‘Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs
Sharon Duggan claimed the home in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018.
4
4
The "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" alternative therapist said she needed the house for her therapeutic rescue dogs.
Sharon took her sisters to court after they tried to claim their share in the home, which was left to all three daughters.
Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after a judge threw out Sharon's claim.
Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money.
She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, which include dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder and long Covid, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property.
But while the judge accepted that Sharon has "particular issues," he concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her.
Central London County Court heard most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years.
After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out - citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs.
She insisted her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and argued she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014.
Sharon also claimed Agnes was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her.
She told the court she spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady.
In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that "psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again".
Her barrister said: "She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep.
"She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult.
"The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively."
Sharon said she wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest.
She also alternatively suggest an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum, which would be raised with a mortgage.
But Brenda insisted that Sharon and her pets would be fine in a flat.
Judge Alan Johns said he was "satisfied" there was no promise that the house would go to Sharon alone.
He added: "Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate."
The ruling means the sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate - although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
4
4
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Imported dogs could carry disease or behaviour risk, RSPCA warns
An animal charity has called for stricter regulations on animal rescues importing dogs into the UK, citing concerns about disease risks and behavioural issues Government statistics reveal that in 2023, 320,000 pets were brought into the UK under travel pet schemes and 44,000 entered as commercial imports. RSPCA spokesman David Bowles likened the process to ' Deliveroo for dogs' and called on the Government to tighten regulations on animal rescues. He told the BBC: 'The RSPCA's major concern is these dogs are essentially ticking time bombs – coming over, not being health tested. 'Diseases are now coming in through these dogs. They're affecting not just the dogs that are being imported, they could also affect the dogs already in this country and their owners. 'They've almost set up a Deliveroo for dogs and that is a real problem.' There is no requirement for rescue organisations to be licensed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It comes weeks after a bill that aims to stop animal smuggling and cruelty cleared the Commons with cross-party support. Legislation put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Danny Chambers will reduce the number of animals for non-commercial entry into the UK, ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months old or heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and introduce a halt on the import of dogs and cats who have been 'mutilated', including having their ears docked. The MP for Winchester's Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill was supported by the Government, and will now proceed to the House of Lords on its passage to becoming law. Dr Chambers said: 'As a vet, I've seen the devastating consequences of puppy smuggling. It's unimaginably cruel to separate puppies and kittens from their mothers at a very young age, and then bring them across borders in substandard conditions where they're then sold for maximum profit by unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare.' He added: 'Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign and declare that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial. He criticised the influence of social media on the increased demand for dogs with docked ears, and a party colleague hit out at the platforms' role in publishing animal abuse. He said: 'One reason that there is such an interest in dogs with cropped ears is that a lot of influencers on Instagram and other social media platforms pose with these dogs or show they have these new dogs with cropped ears. Many people aren't aware that this is a mutilation. 'They think it's how the dogs' ears normally look, and it drives a demand for dogs that look like this.'
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Financial Ombudsman Service boss paid £230,000 after ousting
The ousted head of the Financial Ombudsman Service received a pay-off of almost £230,000, it has been disclosed in the annual report. Abby Thomas, who left abruptly on 6 February, was paid £229,869 in severance payments on top of her normal salary. The payoff included £100,000 for loss of office, £107,692 in lieu of notice and £22,177 for a period of gardening leave that began on the day she left, the FOS said. MPs on the Treasury select committee have hit out at the manner of her departure and criticised the FOS chairwoman Baroness Manzoor for refusing to answer questions on why Thomas left and whether she was forced out. The FOS, which rules on complaints by consumers about financial services firms and can set compensation orders, is under pressure to reform. Rachel Reeves has pledged to curb its powers so it no longer acts like a regulator after complaints from the industry that it has increased the cost of 'mass redress events'. It has been dealing with a significant rise in claims, mainly related to car finance loans, but also because of concerns about other consumer loans and more people complaining about banks' handling of frauds. Dame Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Treasury committee, said this month: 'The handling of this situation by the senior leadership has been deeply disappointing.' Thomas, a former Virgin Media executive, served for less than three years. She has been replaced by James Dipple-Johnstone as chief ombudsman and Jenny Simmonds as interim chief executive. Manzoor is due to retire on August 1. The FOS received 450,000 new inquiries in the year to March, up from 330,000. The motor finance industry is braced for a judgment from the Supreme Court this Friday that could determine the scale of compensation payments for failing to disclose commissions paid to dealers.
Times
41 minutes ago
- Times
NatWest faces questions over links to collapsed 79th Group
NatWest is facing scrutiny over its relationship with a collapsed £200 million investment group which insolvency practitioners suspect was a Ponzi scheme. 79th Group attracted thousands of investors from the UK and overseas, before collapsing into administration in April, two months after the City of London police announced an investigation into a 'suspected widespread fraud'. The company has denied wrongdoing. Insolvency practitioners estimate 79th Group owes more than £200 million to about 3,700 people. Some investors have life savings at risk. The matter was raised in parliament this month. The 'main account' of the group was held at NatWest, according to administrators from Kroll and Quantuma. It is understood that the relationship originated at the bank's Southport branch, which is near 79th Group's Merseyside head office. The bank also holds an outstanding charge over a 79th Group entity which was first registered 20 years ago. That company went into insolvency in May. Investors' funds were paid into a 'treasury account [and then] transferred out to other entities', administrators said in a recent report to creditors. They are investigating the 'flow of funds'. Investors' money does not appear to have been 'ring-fenced' and was instead 'pooled' in group accounts. No formal loan accounts appear to have been recorded or board minutes yet identified relating to the management of investors' money, insolvency practitioners have claimed. The bank declined to answer a series of questions over its banking relationship with 79th Group, including how much money was received and processed by the bank; whether it had continued to receive investor funds after the arrests; whether it had failed to detect serious irregularities; and whether NatWest was investigating. A NatWest spokeswoman said: 'Combating fraud is a top priority and we are committed to preventing criminal activity. We will not make any further comment on this case.' Contractual agreements between the group and investors stated that funds would be used for specific projects, including a £250 million holiday park in north Wales and a mining venture. City of London police said in February that four people had been arrested and that 'a large amount of cash, luxury watches and jewellery were found during searches of properties, all of which were seized'. All people arrested have been released on bail and inquiries continue. There have been no charges. The Times reported this month that 79th Group's board included a former senior HM Revenue & Customs official who was in charge of combating fraud for the tax office. Andy Cole, former director of specialist investigations at HMRC, was a non-executive adviser. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Cole or that he is being investigated. He has not been arrested. Administrators from Grant Thornton have told 79th Group investors that 'we believe this is a Ponzi', the term for a fraudulent investment scheme in which early investors are paid with money from later investors rather than legitimate business activities. Banks have a regulatory duty to counter the risk that they might be used to further financial crime. Lenders face strict 'know your customer' and anti-money laundering rules; adherence requires due diligence, transaction monitoring and reporting of suspicious activity. Three sets of insolvency firms are engaged on the case. Administrators are liaising with NatWest over the outstanding charge owed to the bank, which has said it is not in a position to release it, according to its report. In 2021, NatWest was fined £264.8 million for anti-money laundering failures related to the gold trading business Fowler Oldfield. This month Barclays was fined £39.3 million for failing to tackle financial crime risks in its dealings with Stunt & Co, which received £46.8 million from Fowler Oldfield.
