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.

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 his brother's mental health deteriorated. 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 after house price increases led to it increasing in value. It turns out that's what my grandfather (by then deceased) already instructed solicitors to do but there hadn't been any implementation. Apparently there were adverse tax implications. As their mother was 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 dismissed her solicitors in favour of others. These did write a new will, and went a lot further than 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.

Death & dispute

Both my Dad and grandmother died. The new legal owners report 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 we relied on agricultural relief to inheritance tax, so what are the solicitors up to? A second opinion was that there's already an interest in the farmhouse and Taunton Trees to be reflected in tax returns.

Court application

Any second opinion was rejected. On 24 March 2009 there was a court summons for me to issue legal proceedings with respect to the deceased's Will.

Trial

I brought a complaint. 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 tell people never to stick up for agricultural workers, persons with disabilities, or against tax mistakes, possible fraud or disability discrimination.

The 10-minute story explains a decision that irrespective of whether or not parents & grandparents encourage their children and grandchildren to carry on a farm then to benefit from their own quarters rent-free and to benefit from rent-free land, for example Taunton Trees, means that decades of unpaid work and investment in the farm is "mutual family support" that's not detrimental after mischief with the paperwork.

As the farm is my 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 "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 are crazy

From now on I was told any matter that relates to the farm including 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 workers are causing a breach of the peace.

Debate

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

There ought to be protection from eviction without a court order. To use access to justice unequally, by allowing new claims that result in evictions and denying any defence or counterclaim as "res judicata" is in my view, a violation of basic rights because what ought to happen is that everyone's arguments, claims, counterclaims and defences are either equally admissible or equally inadmissible. Since all related claims are to be brought to a court "in a single trial" then had my grandmother, or uncle or any family member or their solicitors, or any judge, barrister or solicitor, claimed possession of my family's house & our land then they could or should have brought that claim before the court in a single trial as a claim or counter-claim in the first place. Or a new Will ought to have demanded possession as a provision. Or the court could or should have already made an order for possession of its own motion "in a single trial". All the judges, barristers, solicitors and representing solicitors know or ought to know that. The trial judge would have known. It's not possible to proactively defend claims or counter-claims that were never presented in court.

The 10-minute story shows that parents & grandparents didn't want evictions. So, it's really the (new) solicitors who didn't bring any claim for possession. They require permission to appeal the trial decision. 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 legal owner of the farm, agricultural workers there, long-term residents, persons with physical disabilities, and the nearly 100 year old mother & grandmother (who tried to set aside disability clauses added to a new Will) are all denied a voice. The courts appear to only listen to solicitors for people with mental health issues. See the 10-minute story.

Statutory protection after a trial

Having a license for your own quarters along with full-time agricultural work creates a Housing Act 1988 assured agricultural occupancy. Like the second opinion was getting at. There's trust of land legislation to prevent evictions without people's consent or a court order. To get an order the record (and Senior Courts Act 1981) shows that you need a single trial. Look at the order produced after trial and all it refers to is a new Will. Either there wasn't a fair trial, or not only are fundamental housing rights alleged as violated but also the state courts are guilty of an offence under section 1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and later given the 10-minute story the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 because unlawful evictions have happened twice over. Now other families in the UK benefit from the statutory provisions & other agricultural workers benefit from accommodation and housing rights. Defeating legislative provisions by procedural unfairness is not only wrong but a serious procedural or other irregularity. 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

Ever since discovery at trial I was advised that there’s a financial remedy in professional negligence. Per the 1 hour story it's very difficult to draft particulars of claim, even with help from counsel. It's about life interests at the farm and a property deal for the residue by swapping other farm properties. My grandfather was told that life interests could produce inheritance taxes that mean that “the house might well have to be sold to pay the tax” but later inheritance taxed are reported anyway, ultimately on a basis of disability, and without agricultural relief. Maybe someone can explain how that works?

The National Tax Helpline says that life interests have no effect on estate inheritance tax liabilities.

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.

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 ridicules a 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 the PoC repeated allegations of possible fraud). 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 (and my claim that without motor neurone disease used as a basis to exclude my family members as legal owners there wouldn’t be any legal action) doesn’t “add anything to the preceding grounds”.

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

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.