Son of ‘car boot king' claims dad's dementia was so bad when he cut him out of £43m will he drove his car at 2 kids
Adam Scott, 62, is embroiled in an inheritance dispute with his step-mother as he pursues the £43 million fortune he alleges he was promised by his 'car boot king' father Richard.
4
4
4
Richard died in 2018 at the age of 81, leaving his fortune to his second wife and former cleaner, Jennifer, 60.
He amassed his £43 million fortune through running a vast Cheshire farm where ITV's Car Boot Challenge was filmed.
Adam, the eldest of Richard's 19 sons, is now suing his step-mother after he claims he was promised the farm.
The disinherited "golden boy" - who worked on the farm for 40 years - argued that his father was not in his right mind when he signed the two final wills.
London High Court heard that Richard's dementia was so bad that he "drove his car at some children during the car boot sale" and even attacked his own wife and kids.
Psychiatric expert Dr Hugh Series explained there were "objective indicators of changes in Richard's behaviour" around the time he signed the disputed wills.
He told the court Richard "drove his car at some children during the car boot sale" and "hit another car with his car".
Richard also displayed "poor behaviour" including "punching his wife, pushing and grabbing children...six years into a dementia diagnosis".
Dr Series explained that there had been reports of him "attacking the door with a hammer and a screwdriver and [having] to be stopped by his children".
He added: "His wife was so worried about him, she slept in another room and locked the door.
"This seems to me to be quite extreme."
But Alex Troup KC told the judge that Richard had been on dementia drug Donepezil when he aimed his car at kids attending the car boot sale.
Earl loses bid for £85m estate after being cut from family fortune with dad disappointed by son's 'lack of achievement'
The barrister claimed it was the drug that caused his unusual behaviour and that his mental state had "improved" when he was taken off it after six months.
Mr Troup said: "He made a valid will afterwards.
"The fact that before making that will he drove a car at another car is not much evidence of lack of testamentary capacity.
"Richard always had a temper and could turn on anyone without warning.
"Dementia illnesses often have the effect of exaggerating peoples prior personality traits."
Professor Alistair Burns also disagreed that Richard showed signs of his capacity being impaired.
Professor Burns told Mr Justice Richards that Mr Scott's ability to express himself had been affected by the progressive disease rather than his ability to comprehend.
Adam also argued that his dad promised him he would have the right to take over the farm after his death.
He claimed that he sacrificed everything to commit to "a life of hard and unrelenting physical work" on the back of those promises.
But Jennifer's lawyers allege that Richard knew exactly what he was doing when he disinherited his first born.
They told the court that Adam's relationship with his dad "completely broke down" when he tried to get Richard sectioned.
Adam had previously tried to prevent Richard's wedding to Jennifer, claiming his dementia had incapacitated him.
It led to Richard being interviewed by four registrars and a lawyer from the local council, who confirmed he did have the capacity to marry.
They also say he has no claim to his dad's estate on the basis of the alleged promises having already been handed land and property worth over £10m by Richard before his death.
Through the court proceedings, Adam hopes to restore his father's 1995 will which granted him "a 40-year tenancy of his father's farm and an option to purchase the farm at its probate value".
When Richard amended the will in 2016, Jennifer's two sons, Gordon and William Redgrave-Scott, and Adam's sister Rebecca Horley also became beneficiaries.
