A father and son sued after leaving their washing to dry on the patio of their neighbour’s £2million flat have been hit with a £20,000 court bill.
Music teacher Jodie Schloss accused Robin Larkins and his father Derek Larkins of a campaign of harassment and trespassing after they entered her passageway which they used to access a shared garden.
The trio live in garden flats in a five-storey Victorian villa in Swiss Cottage, an affluent suburb in north London.
Both properties have a right to use the garden, with the Larkins’ accessing it directly from their back door, while Ms Schloss could also get there from her property.
The passage is part of Ms Schloss’ home and for many years she had allowed other residents to use it to get to the garden, which gardener Derek Larkins maintains.
But after changing her mind Ms Schloss claimed the passageway had been forced open twice, with the lock being changed behind her back.
She then sued for an injunction to prevent further incursions after the Larkins’ washing was left on her private patio.
Despite both men agreeing not to set foot on her passageway again, the father and son were handed a £20,000 bill for the court case.
Robin Larkins (right) and his father Derek Larkins were accused of a campaign of harassment and trespassing against their neighbour
Music teacher Jodie Schloss sued for an injunction to prevent further incursions after the Larkins’ washing was left of her private patio
Judge Stephen Hellman told the Mayor’s and City of London Court the bill was appropriate because the gate had been twice forced by Derek.
The bitter neighbours’ battle erupted in August when Ms Schloss changed her mind over the patio amid ‘justified privacy concerns’ and wrote to the others withdrawing consent.
Even though he can still get to the garden himself through the back door of his flat, Robin and his father complained that access for other residents to the garden had been blocked.
What followed was a campaign of ‘trespass and harassment’ by the pair, the barrister said.
‘On 1 September 2025, Derek Larkins insisted he had a right to use the passageway and Robin Larkins threatened to rip the gate out,’ he told the judge.
‘Later on 1 September 2025, she overheard two men in the passageway discussing whether she was out and, on the morning of 2 September, she found the lock in the gate damaged.
‘She felt vulnerable and left her flat. When returning to collect belongings on 6 September 2025, she found further damage to the lock and infers from CCTV footage that it was done by Robin Larkins.
‘On being told by telephone that Robin and Derek Larkins and another were in the passage, she telephoned the police. She was persuaded to give Robin Larkins a key, but, on viewing further CCTV footage showing his father using a crowbar, decided not to.
‘On 2 October 2025, Robin Larkins changed the lock on the gate and failed to provide a key, despite being asked to by Ms Schloss’ solicitor.
‘Ms Schloss, not having been provided with keys, changed the locks back. On 22 March 2026, Derek Larkins forced the lock and they used the passage multiple times on that date and on 24 March 2026.
‘On 9 April 2026, Robin Larkins’ family’s washing was hung on Ms Schloss’ patio.’
Asking for an injunction to prevent any trespass, Mr Clargo branded the two men’s behaviour ‘unreasonable’.
Representing himself in court, Mr Larkins insisted that they did what they did because they wanted to protect their other neighbours’ access to the garden.
‘This whole claim doesn’t really affect me because I do have direct access from my flat into the garden,’ he told the judge.
The trio live in garden flats in a five-storey Victorian villa in Swiss Cottage where they shared a communal garden (pictured). The passageway (left) is the only way for most neighbours to enter the garden
‘The main issue is the leaseholders in the building, who for 30 years have used this communal space via the side passage.
‘For 30 years, everybody has had access to the communal garden.
‘People have had in their service charges maintenance for the garden. Everyone in the building has contributed and everyone has had access to the garden.
‘The passage is the only way [for the other residents] to have access to the back garden.
‘I’m here today because I believe the leaseholders in the building have a right to use the communal garden.’
When told that their behaviour in the dispute could be considered ‘unreasonable,’ Robin Larkins responded: ‘My behaviour was only because we believe we were in the right and that all the people in the building should have access to the garden.
‘There’s no maliciousness in it.’
Regarding the washing left on Ms Schloss’ patio, he said his cleaner had hung it there without realising and been told not to do it again.
However, Mr Clargo said the evidence showed that the other residents of the house do not have a right to use the garden, or Ms Schloss’ passageway.
And while Robin Larkins has ‘a non-exclusive right to use the garden,’ he has no need, nor entitlement, to use Ms Schloss’ passageway to get to it, he continued.
After a three-hour hearing, Judge Hellman accepted father and son’s commitment not to enter her patio or passageway again, pending a full trial of the issues at a later date.
‘I can understand how the letter from Ms Schloss must have come as a shock,’ he said.
‘It’s a sad fact that, other than the passage, for most of the other tenants there’s no way to access the garden.
‘The defendants’ position is firstly that they were seeking to preserve what they understood to be the right of tenants.
The bitter neighbours’ battle erupted in August when Ms Schloss changed her mind over the patio
‘Secondly, Derek has been a gardener and general maintenance man for the property for many years and that includes access to manholes in the passage, and he uses the passage for getting into and out of the garden.’
He went on to find that the two men should pay Ms Schloss’ lawyers’ bills, partly due to their conduct in Derek Larkins forcing the gate, with his son present.
Having agreed to undertakings in court, Robin and Derek Larkins are now legally bound not to set foot on Ms Schloss’ patio or passageway without permission.
The case will return to court for a full trial at a later date, unless the parties agree to settle first.
Telling them there is a ‘very strong case’ that Ms Schloss is right about use of the passageway, the judge warned the men of even larger ‘eye-watering’ court bills if they fight on and lose.
