A multimillionaire has been left with a £166,000 court bill after suing over an "awful" renovation that left her red brick Victorian village house a multi-coloured "laughing stock".

Judith Wilson, 73, claims her once elegant Victorian terrace in Wateringbury, near Maidstone, has become a local “eyesore” after her local council carried out vital safety repair works on an external wall, removing large sections of brickwork.

The former maths teacher turned property tycoon claimed the council's workers re-inserted the original bricks “any old how,” resulting in a bizarre multi-coloured effect completely different to the original appearance.

The "white, yellow and green" renovated section in the wall of the red brick 18th century building led to her being peppered with letters and comments from disgruntled village residents, she says.

Mrs Wilson sued Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council for £100,000 over the alleged “damage” done to the brickwork of the former teashop’s facade.

But she has been left with a court bill of £166,000 after losing her case at Central London County Court.

Mrs Wilson carved out a £250m real estate empire alongside her husband Fergus, who was previously dubbed “Britain's most controversial landlord” in a BBC Panorama documentary

Together the pair accumulated multiple properties in the 1980s when the prices were at rock bottom.

They went on to become multimillionaires, with houses across Kent, including a £2m mansion near Maidstone.

The house in Tonbridge Road, Wateringbury, at the centre of the court row is a former tea shop bought to use as a residential property.

A renovation project was carried out in two phases between 2018 and 2019, first stabilising the structure and later rebuilding the affected front wall.

Mrs Wilson was initially happy to fund and oversee the project, but had to step back in 2019 because of health problems, with Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council taking control to make it safe, using its powers under the Building Act 1984.

As a self-confessed “control freak” who liked to keep a tight hand on her building projects, it was deeply frustrating to have to surrender control, Mrs Wilson told the court.

‘When you look at these bricks it’s an absolute eyesore’

And things got worse for the tycoon when she saw the result of the council's builders' handiwork.

“The final result was awful,” she said, adding that she was shocked to see the jarring colour mismatch when builders finally removed the scaffolding and covers after the works.

“We looked at the brickwork and some people came up to us and said 'what on earth is this?' They were staggered," she told the judge.

“The bricks are different colours from before,” she said, adding that the original red bricks had become “white, and yellow and green”.

Mrs Wilson told District Judge Samuel Rippon she also received letters from local residents “complaining about it being an eyesore”.

“I’m very concerned because this is a pretty village and when you look at these bricks it’s an absolute eyesore,” she added after the court hearing.

Mrs Wilson sued for £100,000 over the alleged “damage” done to the brickwork of the former teashop’s facade.

The council denied all liability and counter-sued to cover the costs of the latter phase of the building project.

Representing herself in court, Mrs Wilson argued that the council was liable to compensate her for breaching its duty of care while contracted to carry out the repair works.

Horatio Waller, representing Tonbridge and Malling council, said safety had been the overriding priority, telling the court: “Mrs Wilson accepted that the property was in a dangerous condition in 2019”.

He said that a risk assessment from November that year pinpointed the building as “likely to collapse - and with the potential consequence of fatalities”.

The barrister argued it was the council, not Mrs Wilson, who were in charge of the building project, and safety not aesthetics was the key factor.

‘The works were carried out to make the building safe - no more’

On top of that, he claimed that Mrs Wilson did not specifically ask for the bricks to be re-coloured or given a “soot wash” to retain their authentic look.

Judge Rippon ultimately threw out Mrs Wilson's claim, saying the works had been necessary for safety reasons, with the council identifying the hazardous state of the building as a risk to human life.

The builder who oversaw the project had told the court that the wooden lintel of the building “was so rotten that the wall was sinking”.

He accepted that some kind of colourising treatment for the bricks might have helped their appearance, but added: “I wasn't instructed to make the building look pretty, just to make it safe”.

Judge Rippon said: “She admitted that both she and her husband are control freaks who generally controlled every part of a project.

“She felt that she was prevented from being involved in this and this was clearly a source of frustration. Mrs Wilson was unhappy that due to her ill-health she couldn't oversee the works.”

The judge accepted the council’s case that they had no obligation to safeguard the building’s aesthetics, although saying he “understood her frustration”.

He concluded that “no duty of care was owed by the council to the claimant in respect of the works undertaken under the Building Act.

“The works were carried out to make the building safe - no more.”

The judge ordered Mrs Wilson to pay £106,752 to cover what the council spent on the work, plus interest, with another £60,000 up front towards its lawyers' bills.

Speaking to KentOnline following the hearing, her husband Mr Wilson said he wishes the builders would have used “a bit of common sense”.

He says he feels sorry for his neighbours who now have to look at the patchwork design.

“A lot of the neigbhours are terribly upset,” he said. “They’ve got to look at that for the rest of their lives.”

He added: “The builders could have just gone that extra mile. It’s very sad.

“They had to make it safe and I understand that, but it’s unfortunate they could not have just used a bit of common sense to make it look nice as they went along.”

Adrian Stanfield, director of central services and deputy chief executive at Tonbridge and Malling council said: “Public safety was the overriding priority and the reason we as a council got involved.

“The property was in danger of immediate collapse and work needed to be carried out urgently, which Mrs Wilson was unable to take forward due to ill health.

“Costs of the work carried out by our contractor in order to make the property safe amounted to £77,749.

“In addition to re-imbursing the council for those costs, the court has ordered Mrs Wilson to pay £60,000 towards our legal costs within 14 days – the full extent of the council’s legal costs will be determined at a future hearing.”