4
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
By likening Nigel Farage to Jimmy Savile, Peter Kyle has handed Reform a free gift
Just when Nigel Farage and his tiny parliamentary party were beginning to be exposed as shrill and clueless, Peter Kyle, one of the most promising cabinet ministers, handed them a free gift. By saying that the Reform leader is on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile', Kyle destroys his own arguments for the Online Safety Act. The attempt to link Farage with a notorious child sex abuser is gratuitous and offensive. It makes Kyle seem desperate and allows Farage to pose as the wronged party – Farage's criticisms of the Act seem more credible after Kyle's outburst than before. It is surprising that Kyle has chosen to use this slur when Labour people were so indignant – and rightly so – when Boris Johnson used it against Keir Starmer. That was when Johnson was desperate: Sue Gray's report on lockdown parties in Downing Street had just been published and Johnson wanted some way of deflecting attention. His attack on Starmer had nothing to do with Gray's report. It was an aside referring to Starmer's time as director of public prosecutions, during which, Johnson said, 'he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out'. But it was more relevant than Kyle's attack on Farage. It is factually correct that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prosecute Savile when Starmer was in charge, and it is unclear whether it could have done more to bring Savile to justice at the time. But Farage has nothing to do with Savile – at all. Kyle's attempt to smear the Reform leader was phrased thus on Sky News: 'If people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online, and Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Nothing could be better calculated to distract from the real issue, which is whether Farage's pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act is a sensible one. The Reform rhetoric about 'authoritarian' and 'dystopian' legislation is overdone, and Farage admitted yesterday that he didn't know how he would protect children online instead. But rather of exposing the weakness of Farage's arguments, Kyle allowed his opponent to protest on X that his comment was 'disgusting' and to demand an apology. Kyle responded: 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that.' This is a terrible way to conduct a public debate. There are well-founded concerns about the Online Safety Act, which seems to put unworkable obligations on non-profit-making websites while doing little to ensure that the big tech companies behave more responsibly. A lot of well-informed people said it was badly drafted legislation even before it was passed by the Conservative government two years ago. Kyle is now overseeing the coming into effect of provisions of the Act relating to age-verification, and instead of acting on the concerns that have been expressed, he has ploughed ahead – in effect accusing anyone who has doubts, including for example Ella Dorn of the New Statesman, of being aligned with Savile. When Johnson gratuitously dragged Savile's name into his attempt to save his disintegrating premiership, the disgust at his deliberate attempt to invoke conspiracy theories driven by fears of paedophilia was felt across the political spectrum. Munira Mirza, Johnson's adviser who was consulted in advance, begged him not to do it, and resigned when he did. Kyle should not be using the same disreputable tactic, which not only speaks volumes about this government's self-confidence but also allows Reform off the hook. Only this morning, Sarah Pochin, Reform's newest MP, was struggling to explain what her party's policy on small boats actually is. All she could propose was that Britain should 'do something drastic', by which she seemed to suggest that we should let migrants drown in the Channel. If the next election really is a fight between Labour and Reform, Labour must fight it better than this.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Alleged ‘con queen of Hollywood' loses High Court challenge against extradition
A man who was nicknamed the 'con queen of Hollywood ' after allegedly impersonating movie executives and defrauding hundreds of people has lost a court bid to challenge his extradition to the United States. Hargobind Tahilramani is accused of conning over 300 victims – including actors, screenwriters and photographers – over the course of seven years. Tahilramani would allegedly convince entertainment industry professionals to travel to Indonesia at their own expense for non-existent projects. They were then allegedly charged exorbitant expenses which were never repaid. The 45-year-old is wanted in the US to face eight charges, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud and five counts of aggravated identity theft. He faced extradition proceedings in 2022, and in June 2023 Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring approved Tahilramani's extradition, which was later ordered by the Home Secretary. Tahilramani brought an appeal to the High Court in London in April. Judge Mr Justice Sweeting dismissed the bid in a decision on Tuesday. Tahilramani's lawyers argued that the chief magistrate had been wrong to allow his extradition, considering his mental health and risk of suicide. They also said the judge was wrong to find that extraditing Tahilramani would be compatible with his human rights given the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, including sexual assault. Mr Justice Sweeting said in a 28-page ruling: 'The applicant's case is that he would almost certainly face confinement alone in protective custody due to his sexual orientation and effeminate demeanour.' The judge found that any differences in treatment Tahilramani could face in prison would be aimed at preventing inter-prisoner violence, and that the previous judge was right to conclude that it 'would not be oppressive due to his physical or mental condition to extradite him'. Mr Justice Sweeting concluded: 'The differential treatment claimed by the applicant, even if established, would relate to protective measures taken due to vulnerability, and not as a result of a discriminatory intent or practice based on his sexual orientation. 'Such measures … are not inhuman or degrading and serve a legitimate purpose within the US penal system.'
