A woman who works as an accountant and bought a luxurious London flat designed by Versace for £1.5million is taking legal action to recover her money because she discovered that her bathroom was missing a bathtub.
Mi Suk Park paid £381,000 for a deposit on a two-bedroom apartment and parking space in the 50-storey Aykon London One tower in Nine Elms.
She alleges that she was assured of receiving the epitome of opulence for the apartment located in a building known as the ‘Versace Tower,’ which resulted from a major partnership between property developers and the renowned fashion brand to create the interior design.
Before finalizing her purchase, Ms. Park, who is 54 years old, reviewed a brochure and floor plan and then decided to invest in the luxurious property, considering it a ‘lifetime choice’ for herself and her spouse as their ‘primary residence until they retire.’
But when she first viewed the apartment in person, it was ‘materially and manifestly different from the layout as set out in the plan and description’ that she had seen before paying the deposit, she told Central London County Court
She then refused to move in to her new home and is now suing for more than £700,000, demanding the deposit money she paid and cash to cover five years’ rent, alongside other losses she suffered.
Her gripes include one bedroom being smaller than she expected, one of the two bathrooms not having a bathtub, an intrusive utility cupboard which ‘impinges’ on what she expected to be an ‘open plan living space’ and a two-year delay in the apartment being ready.
But developer Nine Elms Property Ltd – a Jersey-based entity owned by a parent company in Dubai – is fighting the claim and counter suing the accountant for not completing the purchase, insisting her deposit has been forfeited.
Accountant Mi Suk Park,54, who refused to complete the purchase of the flat, outside Central London County Court
The 50-storey Aykon London One tower in Nine Elms, Vauxhall, dubbed the ‘Versace Tower’
The company’s lawyers are arguing that the brochure that Ms Park saw before putting her money down was for illustrative purposes only and made clear that what was being shown was simply an example of a ‘typical layout’.
Nazar Mohammad, for Ms Park, who runs an accountancy business in Surrey, told Judge Alan Johns that his client had agreed the deal in November 2015 and paid her deposit towards a purchase price of £1,524,400.
‘The apartment was an ‘off plan’ purchase on the 29 floors facing the west and, when built, it would have two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with a bathtub in each critically,’ he said.
‘It was to be an open-plan layout. The defendant provided a plan appended to the sales and purchase agreement, and she signed the same plan.’
The flat was meant to be ready to move into in 2020 and Ms Park sold her home in 2019 in preparation, he continued.
But when it was finally ready in 2022 and she saw it, she was deeply unhappy.
He told the judge that Ms Park refused to complete the purchase ‘as the apartment was materially and manifestly different from the layout of the apartment as set out in the plan and description’.
‘The defendant’s expert and the defendant accept that the built apartment is not the same as the plan attached to the contract dated November 6, 2015.’
An example interior apartment image from promotional material for the Aykon London One tower, including a bath
He said ‘irredeemable breaches’ of the purchase contract include the fact that ‘the utility cupboard impinges on the living space’, which cannot be altered.
Other alleged breaches, he said were that the second bedroom is smaller and ‘the second bathroom has no bathtub’.
Mr Mohammad said the brochure promised the apartment would ‘represent the ultimate in luxury’, complete with ‘floor to ceiling windows and Panoramic views of London’.
‘Without qualification, the brochure describes it as the ultimate in luxury and combines it with panoramic views. The expectation raised and the price demanded is matched,’ he said.
He accused the developer of ‘misrepresentation’ and having ‘induced’ the sale to Ms Park with the brochure and floor plan.
He added: ‘The court must not lose sight of the fact that this was a high specification, high-end apartment, and small/compact, for which the claimant agreed to pay a large sum of money.
‘The issue for the court is whether the defendant acted within the terms of the contract when the variations to the structure and layout of the expected apartment were made, and whether these alterations were material.
‘The claimant does not accept that the defendant is entitled to enforce the contract. The breaches of contract by the defendant are such that it has not delivered the bespoke apartment which she had an expectation to deliver.’
In the witness box, Ms Park told the judge that it had been a ‘lifetime decision’ to splash out on the £1.5m designer apartment and it was to be her and her husband’s ‘main house until retirement’.
Example interior apartment image from promotional material for the Aykon London One tower. Ms Park claims the flat was ‘materially different’ from what she had seen in the brochure
She insisted what she had seen in the brochure and plans before putting her money down were ‘structural elements which should have been fixed.’
But Rupert Cohen, cross-examining for the developers, said the brochure had shown example apartments and pointed out that ‘at the top of each page…it says “typical layout”.’
‘You may call me careless, but I didn’t see ‘typical’ as an important word,’ she replied.
Mr Cohen told the judge: ‘Ms Park refused to complete and, instead, purported to rescind the contract by letter dated 14 October 2022.
‘Subsequently, the defendant served notice to complete on 22 November 2022 and, following the claimant’s failure to complete, a notice of termination on 9 January 2023. Ms Park issued these proceedings on 21 April 2023.
‘The court is invited to grant the declarations sought in the counterclaim, namely that the contract has been terminated and the…payments forfeited to the defendant.’
Ms Park is claiming her £381,000 deposit money, £131,000 rent she has paid since 2020, £150,000 over the sale of her house, which she says could have realised more if she had not hurried the sale through to meet the 2020 completion date, plus around £45,000 of additional losses.
The case continues.
