Petition for debate in 2 minutes

Background

After the war my grandfather bought a freehold farm. He worked as a dairy farmer there for 40 years, paying off the mortgage. From the 1980's as he retired my parents worked there starting Taunton Trees and maintaining the rest of the farm, agricultural and residential properties.

Work

Since my Dad was 17 years old, which was in the year 1959, he was encouraged by his parents to expect to own the farmhouse and some land. On that basis he later started working there. Other family members all worked elsewhere as teachers, housewives and business people taking no interest in the farm. I was also encouraged to work there and carry on the family business, and so I did so.

Solicitors

Over the years various wills, trusts and settlements were produced for the farm, farm houses and land. The farm residents & workers there were given more beneficial interests than others in order to carry on the main farmhouse and some of the land. So they can keep their homes and their jobs going. After many years my Dad suffered motor neurone disease (MND), and lost the ability to walk. Meanwhile his brother lost his mental capacity. Their mother, my grandmother, was nearly 100 years old and invalid. In these circumstances my uncle wanted to make sure there was a "buy out deal" for the farm's main farmhouse given 50 years of house price increases led to it increasing in value. It turns out that's what their father, my late grandfather, already instructed solicitors to do but they hadn't followed their instructions. Apparently there could be adverse tax implications. With their mother now at death's door and in and out of hospital, her solicitors refused to make a new Will due to her great age and current health. So my uncle went to their father's solicitors. These did write a new will, and went a lot further than he instructed. They introduced a disability clause based on MND and on that basis removed my Dad (or me as his legal representative) as a legal owner. To appoint themselves and my uncle who lacked mental capacity.

No communication

There was no consultation with my Dad, or his family, asking what he wanted to do, whether he wanted to be replaced, who he wanted to replace him, nor indicating to him or his family anything of what's going on.

No respect for work

Both my Dad and grandmother died. The new solicitors reported form IHT400 to HMRC without agricultural relief to inheritance tax. A letter was sent to my mother to tell the family that there's a tax liability gathering interest. After 65 years of agricultural work this was incredible. We relied on agricultural relief to inheritance tax for generations. A second opinion was that there's already an interest in the farmhouse and Taunton Trees to be reflected in tax returns.

Court application

The second opinion was rejected in favour of a court summons for me to issue legal proceedings with respect to the deceased's Will.

Trial

I did respond to the summons. On 24 July 2013 the judge found for a new Will. I was ordered to pay approximately £1/2 million in costs to the new solicitors and their representatives.

That will show people who stick up for agricultural workers, persons with disabilities, and against possible tax fraud or discrimination.

As a judge's reasoning gets complicated the 10-minute story explains a decision that irrespective of the legal owner encouraging his family to carry on his farm they benefit from their own quarters rent-free and benefit from rent-free land, for example Taunton Trees. The decades of unpaid work and investment in the farm were deemed "mutual family support" that's not detrimental after mischief with the paperwork.

As the farm is the family's principal home, and there's not a spare £1/2 million for legal costs, the legal costs get secured on my grandmother's estate for her new solicitors & their representing solicitors "as an administration expense".

Permission to appeal, for example on the basis that the family is still resident at our home, and still work the land, was refused.

Courts out of order

From then on I was told any matter relating to the farm including our work and residencies there is "issue estopped" by a trial decision. On 23 March 2015 I was told by Bristol High Court that my family isn't allowed any defence from evictions. Whereas new solicitors are allowed to now claim for possession. For example this order says that defences against evictions could and should have been brought before the court in a single trial and are "totally without merit". Land charges as discussed with an experienced QC who represented the family at appeal were cancelled, the farmhouse was registered at Land Registry for the 1st time as though nobody's resident. Locks were changed and doors and windows nailed shut. Police were involved on a basis that residential occupiers and estate workers are now causing a breach of the peace.

Debate

That's how my family are denied a right to defend a possession claim or counterclaim that was never brought before the court.

