Richard Walker denied in Brighton and Hove news at Hove Crown Court that he bought Beestons for less than its worth while facing five counts of fraud over the estate he was appointed to administer. The prosecution says he paid £775,000 for the house, then put it on the market for £1.3 million less than two weeks later.
The dispute centres on Beestons, a 17th century listed house in Vines Cross that formed the bulk of the estate. One valuation recommended marketing it at £1.1 million, leaving the gap between that figure and the purchase price at the heart of the case.
Wayne Flamank valuations
John Ojakovoh told the court this week that Walker attempted to make a £500,000 profit by selling the house on. The prosecution also says he failed to pay rent when he lived there before the sale, charged unnecessary building works to the estate and overcharged for legal services.
Matthew Radstone told the court that Walker disputes buying the property at an undervalue. He said a solicitor administering an estate may buy estate assets if the purchase is lawful, and that Walker took advice from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which advised there was no conflict of interest in his role and obligations while offering to purchase the property.
Hove Crown Court defence
Radstone said multiple valuations were obtained by Wayne Flamank at Walker's insistence, and that Walker kept Wayne Flamank and his mother informed throughout. He also said some of the disputed building works were needed to improve the property's value and saleability, while chimney sweeping was a legal requirement because the house was rented to Walker.
On the rent point, Radstone said the agreed rent was not paid because Walker and his wife carried out work equal to the rent, including gardening and house clearance. He said woodworm treatment was done at the request of Walker's mortgage company, and that sellers routinely pay for such requirements.
The defence says its own expert witness will say Walker's fees were high but not excessively so. The five-week trial continues, with the jury left to decide whether the house was sold for a reasonable price or at an undervalue.
