A Notting Hill stylist is suing her neighbours after claiming dust from building work on her flat ruined her £14,500 collection of designer handbags.
Maria Serra, who describes herself as an “international fashion stylist”, told the High Court in London that she was seeking £250,000 in damages from estate agent David Harvey and his wife because “dust ingress” from the Renovations to her apartment made her house uninhabitable and ruined her 26 vintage handbags by designers such as Chanel and Paco Rabanne.
Ms Serra moved into her £570,000 ground floor apartment in 2008, two years after the Harveys bought their £580,000 basement property.
In 2016, Serra had a dispute with the Harveys when they commissioned renovations to build a “greenhouse-type” extension.
Mr Harvey runs Horne and Harvey in St James, an estate agency.
Lawyers representing the Harveys said Ms Serra's claims were “frankly absurd” and that she “grossly inflated” the value of her handbags, which could be cleaned and restored at a “minimal” cost.
Gavin Hamilton, representing Serra, said his apartment was “pristine” and “dust-free” before construction work began.
“Ms Serra kept the apartment in good condition. It was dust-free prior to the works. There is no rational explanation for the presence of dust inside the apartment other than that it must have come from the works that were taking place below,” Hamilton said.
She added that the Harveys failed to use “appropriate plastic sheeting” to contain dust and caused “annoyance, damage or inconvenience” to Ms Serra, thereby breaching the terms of their lease.
Ms Serra claimed she moved out of the apartment in 2016 because she “could no longer stand the noise, dust and general disorder”.
She is claiming £9,685 in repair costs, £105,110 in future repair costs, £7,777 in compensation for a service charge and an unspecified amount for allegedly damaged fashion items, such as the collection of handbags that she says required replacement or expensive repairs.
She is also demanding £25,435 in storage costs for couture items and £116,777 to cover mortgage payments from 2016 to date, as she was forced to vacate her flat after work began and has not lived there since. so.
Edward Blakeney, representing the Harveys, said council inspectors had visited the site following Ms Serra's complaint and found “no sign of dust or dusty works”.
He insisted that “the works were carried out appropriately to minimize dust leakage and cracks in the ground floor floor and that any dust or cracks came from other sources.”
“Even if the plaintiff has suffered substantial damage to the ground floor apartment, which, for the avoidance of doubt, he denies, that is not sufficient to make a claim for nuisance,” he told the court.
“The reason he is claiming damages for items that may seem insignificant and yet still work is because of his particular line of work.
“The image of the plaintiff and that of the ground floor are so fundamental to the work being carried out that everything must be pristine, even if it can still be used.
“The plaintiff grossly inflated the value of her handbag collection and made a claim for restitution of value unwarranted when the items can be cleaned.
“After the cleanup, the claimant's losses will be minimal.”
The trial was scheduled for this week but was adjourned after a brief hearing due to problems arising from the presentation of last-minute evidence. A hearing will be held at a later date.
