The window of conflict, with the blond mannequin with a penetrating gaze. It all happened in Richmond Park on the outskirts of London.
The news leapt to the media in 2020 when a couple claimed their neighbor had installed a mannequin in the front window of their home. to see them undress at his villa in the UK. Then he filed a firm legal action for the right to privacy, and now the High Court of England has handed down his sentence after two years of litigation.
It all started when the TV costume designer Rosie Taylor Davies and her husband Christopher said so they were forced to live with the curtains closed after what Simone Cook, his neighbor built a window in the bedroom of his home in Richmond Park, London. After a discussion about building the opening – they felt it was not allowed – Cook he put a blond mannequin on it.
In February 2020, the Local Planning Council of London borough of Wandsworthgave Cook permission to carry out renovations in his home and set the conditions for this attic to have stained glass and not open.
Both houses are located on a slope, which has exacerbated the conflict between the two neighbors. The arrow indicates the angle between one window and another.
The work consisted of widening the roof with windows on both sides. This annoyed the Taylor-Davies, who opposed the project on the grounds that it consisted of a “invasion of your privacy”.
The houses are on a slope, which means the window offers a direct view of the Taylor-Davies house, including its overhanging shower. The new window created by Cook is from type “Velux”. “It opens right on our bed,” Rosie Taylor said.
However, the council’s planning officials resigned, stating this the opening seemed “towards the sky” and would have less impact on the neighbors.
Rosie Taylor-Davies and her husband Christopher said they were forced to live with the curtains drawn after their neighbor Simon Cook built a window in their bedroom in their Richmond Park home in London.
So the couple made a decision: take the case to court arguing that the fact that the window had no frosted glass lforced you to undress behind a librarythe only spot on the top floor where they couldn’t be seen from Cook’s window.
Taylor-Davis attorney Stephen Whale argued before the Judge of the Supreme CourtJudge Lang, that the window had robbed them of their privacy.
Now, two years later, the court has ruled that Cook he didn’t take himself “seriously” privacy concerns of his neighbors, but he determined that he had not violated the planning rules by installing the window there.
Simon Cook, the movie villain who broke his neighbors’ peace of mind by building a window and putting up a mannequin to watch them.
Lang said: “It serves to give the impression, as he presumably means, that there is a person at the window looking out on his property and invading his privacy. It only increases the anxiety. The view of their property and the invasion of their privacy by the Velux window is very distressing for them. There is no good reason for the Velux window have transparent glass or can be openedsince there is another window very close on the opposite wall “.
The two houses of discord.
Elsewhere in his sentence, Lang stated: “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 do not take plaintiffs concerns seriously“.
However, for this reason, and beyond the fact that Cook was legally correct, Judge Lang asked him to deign put a dark or colored protection on your new window.
The inflatable doll looks out the window.
After the sentence, Taylor and Davies, 62 and 59, told the Cook had already removed the mannequinwhile not assuring that in the face of the slightest dispute, or simply to annoy them, the doll would reappear at any moment, suggesting that the problem, although it has been formally solved, could have new chapters in the future.
Source: Clarin