Protected tenant buys freehold with help of her daughter and son-in-law, property conveyed into all three names–Daughter and son-in-law buy their own new home and seek order for sale of the old one–Mother persuaded to buy in the first place only on the basis that she would always keep her home–‘Did not expect to have to move willy-nilly to wherever daughter and son-in-law chose to live’–Hardship on mother with son in hospital nearby–Order for sale refused and mother awarded costs
This was a
claim by Mr Norman Charlton and his wife, Mrs Patricia Charlton, of Davidson
Road, East Croydon, against Mrs Anne Lester, of 13 Hafer Road, Battersea,
London, for a declaration that 13 Hafer Road should be sold and the proceeds of
sale divided.
Mr J Cherryman
(instructed by Hyde, Mahon & Pascall) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr P
Langan (instructed by Kingsbury & Turner) represented the defendant.
Giving
judgment, OLIVER J said that Mrs Charlton was Mrs Lester’s daughter. She and
her husband had gone to live with Mrs Lester in Battersea in 1968. Mrs Lester
was a protected tenant paying £5 a week rent. In 1970 the freeholder offered to
sell the house to Mrs Lester at a favourable price of £2,000. She was persuaded
to buy by Mr and Mrs Charlton, who wanted their own home. They got a mortgage
from the Greater London Council with Mrs Lester named as joint owner. Contracts
were exchanged in September 1970. Mr and Mrs Charlton paid the mortgage and
paid for repairs and modernisation of the house. It was accepted that although Mrs
Lester made no cash contribution, her protected tenancy meant the difference
between £2,000 and the value of the house on the open market; there was however
a dispute between the parties about the open-market value of the property at
the time and the amount by which the Charlton’s share should be increased
because of the money they spent on repairs. Doing his best on the evidence as
to value, he (his Lordship) thought that the open-market value in 1970 was
£5,200, and Mrs Lester’s contribution was therefore worth £3,200. He thought
that the Charltons should recover only the cost of repairs they had to carry
out as a condition of the GLC mortgage being granted, plus the solicitors’ fees
at the time of the sale. These items amounted to £385, making the total value
of the house £5,585. The Charltons were entitled to 149/349 of that value, and
Mrs Lester to 200/349.
The Charltons
wanted the house sold and the proceeds divided. They were still paying the
mortgage, and were making additional mortgage repayments on their new house. It
was estimated that the house was worth £15,000 or £16,000 today. A sale would
mean, however, that Mrs Lester would lose her home. She did not want to leave,
and said that a sale would be a breach of a clear undertaking she was given by
her daughter at the time of purchase that she would keep her home. Mr and Mrs
Charlton had a great burden of debt, but the circumstances had to be looked at
before the usual order for sale was made. Mrs Lester had a seriously ill son,
aged 28, who was receiving treatment at Tooting Hospital. He came home for long
weekends, and was able to walk to Hafer Road to see his mother for a few hours
every afternoon. Mrs Lester did not want to move away from the hospital. She
was very lukewarm about buying the house in the first place, because she knew
she was safe with a protected tenancy. She had very slender financial means.
Mrs Charlton felt that her mother would be happy as long as they always gave
her a home, and when they (the Charltons) first intended to move they had plans
for an extension to be built to Mrs Lester’s specifications. However, he (his
Lordship) did not think that Mrs Lester expected when they bought the Hafer
Road house that she would have to move willy-nilly to wherever her daughter and
son-in-law chose to live.
It was a case
in which misunderstanding arose when Mr and Mrs Charlton wanted to move, and
suspicions bred suspicions; relations had deteriorated, and it was now
unrealistic to expect the parties to live in the same house. Nevertheless he
(Oliver J) felt he had to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim, because he felt that
Mrs Lester was only persuaded to buy on the understanding that she would keep
her home. He did not think she should now be turned out, and he must
accordingly give judgment for her with costs. He thought it tragic that the
family had been split assunder by a series of misunderstandings, and he was
worried about Mr and Mrs Charlton’s debts being increased by their having to
pay the legal costs of the case, since they were not legally aided.
