Reform candidate couple sue neighbour over fire that gutted seaside bungalow

A Reform candidate couple are suing their neighbour for £362,000 after a fire in 2023 gutted their seaside bungalow in Frinton on Sea, Essex. Harold Shearing, 79, and his wife Susan had lived in the home for 16 years before the blaze.

The couple, who stood as Reform UK candidates in the 2023 local elections but were not elected, were at the kitchen table when they saw smoke rising from the back of the neighbour's attached garage. The fire quickly spread to their home, which fire crews said was rendered uninhabitable. The Shearings are seeking about £362,000 in damages.

They say the blaze was caused by a disposable barbecue lit in their neighbour’s back garden and moved to the back of the garage, where it was placed on a glass table. The claim alleges the barbecue started the fire and that the neighbour failed to extinguish it properly. The damages sought break down as £270,000 for damage to their home, £50,000 for damaged contents and about £37,000 for alternative accommodation after the blaze.

In court documents filed with London’s High Court, their lawyer Emma Walker said the incident occurred on the afternoon of 28 May 2023 at Turpins Lane, Kirby Cross, when several neighbours contacted the Shearings to evacuate. Walker said Mr Smedley had admitted he had been using a disposable barbecue in his garden and had moved it to the back of the garage, placing it on a glass table, which led to the fire. She also cited a fire officer who told the Shearings that the priority was saving their home, as Mr Smedley’s property was beyond saving when the fire service arrived.

The Shearings’ case argues that an occupier is liable for a fire on their property caused by the negligence of someone on their land with permission, and that the defendant is responsible for the damage on that basis. The claim states the fire could not have occurred without the defendant’s negligence and that there is no alternative explanation for how it started. The defendant’s defence to the action was not available from the court at the time of writing.