A squatter living in a legendary London music venue wins thousands in damages after the owner began demolishing the building as he slept inside.
Nicola Saia was living in a flat inside The Cricketers in the Oval, Kennington, and had formerly stayed there with permission as a property guardian.
The famed venue, built in the 1860s, hosted a slew of high-profile acts including The Pogues, Happy Mondays and the Fairport Convention before being converted into flats.
The squatter previously told London County Court that even though the property was unfit to live in, he had to stay until he could move into temporary accommodation on July 29, 2023, as the council deemed him homeless.
Mr Saia claimed the owner, Ravinder Laly, repeatedly threatened, from July 3, 2023, onwards that the roof would come down if he did not leave.
At around 9am on July 18, the squatter was woken to loud banging and later found debris falling through a hole in his living room ceiling.
The resident sued Mr Laly and his property company RSL Slough Ltd for harassment and unlawful eviction, claiming he suffered 'shock, stress, anxiety and inconvenience' – and demanding up to £60,000 compensation.
Mr Laly denied any acts of harassment or unlawful eviction, disputing that Mr Saia was legally a tenant of the property or the company at the time.
Nicola Saia (pictured in October), a former resident of the now-levelled The Cricketers, wins thousands in his harassment claim against his ex-landlord and his property company
The former Cricketers pub, which was at centre of dispute between Mr Saia and Ravinder Laly
Trial judge Recorder Tom Shepherd found the landlord harassed Mr Saia by following through on earlier threats that he would remove the roof over his head.
He also concluded that Mr Laly harassed Mr Saia by briefly cutting off water to his flat.
However, he dismissed claims that Mr Laly harassed the squatter by cutting off the WiFi and 'trapping' him in the property by boarding it up.
Mr Shepherd found Mr Saia was not a legal flat tenant at the property and thus, there was no breach of the Protection from Eviction Act, under which the bulk of his damages claim was made.
'I accept Mr Saia's evidence that what happened was that he was asleep and that agents instructed by Mr Laly turned up at the property and were indeed starting to remove the roof while in the knowledge that he was still inside,' the judge said.
Although accepting that Mr Saia was legally 'trespassing' at the time, the judge described Mr Laly's decision to try and take down the roof as 'calculated' and 'oppressive'.
He argued that the landlord could have pursued other options, such as erecting fences or barricades around the property to prevent Mr Saia from re-entering while he was out.
'I find that this was unacceptable and oppressive, and was clearly calculated to cause alarm and distress,' he said.
'He could have gone to court and got a possession order, and if he wanted to use force he could have ensured that bailiffs were instructed.
'The simple fact that Mr Saia was effectively a squatter did not mean he could go and take the extreme steps which I find were taken.'
'It was the imminence of the threats to demolish which I find stepped over the line,' he explained.
Kevin Brown, representing Mr Saia, said Mr Laly had sent his client a message 'stating that the roof would be coming off and that demolition would start'.
'On 18 July 2023, Mr Saia was woken at about 9am by loud banging from the roof,' he added.
'He went into his living room and found debris falling from the ceiling. Mr Laly was in attendance with builders and a hole had been made through the roof/ceiling of the living room, bathroom and one of the bedrooms.'
He explained that his client 'suffered harm and damage to his mental health, and remains traumatised' after the defendants demolished the roof while the property was still occupied.
Ben Leb, representing Mr Laly and his firm, said they had a 'licence' to enter the property as they did. Mr Laly also tried to counter-sue Mr Saia for trespassing.
Ruling on the counterclaim for trespass and damages against Mr Saia, the judge found that he was 'technically a trespasser',
However, Mr Shepherd rejected claims for alleged damage done by Mr Saia, awarding nominal compensation of just £1.
Mr Saia was awarded £2,000 in damages under his harassment claim. The Cricketers were fully demolished in 2024.