A FASHIONISTA claims her neighbour's new extension left her home covered in dust and forced her to move out - she's now suing for £265,000 in damages.
Stylist Maria Serra has taken her neighbour in London's swanky Notting Hill to court over claims dust from his building work ruined her collection of designer handbags.
Serra says that property guru neighbour David Harvey created disastrous "dust ingress" into her £570,000 flat whilst having an extension built.
The dust made her home "uninhabitable" forcing her to move out and soiling her £14,000 collection of high-fashion handbags.
Serra, 54, - who describes herself as “an international fashion stylist and creative director” - also claims her flat was damaged by the works.
Spectacular New Year fireworks light up London sky as huge crowds celebrate across UK for first time in three years
She is now suing downstairs neighbours - high end estate agent Harvey and his wife Katherine - for more than £265,000 to cover damages.
That amount includes the cost of replacing or restoring her collection of 26 vintage handbags from designers including Chanel and Paco Rabanne.
But lawyers for the couple are denying the building works caused "dust ingress" to Serra's flat and have slammed her damages claim as "frankly absurd".
At a hearing before Judge Margaret Obi at the High Court in London, lawyers for Serra said in written submissions that there had been "a history of disagreements" between Serra and her neighbours.
She bought her ground floor flat in a converted house in Chesterton Road, Notting Hill, in 2008, after the Harveys had bought their £580,000 basement pad in the same building in 2006.
But they fell out spectacularly in 2016 and 2017, around the time Harvey, 51, - the boss of Horne and Harvey, a high end estate agents based in London's swanky St James' - had commissioned workers to build a "conservatory-type" extension at the rear of his property.
Serra's lawyer Gavin Hamilton said that the Harveys had failed to use "adequate plastic sheeting" to stop the dust.
He said: "Ms Serra...moved out of the flat on 27 February 2017 as after four months (she) could not cope any more with the noise, dust and general disruption."
"Ms Serra kept the flat in good condition. It was free of dust prior to the works. There is no rational explanation for the presence of dust inside the flat other than it must have come from the works below.
"It is obvious that steps could have been taken...to prevent or control the escape of dust from the basement flat during the works."
Robbie Williams poised to launch his own brand of energy drinks to rival Prime
He added that she says her neighbours have breached the terms of the lease on their flat by causing "nuisance, damage or annoyance" to her.
The barrister said she is seeking repair costs of £9,685, future repair costs of £105,110, indemnity against a service charge of £7,777 and an as yet unspecified amount for damaged fashion items including 26 handbags - worth over £14,500 - that she says now need either replacement or costly repairs.
She is also demanding storage charges to the tune of £25,435 for her high-fashion goods and mortgage payments of £116,777 from 2016 to date on the basis that she was forced to leave the flat and has not returned.
But the Harveys have denied they are liable to pay her anything with their lawyer labelling the £265,000 figure "frankly absurd" and that she had "grossly inflated the value of her handbag collection".
Their lawyer Edward Blakeney said: "The claimant's image and that of the ground floor flat is so fundamental to the work she undertakes that everything must be pristine, even if it can still be used.
"The claimant seeks to fully renovate the ground floor flat and is claming for costs that blatantly have no connection to the work at all."
He said that council inspectors had attended the build after Serra complained and found "there was no sign of dust or dusty works."
"Part of the problem was dust already present in the ground floor flat...the defendants are not liable for the state of the claimant's own flat," the barrister went on.
The case was due to be heard in a four-day trial this week, but was adjourned after a short hearing due to issues relating to last minute evidence being submitted.
It will now return to court at a later date.
