A Hollywood stuntman has initiated legal proceedings against a surveying company after discovering multiple issues with a Lincolnshire property he purchased. Robert Bowen, known for his work on Hollywood productions including the 2023 live-action remake of The Little Mermaid, The Flash, and the TV series House of the Dragon, claims that his £500,000 cottage has been severely affected by problems that were not identified in a pre-purchase survey conducted by Beehoo Surveying.

Bowen and his partner, Lucy Vaughan, have brought the case before the High Court in London, alleging that the survey failed to highlight significant defects, most notably a malfunctioning septic tank that has caused “overflowing foul drainage” and the spread of “foul solids” across the property. According to court submissions, the couple are facing at least £147,000 in repair costs, with approximately £25,000 needed specifically to fix the septic system. Additional complaints include flooding, a leaky roof requiring replacement, defunct solar panels, and windows and doors that do not open or close properly.

The surveyors have acknowledged some shortcomings in their report, admitting that they “should have but did not identify and report” certain issues such as concerns with the chimney, flooding from the driveway, the porch’s pitch, and a problematic downpipe. However, they contest most of the other allegations, including the septic tank problem, arguing these were either not present or not detectable at the time of their inspection. They also deny that any omissions on their part caused financial loss to Bowen and Vaughan.

Bowen, originally from Derbyshire, has an eclectic background that includes training with Shaolin monks in China and participating in extreme sports before establishing a career in Hollywood stunt work. His legal team contends that the survey’s failure to identify the significant problems has left the couple with a costly and compromised property situated in a seemingly idyllic rural setting.

The case remains pending before a judge, with both parties presenting contrasting views regarding the extent of the defects and the responsibility of the surveying firm in overlooking them. The outcome will likely hinge on whether the court finds that the survey should have detected the problems and whether this oversight directly caused financial damage to the purchasers.