The “toxic” neighbours’ row focused on three car parking spaces outside the two families’ homes (Image: Champion News)
“Bullying” accountant Ivan Soares and neighbour Manish Kothari have been feuding for a decade over a “few feet” of parking space in their west London cul-de-sac, in a dispute that has already amassed around £100,000 in legal fees.
The “toxic” neighbours’ row focused on three car parking spaces outside the two families’ homes in Fallowfield Close, Harefield, Uxbridge, leading to both sides suing each other, with the Kotharis eventually winning a £60,140 damages payout in April 2023 after being repeatedly boxed in by the accountant’s “high-handed, insulting and oppressive” parking.
The judge also awarded Mr and Mrs Soares £2,530 trespass damages from the Kotharis because they had used the Soares’ parking space without permission.
Last week, ten years after the parking row began in 2015, Mr Soares returned to the High Court seeking to reopen the case and insisting that severe toothache, which prevented him attending court at the height of the row in 2023, ruined his defence to his neighbours’ case.
Barrister, Julian Gun Cuninghame, told Judge Graham Wood KC that Mr Soares had been unable to eat or speak due to severe dental problems at the time of the trial, leading to him not attending court to give evidence as he was seeking treatment.
But refusing his application to fight his case again, Judge Wood said the accountant “didn’t have a good reason for not attending the trial.”
The court heard at the 2023 trial that the trouble started after the neighbours had agreed a “swap” arrangement, whereby they parked their vehicles in spaces belonging to each other.
Sandip Kothari outside Central London County Court after hearing in parking row with Ivan Soares (Image: Champion News)
It was a “sensible” thing to do as it allowed the Kotharis to park their cars together in front of their house, with their neighbours parking closest to their own house and garage.
But the neighbours fell out after allegations of inconsiderate parking and in September 2018 Mr and Mrs Soares “revoked” the swap agreement.’
The parking feud then ended up before a judge in 2021 who ruled that the Soares had validly revoked the swap agreement and declared that the space on the right is theirs.
However, the dispute returned to court in March 2023 as Mr and Mrs Soares claimed compensation for the Kotharis having “trespassed” on their land by continuing to park in the space for nearly two years after the swap deal came to an end.
Ivan Soares outside Central London County Court (Image: Champion News)
The Kotharis in turn countersued, seeking compensation over their neighbours’ bad parking, which they said had harmed the value of their property.
The Kotharis claimed they ended up getting so penned in by Mr Soares’ callous parking manoeuvres that Mrs Kothari couldn’t even get into her car.
And she claimed she had not used the middle space, which belongs to her family, since July 2022 “for fear of being boxed in” by their neighbour.
Mr Soares had also at times left the couple’s car parked at the main road end of the cul-de-sac, “causing an obstruction”, as well as blocking access to the Kotharis’ garage.
The Kotharis claimed the value of their £750,000 home was decimated by the impact of their neighbours’ oppressive parking, with an estate agent telling them the problems would have to be disclosed to potential purchasers and could reduce the sale value by up to 10 percent.
Giving judgment in 2023, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon said a police officer who had attended the road over the dispute had described Mr Soares’ parking as “selfish and unnecessary.”
Having reversed until his vehicle was very close to Mrs Kothari’s, he had turned his wheels towards her car before leaving, said the judge.
Branding Mr Soares’ parking “high handed, insulting and oppressive,” the judge added: “this is exemplified by the evidence given by Mrs Kothari, who told me that when she couldn’t access her car she asked Mr Soares to move his car because she couldn’t get to work, but he said ‘that’s not my problem’ – and refused to move his car.”
She awarded the Kotharis £60,140 to compensate them for their neighbours’ trespassing on their space, damage done to their parking area and for the reduction in value of their house caused by the dispute.
“Given the claimant’s behaviour – which amounts to bullying – a potential purchaser might be fearful of repeat incidents. Hence the reduction in value,” she said.
On top of awarding compensation to the Kotharis, the judge slapped a series of injunctions on Mr and Mrs Soares, barring them from straying onto their neighbours’ parking space or in front of their garage.
Manish Kothari outside Central London County Court. (Image: Champion News)
Ruling in favour of Mr and Mrs Soares on their own smaller claim, the judge awarded them £2,530 trespass damages from the Kotharis for their continued use of the right sided parking space after the “swap agreement” was ended.
The judge also accepted that the Kotharis had in the past “obstructed” their neighbours’ turning circle through parking.
But she declined to grant an injunction banning this conduct because she was “not satisfied there’s been any obstruction of that turning circle for some years”.
Now, ten years after the neighbours first clashed over their cars, the case returned to court last week as Mr Soares asked Judge Wood to revive his case and order a new trial.
Mr Soares said he had failed to attend the 2023 trial as he had lost faith in his then solicitors and had also flown abroad to receive urgent dental treatment.
As a result, the case was heard in the absence of both of him and his wife, with Mr Soares unable to give evidence or present vital aspects of his case.
“There genuinely was a tooth issue,” explained his barrister, adding that Mr Soares had been unable to eat or speak due to his dental problems at the time of the trial.
But Judge Graham Wood KC decided there was no valid reason for Mr Soares missing the trial, noting: “if he was unable to speak he could have written to his solicitors and given them instructions in relation to the trial.
“Accordingly I find that he didn’t have a good reason for not attending the trial.”
He also ruled that Mrs Soares did not have a good enough excuse for not attending just because her husband was not going to be there with her.
He rejected the Soares’ bid to overturn the injunction made against them back in 2023 and refused to order a retrial.
He accepted that the outcome of the trial might have been different had Mr and Mrs Soares been able to put their case, but ruled there was no valid excuse for missing the original trial date.
“The question is did Mr Soares apply promptly and have a good reason for not attending the trial, and my answer is no,” Judge Wood concluded.