‘Greedy’ son kicking dad out of home
A FRAIL pensioner who "slogged his heart out" to buy a home for his retirement is locked in a bitter legal battle with his son - who wants him out.
Neville Paull claims he has been "stitched up" and condemned as "an effing lodger" by his "uncaring and greedy" son Bradley, 52.
The 76-year-old spent decades working in the print industry, and climbed his way up the property ladder through "hard work and self sacrifice", The Sun reports.
And in the early 1990s he finally bought his dream home in St Albans in the UK, which is now worth around $1,162,888.
But eight years ago Mr Paull transferred the property to his son, barrister Marc Beaumont told the High Court.
And now Bradley Paull has asked his dad and his severely disabled partner to leave, saying he "requires the property for his own use".
But, in a bid to live on in his home, Neville Paull is now asking Judge Timothy Bowles to undo the transfer and hand him back the house.
Branding his son work-shy, he told the judge: "He knows how to get through life without working Monday to Friday."
Bradley Paull, however, insists that his father is no "sheep" and the transfer was entirely his idea.
And his barrister, Ewan Paton, "emphatically denied" that he had in any way "exploited" his father.
Mr Paull said that he would never have given his home to his son "without a promise" that he and his disabled partner, Linda, could stay there for life.
Placing complete trust in his son, the pensioner added: "I never questioned him."
Mr Paull said "nothing was supposed to change" after the transfer and "for years after that, nothing did change".
But that was only until "Bradley decided to change his mind and to try to get us out of the house," he said.
When he and his partner refused to budge, Mr Paull said his son told him: "You're an effing lodger in my house."
Accusing his son of only being interested in money, he added: "I worked hard all my life while he just sat back and thought, 'This is a gift dropping into my hands.'
"I listened to Bradley and I got stitched up," he told the judge.
Mr Paton, however, argued that the property transfer was a straightforward "freely made gift" between father and son.
The reason recorded by the solicitor who advised Mr Paull was that he wanted his children, rather than his stepchildren, to have the house.
The pensioner may also have been concerned about inheritance tax and the risk of future care home fees eating into the value of his home.
The judge has now reserved his decision on the case and will give his ruling at a later date.