They complained about a window being built and a mannequin came in to look at them

The news had hit the media in 2020, when a couple claimed that their neighbor had installed a mannequin in the window in front of their house. see them undress at his villa in the UK. He then launched a strong legal action over his right to privacy, and now the High Court of England has handed down its ruling after two years of litigation.

It all started when the television costume designer Rosie Taylor-Davies and her husband Christopher said so they were forced to live with the curtains drawn after what Simon Cook, his neighbor built a window in the bedroom of his house in Richmond Park, London. After a discussion about building the opening – they felt it wasn’t allowed – Cook he put a blond mannequin inside.

In February 2020, the local planning council of the London Borough of Wandsworthhe granted Cook planning permission to make changes to his house and set the conditions for that dormer window to have colored glass and not open.

The work was to widen the roof with windows on both sides. This annoyed the Taylor-Davies, who objected to the project on the grounds that it consisted of a “invasion of your privacy”.

The houses are on a slope, which means that the window offers a direct view of the Taylor-Davies home, including its glass-walled shower. The new window made by Cook is one of “velux” type.. “It just feels like it in our bed,” said Rosie Taylor.

However, resigned council planning officials have said so the opening looked “skyward” and would have less impact on neighbors.

So the couple made a decision: to take the case to court, arguing that the fact that the window didn’t have frosted glass lforced you to undress behind a librarythe only place on the top floor where they couldn’t be seen from Cook’s window.

Taylor-Davis’ attorney, Stephen Whale, argued before the High Court judgeJustice Lang, that the window had stolen their privacy.

Now, two years later, the court has ruled that Cook not taken “seriously” the privacy concerns of its neighbors, but determined that it did not violate planning rules by installing the window in that location.

Lang said: “It serves to make an impression, as he presumably intends, that there is a person at the window overlooking his property and invading his privacy. It only increases the angst. The sight of their property and the invasion of their privacy due to the Velux window is very distressing to them. There is no good reason for the Velux window they have clear glass or can be openedfor there is another window very close on the opposite wall”.

Elsewhere in his judgment, Lang said: “Mr. Cook periodically installs a mannequin in the skylight which gives the impression that there is a person at the window looking out. This suggests to me that The plaintiffs’ concerns are not being taken seriously“.

However, for this reason, and beyond the fact that Cook was legally correct, Judge Lang asked him to deign put a dark or tinted protector on your new window.

Following the ruling, Taylor and Davies, aged 62 and 59, recounted the Cook had already pulled out the mannequineven if they have not ensured that in the event of the slightest dispute, or simply to annoy them, the doll would reappear at any moment, suggesting that the problem, although formally resolved, could have new chapters in the future.