Thread: Council locked me out of my own house HELP

I have no idea if this is in the correct section. I really need some advice but its a complex situation.

My mother gifted me and my brother her house 10 years ago. I have been looking after her for those 10 years. My mother granted us both joint/several power of attorney 5 years ago.

My mother had begun to show signs of memory loss and my brother decided to start spending her money. I took my Mother to see her doctor who agreed she was now suffering from dementia and that I should register my POA. Which I did but my brother objected and tried to register his as well. Which in turn I had to object to.

My mother's condition got worse and she ahd been reported to a Social Worker for wandering around town. The social worker said she had to go into a care home for her own safety.

I found a Care Home and my Mother moved in. During this time the bank had put a stop on her bank account as I had complained about my Brother. It turned out that my brother had made false allegations against me also spending her money. So the bank did not know who to beleive. Although I live in the same town as my mother and my brother lives in London (400 miles away). Items bought over the internet were delivered to his address and money withdrawn over the counter in a London branch!!!

Now the next problem I received a letter from the Court of Protection telling me that as my brother and I were in dispute, they couldnt award control to either party and had instead given control to the local council!

My mother's care is self funded as she has a very large amount of money in the bank. The council took over her bank account and savings account and private pension.

I went over to my mothers bungalow only to find that the locks had been changed. I rang the council and they said they had locked both me and my brother out and they were going to sell the bungalow to pay for my mother's care. I informed them it was not my mother's house but mine and my brothers. They told me that, that was irrelevant and they could take it back.

I was very shocked as she earns enough private pension to pay her care home fees, plus her large savings which they also had control of.

I contacted a solicitor for a free consulation (I couldnt afford one). They told me the council were in the wrong as I had owned the house for 10 years plus all the other money she had in savings. They also told me it would be very expensive to fight them.

I threatened them with court action,, telephoned them on many occassions and got no-where with the council. I contacted my MP for help and within 2 weeks I received a letter from the council stating they had decied to give me my house back!

When I entered the back garden was overgrown and the grass 4 foot heigh. The window in the back door was smashed. The boiler was making strange nosies and would not light. My automatic gargae door had been disconnected. The house was in a state.

The council tell me they mantained it on a regular basis and disconnected my gargae door for security (I had the remote). The say the boiler was serviced but cannot find the service report. They have refused to fix any of the problems. Surely they should have returned the house to me in the same condition in which they took it from me.

Anyway this mess has been going on for 18 months. When my mother went into care the house was valued at £145,000. The house is now up for sale and valued at £120,000. I am very angry at the state the place is in, I have had to pay for repairs before it was marketed. The estate agent seems to think I have a good case for sueing them for loss in value plus the costs incurre to fix it.

I cannot afford a solicitor (the HIPP just cost me a small fortune) does anyone think I could go down the small claims court route? What are my chances? Has anyone else been through this?

Thanks for all help and sorry its so long

As much as I'd like to think these meddlers should pay for their involvement, I am aware of similar-ish situations where they are not held liable. This is because they would not have required to have any involvement if there had been no family dispute (which was outwith their control).

Their action in securing the house in situations like these is pretty normal, as many have been quick-footed to try and let the council pay for full-term care, whilst relatives take (or were given a major asset) to sell it off and spend it as an inheritance.

Also don't forget house values are depressed, and would be so irrespective of what the council did or didn't do. In a booming market, the state of the boiler would have benn of no consequence. Whilst you could certainly try to hold them liable by raising a Small Claims action, your chances of success would be slim, and there is also the risk that they probably will hit you with expenses, which as a loser you would have to pay. This IS capped at under £100, but with no guarantee of success, it is a palpable risk.

"and there is also the risk that they probably will hit you with expenses, which as a loser you would have to pay. This IS capped at under £100, "

Wrong again, buzby. The most she could lose would be the Court issue fee.

"they probably will hit you with expenses,"

Who will? The Council? They cant hit you with anything.

Worng again? I think not. As much as I don't wish to burst your bubble - Small Claims actions are not immune from the charging of basic expenses. The fact the 'loser pays' holds goot for all types of litigation may guide you. If the pursuer declines to ask for expenses, then that is a different matter, but with cash-strapped councils ready to ensure tax payers are not unduly inconvenienced, the court issue fee would be just an element of the costs available to be claimed.

As your second point refers to the first, see the paragraph above. Should they win, they can (and do) seek to recover their costs up to the limits currently available.

Of course expenses can be asked for by the winner, whether they get them would be up to the judge and in SC they are not normally granted.

Either that or our local District Judge was lying to me when I asked for expenses over and above the court issue fee plus a fiver for each each letter I sent to the Respondent.

For info, I've just spent 3 days in Glasgow Sheriff Court 1 (the Small Claims Court). Of the 43 cases that reached a disposition on the day, 40 of them resulted in an expense award for the 'winner', 2 had no costs awarded at all, and 1 had an expense claim refused as the judge announced that the pursuer had shown bad faith and was unreliable, but let them win 'on the balance of probabilities. So with 90% od Small Claims cases having an expense award, you can see why I question your 'not normally granted' assertion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The bulk of the cases were for non payment of rent, and the costs were for the issuing of the action (around £50-60). So for anyone planning to become a Pursuer, the cost to them if they lose, will be that they cannot recover their costs of raising the action, and any incidentals by the defender.

" and the costs were for the issuing of the action (around £50-60). "

Which is just what I said, so it looks like we are singing from the same hymn sheet, after all.

Perhaps, but if you lose you get to pay the debt AND the costs of raising the action by the purser.... . If you pay up before court action, you at least save this additional!

"Perhaps, but if you lose you get to pay the debt AND the costs of raising the action by the purser...."

That is the risk of any litigation

Funny, that's what I said way back in message #2 when you queried it. The loser, if it happens to be the pursuer ends up paying twice, the court fees and the defenders reasonable expenses. Full circle!