Possible fraud?

keith969

xylophone wrote: »

There seems to be no evidence of a leaseback/rent free arrangement?
There is nothing to indicate who was responsible for the insurance?
Who is responsible for insuring the property and contents at the moment?

The insurance seemed to be her responsibility and it is the one thing she paid for by direct debit monthly. It was renewed as recently as August 2012 in her name.

Apart from that, there is a complete absence of paperwork even indicating that a sale may have taken place, which is why it came as such a shock. No tenancy agreement, no indications of any rent payments from either of her bank accounts either.

The only clue it may have been some sort of sale/leaseback over a fixed time period is a note in the other solicitor's file about a telephone conversation which says she expressed 'concern over what happens in 5 year's time', and that she was 'very confused about the transaction'.

xylophone wrote: »

What does your brother's solicitor advise?

They are referring it to one of the senior partners for advice. Probably won't hear anything for a bit as my brother is on holiday all this week.

Fire_Fox

She wouldn't necessarily need to pay rent, effectively that was paid up front by selling the place at such a hefty discount.

xylophone

She wouldn't necessarily need to pay rent, effectively that was paid up front by selling the place at such a hefty discount.

But there should be some legal document evidencing whatever arrangement was reached?

And there should be a legal agreement about who was to insure the bricks and mortar?

And the insurance company should have been advised of a change of ownership?

And if she understood the arrangement she would have changed her will?

note in the other solicitor's file about a telephone conversation which says she expressed 'concern over what happens in 5 year's time', and that she was 'very confused about the transaction'.

This poor woman seems to have been right royally diddled?

Fire_Fox

Just because documentation wasn't found in the house doesn't mean it never existed, people dispose of or misplace all sorts of important financial or legal paperwork. People also don't update their wills regularly, unexpected deaths and outdated wills are commonplace. What you say is circumstantial evidence IMO - the notes in the solicitor's files about the lady being concerned and confused is more important.

keith969

xylophone wrote: »

This poor woman seems to have been right royally diddled?

Alas this is what it seems, and she was quite private about her finances with the rest of the family, who would otherwise have tried to help her. If she had money problems she never mentioned it - we may never know.

I concur with Firefox that just because we didn't find any documentation doesn't mean it did not exist at some point in time - and I do wonder if she destroyed it deliberately.

propertyman

A big reason why I post is that so many find themselves in situations where they are out of their depth. Opinion, widely available on the Internet, is useful in convincing you that you are neither alone nor "not mad, after all", but more detailed guidance or explanation, even if it is just where to go and what to expect, is there to be found.

I am so sorry that your relative was unable to do so but approaching family, while logical and all that, is often very very hard to do.

Carry on with the lawyers......see if there is any scope in getting it overturned.

Nan_Dingle

Maybe the worry of selling and having no home in the long term killed her?

xylophone

I concur with Firefox that just because we didn't find any documentation doesn't mean it did not exist at some point in time - and I do wonder if she destroyed it deliberately.

This is of course possible.

If she was compos mentis, I don't quite see what she would have thought she had to gain by deliberately destroying any documents relating to the agreement?

Indeed keeping such papers would seem to be very important if she was indeed worried as it appears from the telephone transcript?

After all without an agreement evidencing that she did have the right to reside in the property, she could have found herself evicted at the whim of the owners?

And why would any woman of 57 who was in her right mind and normal health (or not deliberately befuddled) enter into an agreement which would have left her homeless ( or having to renegotiate a rental/ lease agreement) at the age of 62 ?

Is there any evidence that the solicitors acting for the deceased did clarify that she fully understood what she was doing? That is, is there a note in the file to show that her concerns were fully and adequately dealt with by the solicitors?

xylophone

I have just had another thought (I hope I am not turning into a conspiracy theorist...) is there any connection between the company with which she had the original secured loan and any of the outfits concerned in the property transaction?

I ask because you do not seem to have uncovered any evidence that she was overdrawn, not paying bills etc and she appears to have had an adequate income. She would not appear to have had any reason to trawl the internet in search of equity release/ sell your house quickly and lease back companies so it would seem an unlikely thing for her to have done?

Could someone at the secured loan company have arranged for her to be cold called and "advised"?

keith969

xylophone wrote: »

I have just had another thought (I hope I am not turning into a conspiracy theorist...) is there any connection between the company with which she had the original secured loan and any of the outfits concerned in the property transaction?

I don't think so, the secured loan was with GE Money. But I am increasingly wondering if she had perhaps missed a payment perhaps, and they were putting pressure on her. We did not find any evidence of this though.