The mother and sister of a championship-winning professional snooker player are set to be reported to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after a judge concluded they orchestrated a £200,000 benefits fraud over 19 years.
The revelation emerged from a bitter family court dispute.
World number 43 and 2019 Indian Open Champion Matthew Selt found himself embroiled in the family feud when his mother, Susan Hickenbotham, sued him and his sisters, Claire Noble and Charlotte Hamblin.
Ms Hickenbotham alleged that her children had “coerced” her into signing away ownership of her £500,000 home in Romford, Essex, where she had resided since 1998.
At Central London County Court, Ms Hickenbotham claimed that she was “bullied” into signing a deed in 2019, transferring all interest in the property to her daughter Claire, after her children served her with an eviction notice. She argued that her signature was obtained under “coercion, duress and undue influence”.
However, Judge Simon Monty dismissed her claim, ruling the deed was valid. He did, however, award Ms Hickenbotham a 10 per cent share of the property’s value, acknowledging cash she had contributed when the house was initially purchased.
Crucially, the judge went on to find that both Ms Hickenbotham and Claire had been involved in a substantial housing benefit scam between 2000 and 2019, resulting in over £200,000 being paid to the mother.
The court determined that while the house was legally in Claire’s name during this period, Ms Hickenbotham was the true beneficial owner until the 2019 deed was signed. This meant 19 years of housing benefit payments, claimed by Ms Hickenbotham and directed to Claire as the supposed landlady, were obtained through “fraud”.
“It was not a genuine tenancy but a sham, created and maintained for the purpose of presenting Susan as a tenant when both Susan and Claire knew that Susan occupied the property as of right,” said the judge.
“It was entered into to deceive the local authority into providing Susan with housing benefit to pay for the mortgage. Susan was not entitled to such benefits. She knew it and so did Claire.
“Susan, with the assistance of Claire, has perpetrated what appears to have been a housing benefits fraud between 2000 and 2019 by setting up a false tenancy agreement, naming as the tenant the true owner of the property, knowingly in order to receive housing benefit which was used to pay the mortgage.
“I do not think Charlotte was involved. Matthew was not involved.
“I intend to report Susan and Claire to the appropriate authorities in relation to the apparent benefits fraud.
“This is a very sorry – and I have to say, entirely predictable – end to these unhappy proceedings.”
During the trial of the case earlier this year, the court heard that the three-bedroom property was originally owned by the sportsman’s dad Michael Selt.
The snooker star’s mum claimed she bought it off her ex-husband for a £7,500 downpayment in 2000 after they split, but that it was put into Claire’s name as it was easier for her to obtain a mortgage.
A £96,000 payment from Ms Hickenbotham’s father was later handed to Claire in 2008 with the intention that it be used to pay off the mortgage, but that was not done.
Ms Hickenbotham argued that she was the real owner of the property despite Claire being on the deeds up until 2019.
At that point, the family all signed a document signing over their interest in the property to Claire.
But after the siblings asked their mum to leave the house and served her with an eviction notice, she sued, claiming the document was invalid.
“The children have served Susan with an eviction notice and there are separate possession proceedings which are on hold pending the outcome of the present claim,” said the judge.
“In the meantime, Susan and her husband Mark are living in the property, which Susan has – and initially the children also had – been occupying for over 25 years.
“Susan says that her signature to the deed was procured by coercion, duress and undue influence at an acrimonious family meeting. The children deny that there was any pressure put on their mother.”
He went on to find that the 2019 deed was valid and not procured by bullying, rejecting Ms Hickenbotham’s case on “coercion, duress and undue influence”.
“Although it seems clear that Susan reposed trust and confidence in Claire, the deed was independently produced, it was sent to Susan in good time for her to have taken issue with it, Susan had the opportunity to read it and to take advice about it. I am also satisfied as I have found that it was validly executed.
“I reject Susan’s evidence that she did not receive the letter from the solicitors and that someone must have intercepted her post as being highly unlikely to be true.
“It also strikes me that it would have been extraordinary – had the meeting been distressing, with the children shouting at her, and had she been coerced or improperly persuaded to sign the deed – that Susan would not have said anything to her children after 2019, but instead she carried on as before, using money given to her from Claire to fund jewellery purchases and generally leading the same life she had always done.
“For these reasons, Susan’s claim must be dismissed.”
He said Susan should be granted a 10 per cent interest in the house to account for her £7,500 deposit payment, and that the £96,000 should also be counted as a “capital contribution” made by her to Claire.
But he vitally also went on to find that, up until 2019, Ms Hickenbotham had been the real beneficial owner of the house, and as such had been fraudulently claiming housing benefit for 19 years.
“Susan successfully applied for housing benefit, which was paid to her from 2000, and she accepts that this was on the basis of her tenancy agreements with Claire. Susan says that, as agreed with Claire, she paid the housing benefit as rent.
“This was all done according to Susan on the common understanding and intention that Susan was the true beneficial owner of the property.”
He continued: “Housing benefit is not available to property owners. She was not entitled to claim and receive housing benefit….the tenancy agreement was a sham, a device to obtain housing benefit dishonestly.
“Susan has claimed and received more than £200,000 in housing benefits since 2000, which together with further money has been used to fund the mortgage payments.
“The tenancy agreement, and the later tenancy agreements, was therefore clearly a dishonest document. It was not a genuine tenancy but a sham, created and maintained for the purpose of presenting Susan as a tenant when both Susan and Claire knew that Susan occupied the property as of right.
“It was entered into to deceive the local authority into providing Susan with housing benefit to pay for the mortgage. Susan was not entitled to such benefits. She knew it and so did Claire.
“A person who genuinely believed herself to be the beneficial owner would have had no reason to execute a false tenancy with the actual owner; the use of such a device is, in effect, an admission that the legal structure did not reflect the real ownership arrangement.
“I intend to report Susan and Claire to the appropriate authorities in relation to the apparent benefits fraud.”
