Shabaz Ashraf, 45, and wife Shakira, 40, were told to tear apart the annex to their £700,000 London home (Picture: Champion News)

A couple who told neighbours to ‘go to court’ when they complained their £80,000 extension ‘trespassed’ into their garden have been ordered to rip it down and pay £200,000 costs. 

Shabaz Ashraf, 45, and wife Shakira, 40, were told to tear apart the annex to their £700,000 London home, because it was built just over two inches too close to next door. 

The couple estimate they spent £80,000 ripping down a 1970s extension at the back of their house in Ridgeway Gardens, Redbridge, and replacing it with a modern one. 

But former friends Avtar and Balvinder Dhinjan, living beside them, complained it was millimetres over the boundary between their properties. 

The couple, backed by their son Gurpreet, said the new extension strayed 68mm or 2.68 inches onto their land with an overhang at roof level 98mm or 3.86 inches the wrong side of the line. 

Mr Dhinjan, a former Ford car plant worker, claimed his neighbours ‘intended to annoy’ him and his family by building over the boundary between their homes in 2019. 

While accepting the ‘encroachment’ is tiny, they complained the extension is making their home damp and ‘mouldy’ because there is not enough room for air to circulate between the outer walls. 

They sued at Central London County Court, demanding an injunction forcing the Ashrafs to demolish the encroaching wall. 

Now Judge Richard Roberts has granted them victory, slamming their ‘high-handed’ neighbours for ‘trespassing’ and ordering them to knock down the offending wall and move it back. 

The couple estimate they spent £80,000 ripping down a 1970s extension (Picture: Champion News)

Mr and Mrs Ashraf had defended the case, saying they built the new extension on the footprint of the 1970s one and that any encroachment must have already been going on for over 40 years, giving them squatters’ rights. 

But Rachel Coyle, for the Dhinjans, told the judge the 2019 rebuild went beyond the footprint of the old extension and as a result ‘flush’ against the outer wall of their house. 

‘There was an encroachment which, while de minims in valuation terms, causes significant injury to the land belonging to the claimants,’ she argued. 

‘The defendants’ continued course of conduct intended to annoy.  

‘Only removal and building it where it should be will prevent mould and damp, failing which the claimants’ extension will become virtually uninhabitable. 

‘The injury is not one that can be compensated in money.’ 

Mr and Mrs Ashraf had defended the case, saying they built the new extension on the footprint of the 1970s one (Picture: Supplied by Champion News)

Giving his ruling, the judge said: ‘One of the sad features of the case is that before the parties began building new extensions to the rear of their property, they lived in harmony and were on good terms. 

‘The defendants say they built the wall in exactly the same position as the previous wall, which was in position for 41 years. I find that that is, to the defendants’ knowledge, wholly untrue. 

‘The joint expert surveyor concluded in his report there was an encroachment of 68mm. 

‘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. 

‘The claimants put their case for an injunction on this basis. They say this is a case where the defendants acted in a high-handed manner throughout and have deliberately overridden the claimants when they were saying there was an encroachment on their land.’ 

The judge found that, by April 2019, Mr and Mrs Ashraf ‘were on notice that they would be encroaching and that there would be a trespass’ but carried on with their project regardless. 

He found that Mrs Ashraf had said to her neighbours during a row over the issue: ‘If you think we have come over, then go to court.’ 

More: Trending

The judge added: ‘This was exactly what was said by them on Apri 29: “If you think we have come over, go to court. We will only move the wall if the court tells us”. 

‘From the very get go, the defendants, when confronted with the fact that this would be a trespass, have simply ignored it and said, “go to court”. 

‘This is a case where the defendants have acted in a high-handed manner and have simply not told the truth from the very start and, when told that there was an issue here, have carried on regardless.’ 

The judge said he would make an injunction directing the Ashrafs to remove their extension wall. 

He also told them to reinstate a fencepost they removed and made a declaration that the fence between the two houses belongs to the Dhinjans. 

As well as having pay their own costs, he ordered Mr and Mrs Ashraf to pay their neighbours’ lawyers’ bills – estimated at almost £100,000, with £49,009 up front. 

The total cost of the case was estimated by lawyers outside court at around £200,000, on top of which Mr and Mrs Ashraf will face the costs of tearing apart and rebuilding their extension. 

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected].

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Shabaz Ashraf and wife Shakira told next door they could ‘go to court’ if they weren’t happy. So they did.