Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber
Case No. UKUT-251-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2022-218
Fecha: 12-Sep-2022
The factual background
6.Mr Aslam came to the United Kingdom in 1993. He has some knowledge of English but is not fluent and is more comfortable speaking Punjabi in a formal setting. He has had experience in buying and selling properties since at least 2001. However, because of his lack of fluency he placed great trust in his friend Mr Rehman, who gave evidence that he helped members of the Pakistani community by writing letters for them.7.In 2009 Mr Aslam purchased 189 Walton Road for £160,000. There was some dispute about the source of the purchase price; the judge rejected Mr Rehman’s contention that he contributed half of it. However, the judge accepted the validity of a declaration of trust dated 1 August 2013 whose effect was that the property is held by Mr Aslam on trust for himself and Mr Rehman in equal shares.8.In 2017 Mr Rehman offered to sell 13 Eve Road, another property in Woking, to Mr Aslam for £215,000. In order to buy it, Mr Aslam obtained a bridging loan on the security of 189 Walton Road. He paid £214,850 to Mr Rehman. The property was never transferred to him, and it does not seem that there was a contract for sale. The FTT’s judgment hints at the existence of a dispute as to the title to that property but it appears that the evidence before it did not provide any explanation for the failure to effect the sale despite the payment.9.Be that as it may, Mr Aslam defaulted on the bridging loan. As a result the lender appointed receivers and 189 Walton Road was put up for sale at an auction that was to take place on 8 October 2018 with a guide price of £200,000 - £210,000. 10.Mr Aslam turned to Mr Rehman for advice. The two met on 14 September 2018; Mr Rehman provided a contract in duplicate for the sale by Mr Aslam to Mr Rehman of 189 Walton Road; his evidence was that the contract and transfer were drawn up by Campbell Courtney & Cooney, solicitors. The FTT found that at the meeting on 14 September 2018 Mr Aslam and Mr Rehman each signed his own part. The two parts are now dated 14 September 2018 but the FTT made no finding as to when the two parts were dated. The contract provided for a price of £400,000, for completion to be on 16 November 2018 and for a deposit of 10% to be paid on exchange. Mr Aslam also signed a transfer of the property to Mr Rehman in Form TR1 (the standard Land Registry format), which remains undated. 11.As an aside, I observe that the price in the contract is puzzling. Mr Rehman gave evidence to the FTT that he would only have to pay half because he already held a 50% share in the property. That does not explain why the contract and transfer were drawn up to provide for a price of £400,000. Nor is there any explanation as to why Mr Rehman would be prepared to pay half that sum, a sum equivalent to the guide price at auction, when he was already joint owner of the property.12.The focus of the appeal is on the status of the two counterpart contracts; Mr Rehman’s case before the FTT and on the appeal is that contracts were exchanged on 14 September 2018 so that a contract came into being. Mr Aslam’s is that they were not and therefore that there is no contract between him and Mr Rehman. The judge found that contracts were exchanged, in terms that I examine below. He also found that no deposit was ever paid.13.To jump ahead for a moment, Mr Rehman then drafted letters which Mr Aslam signed, addressed to the bridging lender and its solicitors, stating that the property had been sold and should be withdrawn from the auction. The solicitors for the lender were not impressed and declined to withdraw it. Mr Aslam then borrowed enough money from a Mr Akhtar, on the security of a legal charge over 189 Walton Road, to redeem the bridging loan mortgage and so 189 Walton Road was saved.14.Reverting now to the dealings between the parties, on 20 September 2018 Mr Aslam and Mr Rehman met with Lyndsay Sait & Turner solicitors. There is no attendance note of that meeting and no evidence from the solicitors, but their invoice was produced to the FTT. It was addressed to Mr Aslam and indicates that the firm acted for Mr Aslam in the mortgage to Mr Akhtar, but it also says “For … receiving Contract documentation showing sale of property to Mr Abdul Rehman in the sum of £400,000 with completion on 16 November 2018.” The FTT found that Mr Rehman “played an active part” in the discussion at the meeting.