The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
I got spoofed and was forced to change my mobile number – it could happen to you too
IF you've ever been targeted by a scammer, you'll know it can be a scary and worrying experience. But has a fraudster ever pretended to be YOU, in order to trick people out of their hard-earned cash? 1 That's exactly what happened to me, when I discovered that my phone number had been "spoofed" and crooks were using it to try and scam people. It's a horrible form of identity fraud and a cunning way for fraudsters to attempt to steal cash or money from unsuspecting victims, as the number appears to be from a trusted source. It all started six months ago, when I started getting mysterious phone calls from strangers claiming that they'd has missed calls from me. But when I checked my call log each time, I could see that I never made the call to that number. I would tell the caller that they made a mistake, and hang up the phone. I was suspicious that these were scammers trying to lure me into handing over money in some way, so I made sure to block the numbers after I put the phone down. But the calls kept coming and each time I kept blocking the number. That was until last week, when I received a WhatsApp out of the blue from a lady I didn't know. "Hello, did you call me?" the text read. I usually don't message back when I get these sorts of WhatsApp messages, as I'm wary of scammers. But I was confused when the lady sent a screenshot of her call log - and surprisingly, my phone number was at the top of the list. I decided to message back, explaining that I didn't call her. I thanked her for flagging the missed call, and said I would look into what happened. After contacting my phone company, ID Mobile, I was told that the most likely explanation for what had happened was that my phone number had been spoofed. They said there wasn't much the company could do about my spoofed number, although I had the option to change my phone number, which would cost £25. I was also told to report the issue to Action Fraud. The thought of a scammer using my number and pretending to be me to con money out of innocent people made me sick to my stomach. So I decided to bite the bullet, swallow the £25 charge, and put the experience behind me. Even better, I've not had a single scam call or text since I switched my number - before, I used to get at least one a week. However, there's nothing to stop my new number from being spoofed too. It's also been a massive inconvenience contacting all my friends, family, and organisations to let them know about my change of number. iD Mobile said: "We understand how frustrating it is for customers to receive calls from people claiming they've been contacted by them. "In this instance, it appears the number was spoofed — a common industry issue where fraudsters fake caller IDs without needing access to the number itself." I've been told that if I report it to Action Fraud, the £25 fee will be waived - which I'm planning on doing soon. Spoofing on the rise The main reason why scammers will spoof numbers is in order to target more victims without being caught up in something called the Do Not Originate (DNO) list. Ofcom and UK Finance launched the DNO list in 2019. Companies and organisations add to the list when a rogue number is reported, and this list is shared with telecoms providers to help them identify and block calls from these numbers. It's an effective tool in filtering through scam callers - but tech and cyber security expert David McClelland said scammers are exploiting a loophole. "Perhaps because of this DNO list - although it's difficult to say for sure - scammers are now also making calls that spoof individuals' mobile numbers," he said. Spoofing is becoming a big problem. The telcoms regulator, Ofcom, is so concerned about the growing threat of spoofing that it launched a consultation in July last year on how to address the issue. It said it was "concerned" that scam calls are coming from scammers who are spoofing UK mobile numbers. It said a call from a spoofed number could appear more trustworthy, and "victims are more likely to share personal information or to make a payment, which can lead to significant financial and emotional harm". It can therefore make it much easier for fraudsters to hunt down victims and steal their money. Some 5.7million Brits have been targeted by a mobile phone scammer more than 10 times, according to research from comparison site Uswitch. And an eye-watering £1.17billion was swiped by scammers in 2024 - roughly level to what was stolen in 2023. What can you do about spoofing? Worryingly, phone companies can't do a lot about spoofing, says Jake Moore from the cybersecurity firm ESET. "There's no solid bulletproof way to stop this sort of spoofing," he says. "However, it's a good idea to report it to Action Fraud and at extreme lengths, you can change your number. "This may be challenging for some people - but it will eradicate the problem if your phone number appears on a list that hackers delve into." My spoofing experience has been sobering, and has reminded me of the importance of remaining vigilant against scammers. Set your privacy settings to the highest level on your social media and messaging accounts. This is so people can't contact you or collect personal information about you - it's surprising how much we share on our accounts. Be wary of who you share your number with. "Try to reduce the amount of companies you give your phone number to," Jake said. "Most website forms will ask for it but not all of them will require it for the service or product to work. "By limiting where your number is divulged, it reduces the chance it will be breached." If you get a cold call, never rely on just using the caller ID as a way to verify who they say they are. It's worryingly easy for scammers to spoof a number. If someone says they are from your bank, then hang up and call the number on the back of your card, or through the mobile bank app. If someone says they are from an official organisation, like HMRC, hang up and look up the number to call back on the website. Being spoofed has made me realise the lengths that scammers will go to in order to trick you into handing over money. From now on, I'll be keeping a close eye on where I'm sharing my phone number. How to stop nuisance calls and texts FED up with scam texts and calls clogging up your phone? Take these steps to fight back. On iPhone, you can enable Silence Unknown Callers by going to Settings > Phone, scrolling down to Silence Unknown Callers, tapping the option, and turning on the feature. This will block phone numbers that are not in your contacts or that you have not contacted previously. On Android, open the Phone app, tap the three dots for more options, tap Settings then turn on Caller ID and spam protection. This uses a database of phone numbers to determine a caller's ID and filter out spam calls. Contact the Telephone Preference Service to add your landline or mobile number to the UK's official Do Not Call register and opt out of unsolicited communications. You can register your phone number on the TPS website or by phoning 0345 070 0707. Certain phone providers offer their own blocking services, some free and some paid for. Contact your provider to find out more.
