Who Did More Damage to the High Courts of Justice: Banksy or the Cleaner?

When a Banksy appears on a wall, the world tends to stop and stare. When a cleaner tries to scrub it away with soap and a brush, the world shrugs, until you look closer.

At London’s Royal Courts of Justice, a Grade I listed building made of delicate Portland stone, both events collided. Banksy left his mark. The cleaner tried to erase it. The question we should be asking is: who caused more damage?

Banksy’s “Damage”

Banksy’s work divides opinion. Is it art or vandalism? Priceless or worthless?

• At auction, Banksy pieces fetch between £1 million and £10 million.

• On property, a Banksy can increase value, with some owners claiming double their building’s worth.

• For heritage buildings, it is still graffiti: an unauthorised coating that penetrates stone pores and requires careful removal under conservation guidance.

On the surface, Banksy’s stencil is disruptive. In terms of physical impact, the paint layer is thin and reversible if the right methods are used.

The Cleaner’s “Damage”

This is where the real harm begins.

A photo taken during the removal shows a worker kneeling at the wall with a handheld scrubbing brush and a liquid cleaning agent beside him. The stone is covered in circular swirls where the brush has been applied with force.

For a building clad in Portland stone, this method is deeply risky:

• Scrubbing with stiff bristles erodes the fragile surface and removes detail that has survived for over a century.

• Detergents may leave chemical residues that change the stone’s surface properties.

• The circular action creates uneven texture and patchiness that may end up more visible than the graffiti itself.

In conservation terms, the act of “cleaning” may have caused far more permanent damage than Banksy’s stencil ever did.

What Should Have Happened?

For listed heritage masonry, the recommended method is a DOFF clean. This uses superheated steam at low pressure to loosen graffiti paint without saturating or abrading the stone. It is precise, controllable, and designed for conservation.

Façades like the High Courts are often given gentle steam cleans every five to ten years, forming part of a planned maintenance cycle. Attempting an ad hoc scrub with soap and brushes is not conservation. It is irreversible harm disguised as upkeep.

What’s the Real Value?

Looking at the numbers gives a stark perspective.

• The Royal Courts of Justice requires millions annually for maintenance, with backlogs across the courts estate exceeding £148 million.

• The “Banksy effect” can add 10 to 15 percent to a property’s value, or even double it in some speculative cases.

• Heritage value, however, is not financial. It lies in integrity, continuity, and the symbolism of the law.

So Banksy’s paint might have added notoriety or even speculative value. But the scrubbing brush removed something irreplaceable: the surface fabric of a historic landmark.

So Who Did More Damage?

The answer depends on what we value.

• Banksy disrupted the façade, but the mark was thin, reversible, and potentially valuable as art.

• The cleaner inflicted permanent damage to the stone itself. His actions were well-intentioned, but they scarred the building in a way that cannot be undone.

The irony is that the act of “protecting” the building from graffiti may have done more lasting harm than the graffiti itself.

The Lesson for Owners and Asset Managers

This story is not only about art versus vandalism. It is about oversight and foresight.

Whether managing a Grade I court, a housing estate, or a commercial office tower, the real damage often comes from the reaction to a problem rather than the problem itself. Without clear conservation plans, maintenance cycles, and lifecycle forecasting, even the best intentions can destroy long-term value.

At Tolu Consulting, we see this pattern across portfolios. The records tell the story: rushed interventions, reactive fixes, and spend that causes more harm than good. Our role is to turn invoices and maintenance data into clear foresight so decisions protect value rather than erode it.

Final Thought

So who damaged the High Courts of Justice more: Banksy with his stencil, or the cleaner with his scrubbing brush?

Perhaps the better question is this: how do we stop well-intentioned fixes from becoming the real act of vandalism?