr Cook were the Velux window to have opaque glass and be non-openable. The only thing the Velux window overlooks is the top floor of the claimants' house."
Passing judgment, Mrs Justice Lang said: "Mr Cook periodically installs a mannequin in the roof light which gives the impression that there is a person at the window looking out at [the claimants' home].
"This suggests to me that he is not taking the claimants' concerns seriously, and so he is unlikely to maintain obscuring film voluntarily."
She went on to state however that nothing in the planning conditions obliged Mr Cook to obscure the glass of the rooflight, with the rules only requiring him to obscure the dormer window.
Furthermore, she noted that Mr Cook had placed an 'obscuring film' to part of his rooflight, although she did add that the film could be easily removed.
Do you have a nightmare neighbour story to share? Email us at julia.banim@reachplc.com
