Shabaz and Shakira Ashraf were ordered to dismantle their new extension, costing £80,000, after disputing with neighbors, the Dhinjans, over a 2-inch overlap, turning a dream project into a legal battle
A London couple’s dream of expanding their home turned into a nightmare when they were ordered to dismantle their newly built extension.
Shabaz Ashraf, 45, and his wife Shakira, 40, found themselves in a legal battle after their £80,000 extension to their £700,000 home in Ridgeway Gardens, Redbridge, proved to be more than two inches too close to their neighbours’ house. The couple estimated they spent £80,000 ripping down a 1970s extension at the back of their house and replacing it with a modern one.
But their neighbours, Avtar Dhinjan and his wife Balvinder, who used to be friends with the couple next door, raised concerns about a slight overlap on their property. The Dhinjan family, with their son Gurpreet by their side, raised concerns about their neighbours’ extension. They pointed out that the extension strayed 68mm (2.68 inches) onto their property, with a roof overhang of 98mm (3.86 inches) beyond the boundary line.
Mr Dhinjan, who worked at a Ford car plant before, expressed his belief that the extension was intentionally built to annoy his family, as it crossed the boundary established between their homes in 2019. Despite acknowledging the small size of the “encroachment”, the Dhinjans said the extension to their wall stopped air circulation, resulting in dampness and mould within their house.
The dispute reached the Central London County Court, where the Dhinjans sought an injunction to order their neighbours to demolish the wall. In the ruling last year, Judge Richard Roberts sided with the Dhinjan family, condemning the actions of their neighbours as “trespassing” and “high-handed.” The court ordered the Ashrafs to dismantle the offending wall and relocate it to comply with the property boundary.
Mr and Mrs Ashraf argued they built their new extension where the old one stood, claiming squatters’ rights due to its 40-year presence. However, Rachel Coyle, representing the Dhinjans, argued that the 2019 rebuild extended beyond the old footprint, pressing against the Dhinjans’ house.
“Only removal and building it where it should be will prevent mould and damp, failing which the claimants’ extension will become virtually uninhabitable”, she argued. “The injury is not one that can be compensated in money.”
The judge sided with the neighbours, pointing out how the dispute had harmed their relationship. He rejected the Ashrafs’ argument that they rebuilt exactly where their property was before, referring to evidence showing a 68mm encroachment. He said the physical evidence clearly showed the new wall extended beyond the original boundary.
He said: “I can see from the pictures that the breeze blocks have been built outside the existing boundary, so the notion that they built inside the existing boundary line is not sustainable because the pictures show where the existing boundary line is. Their new wall is clearly outside that wall. The wall erected by the defendants is encroaching on the claimants’ land.”
In the end, the judge sided with the Dhinjans, recognising how the Ashrafs behaved and telling them to fix the problem of taking over the Dhinjans’ land. The judge found that Mr and Mrs Ashraf were fully aware of the encroachment issues surrounding their property back in April 2019. Despite this, they proceeded with their project regardless.
During a heated exchange with their neighbours over the matter, Mrs Ashraf was quoted as saying: “If you think we have come over, then go to court.” The judge condemned this behaviour, stating that the Ashrafs had acted recklessly and dishonestly from the outset. As a result, he issued an injunction requiring them to remove the extension wall and reinstate a fence post they had removed. Additionally, he said that the fence between the properties rightfully belonged to the Dhinjans.
The financial ramifications were significant, with the Ashrafs ordered to cover their neighbours’ legal fees, totalling nearly £100,000, along with their own expenses. Upfront costs alone amounted to £49,009. Lawyers involved estimated the overall expenses of the case to be around £200,000.