TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

General

between turning 18 on 19 February 2001 and the start of his employment contract on 5 April 2010, he had lived in his parent’s home at all times apart from:

it was fair to say that, throughout that period, he regarded his parent’s home as his default address. It was the place to which he returned when he wasn’t living elsewhere;

he had given up work as a mechanical engineer in around 2007 when his father became ill because his mother was disabled and unable to care for her husband herself. Thereafter, although he still went back and forth between his parent’s home and 278 Dragon Lane when his grandmother needed him to be with her – and was in fact staying with his grandmother at the time when he signed the employment contract – his parent’s home remained his default address throughout that period;

in 2010, when his father’s health had worsened and full–time care had become essential, consideration had been given to obtaining outside care for him. However, his father had reacted badly to this proposal and Nurse Clarke had asked him to consider becoming his father’s paid care–giver. It was this which led to the employment contract of 5 April 2010;

at the start of his employment contract, the local health authority in Warrington agreed to pay for 24 hours of care per week. This rose to 38 hours of care per week in the tax year 2012/13 and has more recently risen to 78 hours of care per week. The Appellant considered that any hours above the limit for which he was paid were voluntary;

10 Woodhouse Close

he was in a relationship at the time when he decided to buy 10 Woodhouse Close and move into it with his girlfriend in December 2010. The idea was that, because his hours of caring for his father fluctuated both because of his father’s needs from time to time and the amount of care which could be provided by his mother, he and his girlfriend would have a home to live in independently when he did not have to live in his parent’s home. The Property in question was chosen for its proximity to his parent’s home and was purchased with his own savings;

unfortunately, shortly after the Property had been purchased, frozen pipes caused the boiler and water tank to explode and brought down the kitchen ceiling. Due to the slowness of his insurers in dealing with the ensuing claim, the damage at the Property became worse. In addition, the repairs took longer than expected as a result of delays by his contractor. The result was that, by the time that the Property was in a habitable condition, his relationship with his girlfriend had ended;

at that point, he was not in the right state of mind to move into the Property because:

accordingly, in September 2011, he decided to sell the Property and completed that disposal in April 2012;

28 Bramshill Close and 2 Bramshill Close

he subsequently decided to purchase a new home to live in and identified 28 Bramshill Close for that purpose. This was in close walking distance of his parent’s home so that he could live there when his father’s condition permitted it and still provide support and help at short notice. In addition, the proximity of the Property to his parent’s home and the fact that the Property was a bungalow meant that it would be possible for his father to visit when well enough to do so;

unfortunately, in the week that he had purchased the Property, his father’s mother died and his father’s condition worsened as a result of the consequent emotional stress. Soon afterwards, at Christmas 2012, the boiler at his parent’s home broke down. That led to his father’s having a seizure and having to spend two nights in hospital;

nevertheless, he started to redecorate 28 Bramshill Close to his own taste, which he recognised did not necessarily conform to tastes in general. In addition, he chose bright red wall tiles for the kitchen to please his father who was a Liverpool fan. He also decided to replace and relocate the existing boiler and, because the Property would be uninhabitable while that work was done, he had decided to refit the kitchen and bathroom;

shortly after he had acquired 28 Bramshill Close, another house in the same close – 2 Bramshill Close – had become available for purchase. 2 Bramshill Close was a preferable place to live in comparison to 28 Bramshill Close given that it was detached, unlike the latter, and it offered more space. In addition, it was on a large corner plot with a bigger garden. He was a keen gardener and the Property had a large tree on it for his cats to climb;

since the asking price for 2 Bramshill Close was only £5,000 more than the asking price for 28 Bramshill Close had been, he decided to buy it as soon as it came on the market – which was only a month or so after he had completed the acquisition of 28 Bramshill Close – and offered the full asking price. He completed the purchase in February 2013. However, since he had used up all his savings in acquiring 28 Bramshill Close, he had to take out a mortgage to fund the purchase;

unlike 28 Bramshill Close, 2 Bramshill Close had no heating and that needed to be added. In addition, he had decided to redecorate 2 Bramshill Close to his own taste in the same way as 28 Bramshill Close, as described in paragraph 50(12) above;

even though he had decided to live in 2 Bramshill Close and dispose of 28 Bramshill Close, the latter Property proved difficult to sell despite his leaving it unoccupied at the suggestion of the estate agent (so that the new kitchen and bathroom remained unused) and despite reducing the asking price on a number of occasions. Since 28 Bramshill Close was not selling and he needed to clear the mortgage and get rid of his obligation to meet the overheads on at least one of the Properties, he had decided to put both Properties on the market at the same time to see which of them sold first;

as it transpired, 28 Bramshill Close proved the more difficult to sell and therefore he had moved into 28 Bramshill Close from March 2014, disposed of 2 Bramshill Close in June 2014, and taken 28 Bramshill Close off the market;

in September 2014, the Appellant and his neighbours were made aware of the fact that a paedophile who had recently been released from prison had moved into a nearby property in the close. This had caused a lot of tension and arguments in the close. Consequently, he had put 28 Bramshill Close back on the market and reduced the price again. He had continued to live at the Property until he disposed of it in January 2015;

8 Wigshaw Lane

despite his disappointing experiences in attempting to find a property to live in when he wasn’t living in his parent’s home, the Appellant had tried again. Once again, the criteria were that it needed to be a bungalow in close proximity to his parent’s home. To that end, he had purchased 8 Wigshaw Lane in June 2015. However, he had done so without having a survey done and he very much regretted that;

when he arrived to take possession of the Property, he found that there was no meter there and that the floorboards in both bedrooms and the living room, which had been covered by carpets when he viewed the Property, had now been exposed and had completely rotted away. He had also discovered a survey report at the Property, which he assumed to have been obtained by a previous owner, or someone interested in acquiring the Property, and this revealed that water from below had caused a significant amount of damage to the floorboards throughout the Property. This necessitated a significant amount of repair to the Property, including the removal of all the floorboards, the replacement of the drainage system and the replacement of the electrical wiring and pipework. This in turn meant that everything which was sitting on the floorboards (including the kitchen and bathroom) also needed to be replaced and that the patio and lawns had to be dug out;

a dispute arose with his next–door neighbour during the building work and, although the Appellant did eventually move into the Property for a brief time after the work was completed, the dispute soon escalated and led the Appellant to decide to sell the Property in December 2015;

the sale of 8 Wigshaw Lane had been completed in March 2016 and, following that disposal, the Appellant had acquired another bungalow at 109 Portico Lane in early 2017. He had been living there ever since then, in addition to living in his parent’s home. He had decorated 109 Portico Lane in the same way as 28 Bramshill Close, 2 Bramshill Close and 8 Wigshaw Lane; and

the Appellant’s brother also lived in the Appellant’s parent’s home although his circumstances were very different from those of the Appellant. He suffered from serious mental health issues and had a difficult relationship with both the Appellant and his father which meant that the Appellant’s mother had her hands full in looking after him as well as her husband.