Two squatters attended a hearing at Bromley County Court on Monday (February 12), after the developer which owns the listed building sought permission to evict them.
But the case was adjourned because the court listed the hearing one day too early, meaning the squatters had not been given the required three days’ notice.
“I feel aggrieved at the way this has turned out today,” said Gary Mallon, from Baring Hall Hotel Ltd.
“The system doesn’t seem to protect the owners of buildings like this that have been occupied by squatters.”
The two squatters who attended gave their names as Sarah Freeman, 21, and Michael Johannes, who would not give his age.
The pair declined to say where they have lived previously or whether they were occupying the property out of necessity.
“We have no ill intention,” said Mr Johannes. “We agree with saving the hall. We like what this man is doing. But we have had a horrible Facebook campaign against us.”
A Facebook group called Save The Baring Hall Hotel has seen posts calling the squatters “scum”, with one person writing: “We should get a mob together and get rid of them.”
“People have been spying on us, filming us without our consent,” said Ms Freeman.
“We have had false accusations,” said Mr Johannes, who insisted squatters had caused no damage to the property.
“I can understand why people are upset,” he said. “However, it has been a bit dehumanising.”
“We just want to save the Baring Hall Hotel,” said Ms Freeman, although she would not elaborate.
Mr Mallon, who owns ten pubs across south east London and Kent, said he finally purchased the property in 2023, having first expressed an interest in 2016.
The listed building, which is a stone’s throw from Grove Park station, was built in 1882 and had sat empty for 14 years.
He plans to refurbish and reopen it as a pub, a nine-room hotel and a community centre.
He told the News Shopper that while he does not yet have planning permission, he is confident he will get it and in the meantime he had engaged contractors to start “tidying up” the site, parts of which were “extremely derelict”.
But when the contractors arrived one day last month, the padlocks had been changed and the building had been occupied.
A legal notice had been attached to the gate, warning against unauthorised entrance.
The notice said it had been posted by a Simon Philips, but Mr Mallen had observed multiple people at the site, so Baring Hall Hotel Ltd sought an interim possession order against Mr Philips and persons unknown.
If granted, the squatters would have had 24 hours to vacate before police were entitled to forcibly remove them.
Mr Philips did not show up for the hearing but Mr Johannes and Ms Freeman did.
Duty solicitor Ian Webb, from Greenwich Housing Rights, represented them.
At the outset, he said there had been “insufficient time” between the notice of the proceedings and the hearing.
The law says that three days’ notice must be given.
The notice was served on Wednesday, February 7, and the court listed the case for Monday, February 12.
“Three days doesn’t include weekends, as you know,” Mr Webb told Deputy District Judge Raymond Koh.
He said an interim possession order was “a very draconian measure” and the judge should not permit it if the defendants had been given insufficient notice.
Baring Hall Hotel Ltd’s lawyers said the court had chosen the date and simply told all parties when it was.
But, Mr Webb said: “The claimants have a full legal team. They should have noted that the hearing doesn’t provide for three clear days.”
Barrister Stephen Boyd, for Baring Hall Hotel Ltd, urged the judge to grant belated permission for short notice.
“These are professional trespassers,” he alleged.
“You can see that from the notice. It’s not a property that has been haphazardly occupied as a one-off. They know exactly what they are doing.”
But, said Judge Koh, “Even if that were the case, they are still entitled to three days’ clear notice.”
He adjourned the case until the first free date after four days – meaning it will not be rescheduled until at least next week.
In the meantime, Mr Mallen said, there were seven contractors unable to work and he was racking up significant bills.
“The cost of evicting them is just such a waste of money,” he said. “I could have done so much to the building with the cost of this. It’s bonkers.”
