Why did Shelter back a squatter in my dad’s house?
R.M. writes: My father bought a house in Stockport, Greater Manchester, in 1971. Several years ago, a tenant tried to seize ownership by claiming squatter’s rights. He persuaded Shelter to back him and provide legal representation. He produced fake energy bills and a fake story to support his case. The case failed when it was found that he earned above the limit for the legal aid he was claiming. Shelter helps poor people who are homeless, but it represented someone we believe to be a fraudster and is now demanding £24,000 in legal costs from my father.
SHELTER is one of Britain’s best known charities, raising about £60million a year to support its work. But I was surprised to find that its work extends to helping anyone seize a house from its owner.
Dealing with Shelter has not been easy. It refused to go further than saying that what you told me was not accurate. But it added that it would only seek costs ‘where a court has made a clear finding in favour of one of our clients’.
Fine, I replied, just let me have a copy of the court’s findings that support the tenant. The response from Shelter spokesman Keji Olutimayin was a refusal and a veiled threat that ‘the allegations are untrue and defamatory’.
But what was untrue? Was there no tenant, no court case, no help from Shelter, no demand for legal costs? Was Shelter really threatening to sue me if I published your letter about your father’s experience? Olutimayin’s boss Alice Klein intervened. All Keji really meant, she said, was that it would be false to describe the tenant as a fraudster.
This was a step forward, so I asked Klein to explain the evidence which the tenant – backed by Shelter – had used to claim squatter’s rights. He had produced print-outs of bills appearing to show that he paid for gas and electricity at the property. But at least one of those payments involved a company that was not even formed at the date shown on the bill.
And to claim squatter’s rights, he needed to show that he had been in uncontested occupation of the property for at least 12 years. Yet I scoured public records in Stockport and found clear evidence that he was living elsewhere. Two other tenants, who really had lived in the property, backed this up.
During a crucial period, Stockport Council confirmed that the real tenant was receiving the single occupant’s discount, with no trace of the squatter. The council even told Shelter seven years ago that its records of people at the address go back to 1994, with no trace of him. What did Alice think of this? And could she let me have a copy of the court findings in favour of the tenant? Her response was to demand that in anything I wrote, neither she nor her threatening colleague Olutimayin should be identified. Was I planning this? If so, ‘then my director will want to speak to your editor as a matter of urgency’.
I replied that I could hardly stop her. In fact, I would be happy to speak to her director myself. I had been trying from the beginning to get a statement from Shelter bosses Polly Neate or Helen Baker, without success.
The issue of costs is confusing. Your father had no solicitor and appears to have believed that he was signing an agreement to end the tenant’s case. But it included a vague reference to his liability for costs at an undetermined point in the future. It is this that Shelter relies on now, despite the failure of the tenant’s claim.
I repeatedly asked Shelter to tell me its policy on giving legal support to seize property, and I asked how many such cases it had financed. It refused to comment. But at the time of the case, Shelter’s head of legal services did say that providing legal help to squatters ‘is squarely within our charitable objectives’.
He explained: ‘We are not an accommodation provider, nor are we a soup kitchen or provider of immediate food and clothing.’
Shelter advises, supports and represents the homeless and badly housed, and campaigns to change Government policy, he added.
Your father has told me that when he gave Shelter evidence from the council that the socalled squatter had lied about the length of time he lived in the property, Shelter’s advice was that if he paid his costs, it would drop the case. He says he signed up to this without realising this meant paying Shelter’s costs too. He told me: ‘I feel completely conned.’
Shelter has given me a final statement from its director of services, Alison Mohammed. She says your father can dispute the costs, but explained: ‘We are obliged by the Legal Aid Agency to ask the court to award costs so that public money is not wasted.’
I have not named the tenant who brought the claim because he has disappeared and it seems unfair to do so without getting his comments. But Mohammed may still be in contact with him.
She told me he completely denies any fraud, and points out that no court has supported what she describes as your father’s ‘false allegations’.
I replied that no court has rejected them either, but Shelter refused to comment further.
As to costs, the bargaining goes on and is likely to end in court. Your father has made offers that have been turned down. And I believe Shelter has cut its demand to £16,000.
The case continues. If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TS or email tony.hetherington @mailonsunday.co.uk. Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned.