Matthew Selt was taken to court by his mother Susan Hickenbotham (Image: Getty)
The mother and sister of a snooker star are set to be reported to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over alleged benefits fraud worth £200,000. The revelation emerged from a bitter family dispute involving Matthew Selt, who won the Indian Open in 2019. He found himself embroiled in the chaos when his mother, Susan Hickenbotham, sued him and his sisters, Claire Noble and Charlotte Hamblin.
Ms Hickenbotham alleged that Selt and his two sisters had “coerced” her into handing over ownership of her £500,000 home in Romford, Essex. Speaking at Central London County Court, she claimed that she was “bullied” into signing a deed in 2019, transferring all interest in the property to her daughter Claire, after being served with an eviction notice by her children.
Ms Hickenbotham, who had lived at the Romford property since 1998, argued that she had signed the house away under “coercion, duress and undue influence”.
However, her claim was dismissed by Judge Simon Monty, who ruled that the deed was valid. He did provide Ms Hickenbotham with a 10 per cent share of the property’s value in acknowledgement of cash she had contributed when the house was purchased.
Judge Monty went on to find that Ms Hickenbotham and Claire had been involved in a housing benefit scam between 2000 and 2019, resulting in over £200,000 being paid to the former.
It was determined that while the house was legally in Claire’s name during this 19-year period, Ms Hickenbotham was the true beneficial owner until the deed was signed.
As a result, nearly two decades of housing payments claimed by Ms Hickenbotham and directed to Claire as the supposed landlady were obtained through “fraud”.
Commenting on the case, Judge Monty said: “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.
“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 earlier this year, the court heard that the Romford property was originally owned by the sportsman’s father, Michael Selt.
Ms Hickenbotham claimed that she bought the house from her ex-husband for a £7,500 down payment in 2000, but that it was put into Claire’s name as it would be easier for her to secure a mortgage.
Ms Hickenbotham argued that she was the real owner of the property, despite it being legally owned by Clare until 2019. At that point, a document was signed by the family transferring their interest in the property to Claire.
However, after the siblings asked their mother to leave the house and served her with an eviction notice, she sued, claiming the document was invalid.
Judge Monty said: “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.”
EXPRESS SPORT ON FB! Get all the best sports news and much more on our Facebook page.