'Hellish' Neighbour Installs Mannequin To Stare Into Couple's Bedroom

Almost as bad as when Janice tried to move next door to Monica and Chandler, which would've left them haunted with echoes of her screeching "Oh. My. God," a couple allege they have been forced to live with their curtains drawn after their neighbour decided to play a nasty prank.

Cook first applied for planning permission for his Richmond Park home in 2019.

The planning consisted of a roof extension with dormer windows on the back and either side.

Despite instructing Cook that the dormer window should be changed to one which doesn't open, and for it to be built using obscured glass, the council granted his planning permission in February 2020.

A Velux window was allowed by officers on the basis of it having less of an impact on neighbours in how it 'faces the sky'.

However, the Taylor-Davies took Cook to the High Court in a privacy battle over the extension.

The couple's house is slightly lower than Cook's due to the slope of the road, resulting in their bedroom and shower being able to be seen from Cook's rooflight.

The pair claimed that the dormer windows built in the roof extension were an 'invasion of their privacy', and that their bed was directly overlooked' by the Velux, leading to them feeling as if they were being observed whether sleeping or showering, all 'day and night'.

Despite being able to complete his extension, clearly irked by the complaints, Cook decided to take his revenge by strategically placing a mannequin in his window, directly gazing into next door's house.

The Taylor-Davies were left unable to avoid the dummy's gaze anywhere on their top floor apart from behind a bookcase.

To add 'insult to the injury' if the dummy wasn't enough on it's own, Cook reportedly put a blonde wig on it to make it even more eerily life-like.

Christopher said: "We can’t take a shower or get dressed without being overlooked. It’s essentially like living in darkness."

However, the pair lost the case after it was ruled by senior judge, Justice Lang, that the neighbour had not broken any planning regulations.

The Taylor-Davies' barrister, Stephen Wale, challenged the council's resolution and questioned why 'enforcement action' had not been taken over Cook's installation of the dummy.

He said: "It serves to give the impression, as presumably he intends, that there is a person at the window overlooking their property and invading their privacy. It only adds to their distress. The overlooking of their property and the invasion of their privacy as a result of the Velux window is very distressing to them.

"There is no good reason for the Velux window to have clear glass or be openable as there is another window very close on the opposite wall. There would be no loss of amenity to Mr Cook were the Velux window to have opaque glass and be non-openable. The only thing the Velux window overlooks is the top floor of the claimants’ house."

However, Justice Lang didn't change his ruling, despite admitting that he had "not take[n] the claimants' concerns seriously".

Christopher concluded: "We’ve lived here for more than 20 years, but we might have to move out because of all this."