Former Chelsea FC goalkeeper Carlo Cudicini is being sued by the landlord of his South Kensington mews property after converting the roof of the home into a sun terrace.
The 53-year-old ex-footballer is facing legal action from Haya Property Ltd, which owns the freehold of the house, now valued at more than £3 million.
According to court filings, the landlord claims that Cudicini’s use of the compact rooftop space — accessed from the first-floor lounge — amounts to trespass and breaches the terms of his lease. Haya Property is seeking an injunction to stop him from using the terrace, as well as compensation of up to £25,000.
The dispute is said to have escalated after Cudicini complained about noisy air-conditioning units installed close to his bedroom window by the landlord, a move his legal team describes as the real trigger behind the lawsuit.
Cudicini’s lawyers argue that the terrace was created in line with planning permission granted by the City of Westminster before he bought the property in 2006. They maintain that the works were carried out openly, with the knowledge and consent of previous landlords, and that Cudicini has used the terrace continuously since around 2008 without objection.
Speaking during a short pre-trial hearing at Central London County Court, Cudicini’s barrister, Mark Warwick, said the former goalkeeper purchased the house in June 2006 for £1.75 million, with the benefit of existing terrace permission.
“In about 2007 to 2008, he had work to the house carried out in accordance with the terrace permission, creating a terrace,” Warwick told the court. “From about 2008 and thereafter, he has openly used the terrace as part of the house.”
Council documents also show that Cudicini later secured permission to construct a basement beneath the mews property, including an en suite guest room and a TV/play room.
Despite holding a 999-year lease — famously set at a rent of “one red rose per annum if demanded” — Cudicini now faces claims of trespass and breach of lease relating specifically to the terrace.
His legal team insists the case has no solid legal foundation and describes the breach allegation as “unjustified,” arguing it was a retaliatory response to his earlier complaint about the placement of the air-conditioning units.
The case is ongoing.
