Millionaire antiques dealer is locked into bitter 10-year battle with his neighbours over parking spaces outside his £2.5m London mews house

Luciano Gulshan and father Janil in a legal war with Maitland Court Ltd directors
Decade-long fight regarding 800sq ft area at Cerney Mews in Westminster
Father and son accused of being being ‘exceptionally difficult neighbours’

A furious antique dealer destroyed a security gate with his van during a 10-year fight with his millionaire neighbour over parking spaces outside a ‘prestigious’ mansion block.

Luciano Gulshan, a vintage furniture dealer, and his father Janil are locked in a court row with neighbours in a luxury block of £1m-plus apartments next to their own £2.5m mews house near Lancaster Gate, central London.

The furniture dealer and his father claim three parking spaces – outside their mews but legally the property of the residents’ company which owns next-door apartment block Maitland Court – belong to Janil Gulshan by squatters’ rights.

The Gulshans and the directors of the flat residents’ company, Maitland Court Ltd, including 76-year-old Charles Raeshed, are now fighting over ownership of the spaces in a trial at Central London County Court.

The decade-long fight has spilled into court before, leaving Luciano Gulshan with a criminal record following his ramming of the gates to the car park.

Luciano Gulshan, a vintage furniture dealer, and his father Janil are locked in a court row with neighbours in a luxury block of £1m-plus apartments

The current dispute revolves around a security gate and three parking spaces outside their Cerney Mews house – owned by father and occupied by son – next door to the 90-flat Maitland Court development

In previous legal proceedings, Janil Gulshan obtained ownership of a small piece of land behind the mews by so-called ‘squatters’ rights’ in 2011.

The current dispute revolves around a security gate and three parking spaces outside their Cerney Mews house on Gloucester Terrace in Westminster – owned by father and occupied by son – next door to the 90-flat Maitland Court development.

The 800sq ft area is in a private car park owned by Maitland Court Ltd and accessed via the electric key fob-controlled gate from Gloucester Terrace.

The Gulshans claim their historic use of the three spaces – for parking vehicles, holding barbecues and as a garden – means they belong to Janil Gulshan via adverse possession, also known as squatters’ rights.

But for the company, barrister Emily Winsor denied this and accused the Gulshans of being ‘exceptionally difficult neighbours…constantly looking to expand their property rights at Maitland Court’s expense.’

Janil Gulshan had deliberately ramped up their use of the spaces over recent years in a bid to obtain them by ‘stealth,’ amassing evidence by photographing barbecues and the storage of vintage luggage from their business, she claimed.

The dispute had turned nasty, she said, when the security gate was damaged and in need of repair and the Gulshans’ activities prevented the work.

Ms Winsor told Judge Jane Evans-Gordon: ‘These included blocking the entrance to Cerney Mews with vehicles and Luciano Gulshan deliberately and repeatedly damaging the gate by kicking or ramming it.

‘On 7 October 2020, he deliberately and repeatedly rammed the company’s workmen’s vehicles with their vehicles, with the effect of breaking the gate completely, as a result of which it had to be completely replaced.

‘The main protagonist was Luciano Gulshan, but Janil Gulshan was present and complicit in his actions.

The decade-long fight has spilled into court before, leaving Luciano Gulshan with a criminal record following his ramming of the gates to the car park

The Gulshans claim their historic use of the three spaces – for parking vehicles, holding barbecues and as a garden – means they are Janil Gulshan’s via adverse possession, also known as squatters’ rights

‘The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court deemed Luciano Gulshan’s offences to be ‘so serious’ that it made an order for a four-month suspended prison sentence.’

Part of the Gulshans’ complaint is that the security gate, which they want removed, has sometimes been broken and at times bricks have been used to prop it closed, meaning they cannot get in.

But Ms Winsor said it was ‘reasonable’ for the company to use a brick to prop the gate shut while it was awaiting repair and that no one other than the Gulshans complained.

She said: ‘No other users of the gate struggled to move and replace the brick as necessary,’ she said.

‘Moreover, Luciano Gulshan’s actions in kicking and ramming the gate were a significant factor in the need to use the brick to prop the gate closed.’

For the Gulshans, Stephanie Lovegrove argued that there is no need for the gate to be in place and that their ‘exclusive’ use of the parking spaces for many years means they should be registered as Janil Gulshan’s property.

As well as for parking vehicles, the area had been used as a ‘rear garden and a place to sit and relax in warm weather’ for many years, she told the judge.

An extended area beside the disputed spaces, over which the Gulshans claim a right to park and store goods, had been used for matters associated with the running of their antiques business for at least 30 years, she added.

Due to problems of disrepair and key fobs not working, the gate had become an ‘interference’ with the Gulshans’ right to come and go along Cerney Mews and out onto the main road, she said.

It having been blocked with bricks when broken was a ‘substantial interference’ with their rights, with Luciano Gulshan having to ‘force’ it open on occasions, she continued.

The incident which led to his magistrates’ court case occurred because he had not been told that work was due to take place on the gate that day and he was ‘shocked’ to find it blocked by a work van.

‘The access way was barricaded,’ she said.

‘The Gulshans were prevented from leaving Maitland Court by the workmen.

‘Maitland Court deliberately did not inform them that the works would be taking place and, in context – the prior litigation and ongoing dispute, as well as the use of bricks to close the gate when in disrepair – this caused shock, surprise and mistrust.

‘It is accepted that Luciano Gulshan damaged a works van and the gate by driving into it. He explains that this was the result of severe stress and claustrophobia, and he has apologised for his actions.

‘His actions were a direct response to substantial interference with the right of way.’

But for the residents’ company, Ms Winsor said the three parking spaces had historically been an unenclosed section of ‘prestigious’ Maitland Court’s forecourt.

Trellis and planters were only placed there in 2012 and 2019, she said, and the Gulshans had only started to use it more in recent years as part of a ‘campaign’ to ultimately lay claim to it.

Ms Winsor said: ‘Other historic acts relied upon amount to little more than installing an outdoor tap, adding some plant pots, painting a low wall, lighting some fireworks occasionally and cleaning the area occasionally.

‘In the last few years, the Gulshans have staged – and extensively photographed – activities such as barbeques and vintage luggage storage as their campaign has ramped up: however this has been going on for far less than 10 years.

‘In this case, Maitland Court will say that Janil Gulshan could not reasonably have believed that the forecourt belonged to him or that there was any doubt about the true title boundary between his land and Maitland Court.

‘The company will also contend that Janil Gulshan’s behaviour over the past 20 years has been far more consistent with a person seeking to acquire rights by stealth than the actions of a person who believes he owns the land.

‘The company accepts that the Gulshans have parked on the forecourt and maintained a few plant pots near their front door for a period in excess of 20 years.

‘However it does not accept that any of the other activities have been ongoing for more than 20 years prior to the making of their claim.’

Janil Gulshan wants a declaration that he is entitled to ownership of the three parking spaces by squatters’ rights and to an easement allowing them to park and store equipment on the extended area beside it.

Accusing the company of interference with their right of way, the Gulshans also want an injunction forcing removal of the gate and an anti-harassment injunction based on ‘throwing bin bags full of refuse from the fire escape, removing established access routes…encouraging or failing to prevent an employee from discharging an exhaust outside of Luciano Gulshan’s window.’

The company dispute the claim to ownership of the parking spaces, accuse them of harassment and want an injunction banning them from interfering with repair work to the gate or harassing its directors or workers.

After a day and a half in court, the trial was adjourned to continue at a later date.

Source: Read Full Article