His floating home lies within a stone’s throw of a house that once belonged to Roman Abramovich, on a site once graced by household names such as Sir Alec Guinness and James Mason. But a 69-year-old business consultant is facing a High Court battle to retain his high-profile berth on Chelsea Reach after claiming he is being unfairly turfed out.
Simon Howard is fighting eviction from his mooring at the entrance to Cheyne Walk, a Chelsea road that has been dubbed Billionaires’ Row.
He has lived there since 2010 when, together with his former wife Kate King, he ‘committed to a life on the water’ by ploughing almost £900,000 into buying the dilapidated Joseph Conrad – a former Dutch shipping barge.
The couple transformed the boat into a luxurious 100ft, two-bedroom boat complete with a spiral staircase, three bathrooms, a sun terrace, floor-to-ceiling windows and a retro-inspired bar.
Mr Howard says his lavish outlay on the £1.5million ship, which he acquired instead of buying a house, was motivated by a desire to live on the river.
While recovering from major heart surgery in 2022, however, he was informed by his landlord that he had missed the deadline to renew his mooring licence.
The Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company Ltd, which manages the moorings, is now suing to have the boat removed.
The firm is also seeking damages from Mr Howard for alleged trespass caused by him remaining beyond the end of his licence period.
Simon Howard is fighting eviction from his high-profile mooring at the entrance to Cheyne Walk, a Chelsea road that has been dubbed Billionaires’ Row
Together with his former wife Kate King, Mr Howard transformed a dilapidated former shipping barge into a luxurious 100ft, two-bedroom boat complete with two bedrooms
The floating home, worth £1.5 million, offers stunning views across the River Thames
Together with King, Mr Howard is countersuing in a bid to remain at the site, arguing it would be almost impossible to find another berth on the River Thames.
‘They are litigating to secure a berth for Joseph Conrad – Mr Howard’s home – it being practically impossible to find an alternative berth to which the vessel can be moved,’ said the former couple’s barrister, Timothy Polli KC.
The ship is part of a flotilla of approximately 50 houseboats moored at Chelsea Reach, which has been dubbed London’s ‘original houseboat village’.
The boats, which lie west of Battersea Bridge, are located on the site of a former second world war naval yard where D-Day landing craft and torpedo boats were once used to accommodate ex-servicemen and hard-up locals.
In the decades since, the houseboat village has acquired an aura of glamour. The moorings have been used as a backdrop in several films, including the 1958 movie The Horse’s Mouth and The Deadly Affair of 1966, respectively featuring Guinness and Mason.
The small marina now hosts boats and barges, some of which are worth well over £1 million.
During a pre-trial hearing at Central London county court last week, Judge Alan Johns was told how Mr Howard and his former wife spent a small fortune on the rundown boat in 2010.
‘It is their case that, when they bought Joseph Conrad from CYBC in 2010, it was very dilapidated,’ the former couple’s barrister said.
The 100ft vessel is currently moored at one of London’s most exclusive locations
But the Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company Ltd, which manages the moorings, is suing to have the boat removed and seeking damages from Mr Howard for alleged trespass
The boat’s sumptuous interior features a lavish array of fixtures and fittings
‘They paid CYBC a price substantially over the hull value for the boat, and paid for the vessel to be refurbished because they were assured that they would be able to keep the boat moored at Chelsea Reach for as long as they wanted.’
He said they had been told by previous bosses of CYBC that their licence to moor at Chelsea Reach was in effect a ‘rolling licence’, enabling them to renew on expiry.
‘It is because of those promises that they bought into the moorings at vast cost – £872,704 – rather than buying a home on land,’ Mr Polli told the judge.
He continued: ‘Their licence expired in April 2022. Although the licence included an option to buy a new licence, the couple had separated and Mr Howard was very ill following a serious heart operation during the option window, and so they did not exercise the option within that window.
‘When Mr Howard did so, he was told by CYBC that he was too late. Several short-term extensions to September 2022 were granted by CYBC, but CYBC now seeks an injunction requiring them to move Joseph Conrad off the moorings.
‘Mr Howard and Mrs King say that their dealings with CYBC were such that there arose a collateral contract, the effect of which is that they should be permitted to remain on the moorings, upon paying market rate for doing so.
‘By not offering them a new licence at market rate, CYBC is doing to them precisely what it promised it would not do and that constitutes a breach of the contract.’
Complete with a spiral staircase, three bathrooms, a sun terrace, floor-to-ceiling windows and a retro-inspired bar, there is ample space onboard to relax and entertain
Toby Watkins KC denied the former couple had a right to keep the Joseph Conrad at Chelsea Reach and accused them of trying to get a valuable right to which they were not entitle.
‘They are seeking to find a way to achieve the security of tenure they have never had, but would clearly like to have,’ he told the judge.
‘CYBC seeks an injunction requiring Mr Howard and Ms King to remove their houseboat, the Joseph Conrad, from Berth 1 of the claimant’s moorings at Cheyne Pier, together with damages, following the expiry of their mooring licence.
‘The 2012 licence originally expired on April 2, 2022, but was retrospectively twice extended by agreement to September 28, 2022, when it finally expired.’
As well as resisting CYBC’s claim, citing the alleged past assurances that they would never be forced out, the couple claim that refusing them a licence would diminish the value of their boat, which was put on the market in 2016 at £1.5m but failed to sell.
‘As their name suggests, static permanent houseboats are not designed to be moved,’ said Mr Polli.
‘Save for occasional trips to a dry-dock for maintenance, they remain – and are intended to remain – in one place.
‘For that reason, a berth is essential and a permanent static houseboat without a berth is an onerous asset.’
The case reached court as the parties wrangled over the projected lawyers’ bills for the trial, with CYBC saying it is likely to have to spend £700,000 on the case.
Mr Polli accused the company of deploying ‘lawfare’ tactics, running up large costs bills in order to ‘intimidate’ the former couple.
‘Their pockets are not limitless and so they are trying to litigate in a cost-effective and proportionate manner,’ he told the judge.
‘In contrast, CYBC is a company owned by a successful developer of high-end properties marketed at high net-worth individuals.
‘It seems apparent to the defendants that CYBC is not interested in litigating in a cost-effective and proportionate manner.’
He claimed that the company was ‘behaving in a deliberately extravagant and intimidatory manner’.
But CYBC’s barrister rejected claims that his clients were trying to exert pressure, insisting that Mr Howard and Ms King are to blame for deploying superfluous evidence.
He slammed the evidence given by the couple’s five witnesses for containing ‘broad and sweeping generalisations about what was said and done to others,’ arguing that defence lawyers failed to give proper notice about submitting additional evidence focusing on the ‘alleged deteriorated condition of the moorings’.
Defending his costs projection as ‘significant but not disproportionate’, Mr Watkins also suggested Mr Howard and Ms King are ‘being supported by others of the 40 or so houseboat owners’ and insisted the former couple possess ‘significant means’.
‘The costs of this action are significant to CYBC,’ he concluded.
‘It is not a high net-worth individual – like many of the houseboat owners – but a family business upon which the unrecoverable costs of this action will be significant.’
Judge Johns will give his decision on the range of the evidence and the costs issues at a later date.