This is procedural unfairness. There ought to be protection from eviction without a court order. Instead I have been told by about 10 different judges that, as one put it "all matters arising from the same circumstances... should have been addressed in a single trial"

That's a complicated point because the solicitors who drafted the summons in the first place never did that. Now the 10-minute story shows that my parents & grandparents didn't want evictions. By not having brought any claim or counterclaim for possession "in a single trial" means that permission to appeal the trial decision is required. Any applications by me for permission to appeal on any point were refused and on 8 March 2024 I was told that nothing's important enough for an appeal.

What are courts up to?

That means the voices of the legal owner of the farm, the agricultural workers there, long-term residents, persons with physical disabilities, and a 100 year old mother & grandmother (who tried to set aside disability clauses) are all denied. The courts appear to only listen to solicitors and people with mental health issues. See the 10-minute story.

Some legislative protection

Having a license for your own quarters that you "benefit from" as found in the supposed "single trial", along with full-time agricultural work, creates a Housing Act 1988 assured agricultural occupancy. Like the second opinion was getting at since the unexpected tax returns. There's also trust of land legislation to prevent evictions without people's consent or a court order. There's supposed to be a way to apply to court to determine a trust of land, but the record (and Senior Courts Act 1981) shows that you need a single trial. Looking at the order produced after trial all it refers to is a new Will. Either there wasn't a fair trial, or the whole show is an offence under section 1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Later given the 10-minute story there ought to be Protection from Harassment Act 1997 because unlawful evictions have now happened twice. Other families in the UK benefit from the statutory provisions & other agricultural workers benefit from accommodation and housing rights. Finally, other people with disabilities and their family members benefit from Disability Discrimination Act and Equality Act. The UK's Housing, Rent, Wills, Trusts, Inheritance and Protection from Eviction Acts don't mention people with disabilities and their family at all. The IAAWD needs to work to change discriminatory outcomes.

Disability and negligence

Since discovery at trial my solicitors told me that there’s a possible remedy in professional negligence, and crucially, that can be pursued after a trial. Per the 1 hour story it's very difficult to draft particulars of claim, even with help from counsel. It's all about life interests for family members working the farm and a property deal for the residue by swapping other farm properties. My grandfather's solicitors told him that life interests shall increase inheritance taxes and “the house might well have to be sold to pay the tax”. The National Tax Helpline has told me that life interests have no effect on estate taxes. In any event, the solicitors reported the estate taxes anyway, ultimately on a basis of disability, and without agricultural relief. Maybe someone can explain how all that works?

On 23 December 2021 the judge struck out a negligence claim under Limitation Act, and issue estoppel, by reverse summary judgment and as “totally without merit” with further costs primarily because "all matters arising from the same circumstances... should have been addressed in a single trial"

On 18 May 2022 the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal by telling me that it’s misconceived to seek a remedy for eviction by summary or default judgment as prevented by the CPR under a professional negligence claim (for damages for breaches of the CPR). That points in Skeleton Arguments on s.32 Limitation Act "are not relied apon before the judge" (which ridiculed my Skeleton Argument). That allegedly fraudulent land registration & evictions are statute barred by 14B of the Limitation Act as more than 15 years ago (which was in the year 2006 before there was either land registration or evictions) and there’s no claim for fraudulent breach of trust (when possible fraud is alleged in the PoC 3 times over). That there's no loss to me or my family or anyone else on any disability point. That alleged discrimination on a basis of disability - because without motor neurone disease my family would remain legal owners - doesn’t “add anything to the preceding grounds”.

To finish with "this was a plain case of abuse of process".

It seems to me that there hasn't been a process because the solicitors didn't bring a claim for possession in a "single trial" which has caused a violation of A6 ECHR and A13 CRPD coupled with A8, A13, A14 and A1P1 rights - and CRPD rights - underlying the Housing Act, Trusts of Land Act and Protection from Eviction Act.

Legal advice

Without routes of appeal in any courts maybe you too think that the state ought to at least give effect to their own legislation. If so, please sign the petition for a debate.