Kingston bridal shop owner sues landlords over leaks that ‘ruined dresses and her marriage’

Kingston bridal shop owner sues landlords over leaks that ‘ruined dresses and her marriage’ Sharon Underwood, whose business was featured on Married At First Sight and Don’t Tell the Bride, was left in ‘disrepair’ - Bookmark A bridal boutique owner is seeking more than £500,000 in damages from her landlords, alleging that persistent leaks at her Kingston-upon-Thames shop not only destroyed hundreds of wedding gowns but also contributed to the collapse of her marriage. Sharon Underwood, whose business Love Me Do Brides Ltd has featured on popular TV shows such as C4's Married at First Sight and BBC's Don't Tell the Bride, claims the extensive damage left her in “despair”. After establishing a successful first shop in Surrey, Ms Underwood, 57, opened a "flagship" boutique across two floors in Kingston-upon-Thames in 2005. However, she alleges that over 14 years of trading, the premises were plagued by repeated leaks and damp, which destroyed or damaged hundreds of garments, including wedding dresses, veils, and tiaras. This resulted in hundreds of items being discarded or donated to charity, while many more were sold at reduced prices due to damage or becoming unfashionable after prolonged storage, leading to substantial lost profits. Ms Underwood claims that the ongoing issues at her shop caused her “severe mental distress”, culminating in “the breakdown of her marriage” and “feelings of entrapment, embarrassment and despair”. She eventually vacated the premises in 2019 and is now pursuing legal action against her former landlords, father and son Muhammad and Areeb Azam, for over £500,000 in lost stock, profit, and other damages. Her lawyers say the store was supposed to be her “flagship boutique, a source of pride and professional achievement”, but instead turned into a nightmare due to the leaks and damp. However, the landlords are fighting her claim, arguing that they cannot be blamed for damage, as well as saying they are “deeply concerned about the veracity” of the losses Ms Underwood claims she suffered. Central London County Court heard that Ms Underwood began a career in the wedding industry in 2003 and opened her first boutique in Walton-on-Thames in 2004, before expanding with her second shop in 2005. According to the business' website, it has won several bridal industry awards, as well as featuring on TV and in glossy magazines, including OK! and Hello! In 2007, Ms Underwood herself featured from her Walton store on the first episode of Don't Tell the Bride on BBC3, helping save a devastated bride's wedding by supplying a new dress after her groom had botched his first choice. She told Judge Simon Monty KC that the new shop was much larger than the Walton branch, set over the ground floor and basement of a double fronted premises in Park Road, Kingston. But Ms Underwood claims there were problems from the start, including a lack of drinking water, a store room rendered unusable by a gas smell, followed by rising damp and repeated leaks. “There were significant problems with damp and leaks, which caused a lot of damage to the stock and eventually forced the claimants to move out all of the stock and stop trading from this shop,” said her barrister Antonida Kocharova. Leaks came from various places, Ms Underwood claims, including from the flat roof and awning and from two adjoining flats which were also owned by her landlords, the Azams. In evidence, she told of one particular incident in 2014, when she received a call from a member of staff to say that there had been a leak in the basement kitchen, which doubled as a stock room, with water running down walls. “The dresses that were directly under the leak were damaged so badly they had to be thrown away or given to charity,” she told the judge. “When the water was coming down the ceiling, it was impacting on the boxes and then, when it spread out, it got soaked up by the boxes.” Ms Underwood said 75 items - wedding and bridesmaid dresses, veils, tiaras and hoop skirts - were so badly damaged they couldn't be sold, while another 106 had to be sold at a discount. Another leak in the same area in 2015 resulted in 79 items lost and 155 sold for less than their true value, she said, describing the carpet in the basement as “sopping.” “There was carpeting down the stairs,” she said. “It used to be sopping wet, to the point you could put footprints in them. “We moved things all the time. The leak would get sorted and we would move them somewhere else, then there would be another leak.” She told the judge giving away so many dresses to charity meant she had to tour local shops as it was embarrassing to keep returning to the same ones. Her barrister said Ms Underwood had suffered “severe mental distress,” telling the judge, “This included the breakdown of her marriage and significant debt caused by the ongoing issues, feelings of entrapment, embarrassment and despair. “The evidence shows that the Kingston shop was intended to be a flagship boutique, a source of pride and professional achievement but was instead marred by persistent disrepair and loss of reputation. “The mental distress, discomfort, and ill health were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ breaches, as the persistent lack of repair made the premises unfit for their intended purpose.” “Ms Underwood has throughout this time worked long hours in trying to run the business from two shops, with a small staff, and there was limited time she could devote to arranging a mass move out. “The problems became such an everyday part of the claimants’ existence that Ms Underwood did not realise the extent of her losses until after vacating the premises and taking legal advice. “Witness statements...describe the daily reality of working in a hazardous, unpleasant, and embarrassing environment, including repeated water damage, hazardous electrics, and condemned basement facilities. “Members of the staff were experiencing electric shocks when using the sockets.” Ms Underwood and the company are suing Muhammad Azam as freehold owner of the building and Areeb Azam as the head leaseholder, and both as the owners of the two adjoining flats where some of the alleged leaks originated. Ms Kocharova argued they had breached obligations as the landlords by not taking reasonable steps to prevent parts of the building from falling into disrepair, causing water ingress. “The claimants’ case is that the loss and damage complained of was caused not only by the defendants’ breaches of contract and leasehold covenants, but also by their failure to exercise reasonable care in relation to those retained and adjoining parts of the building,” she said. The landlords should have understood that, if the shop was affected by leaks and damp, then stock could be damaged and the business would suffer. “The losses claimed in respect of damaged wedding dresses and related stock are therefore not too remote, but are the natural and foreseeable consequence of the disrepair,” she said. “It is noted, with relation to wedding dresses, that stock has had to be sold at an undervalue not only due to direct damage, but also due to items going out of fashion while in storage.” For the landlords, barrister Ben Maltz argued that the “express and unequivocal wording” of the lease made it clear that the let premises did not include the basement area. Any issues relating to the flat roof, awning or shop fascia would also be the responsibility of the tenant, since they were part of the physical features of the building. In terms of the claim against the landlords as owners of the adjoining flats, he said it would require there to have been a use of the flats which caused detriment to the shop, or some negligence by the owners. “It is submitted that there is no clear evidence that the leaks from the flats were connected to the same recurring issue/defect,” he said. “The lapse of time between leak events suggests different causes. Indeed, Ms Underwood accepts that the first leak from Flat 4, on June 9, 2017, was caused by a tenant’s child having left a bath running. “As regards the leaks from Flat 1, it is submitted that there is no cogent evidence that the three leaks over a period of four years had the same cause. “The gaps in time between each of these leaks and the fact that the third leak was in a different location...indicate that there was no persistent or recurring leak from Flat 1 in respect of which the defendant can be held liable in nuisance and/or negligence. ”Indeed, the third leak was caused by concealed failed pipework, which had to be accessed by the defendants’ workmen cutting into the ceiling of the premises to locate and remedy, after which the hole in the ceiling was boarded over.” Dampness in the basement and water penetration through the flat roof were also already known about when the lease was signed, so cannot form a claim for nuisance or negligence damages, he said. Mr Maltz also questioned whether the figures Ms Underwood had given for lost dresses and lost profits were correct, pointing out that she has not submitted evidence of such in many cases. The landlords are also counterclaiming for payment of £28,000 outstanding rent and another £10,855 they say is due under the terms of the tenancy. The trial continues.