A businesswoman has lost her court fight for half her ex boyfriend’s house after she claimed he ‘evicted’ her just after she’d paid off his mortgage.
Vijaya Jules, 49, said she poured £100,000 into renovations and mortgage payments on Jason Spencer’s home in Oakwood Hill, Loughton, Essex, thinking she was putting money into their future together.
But months after spending £32,000 to pay off his mortgage in 2017 she claimed she was told to leave the £400,000 home and the couple split.
Ms Jules responded by dragging her ex to court, demanding he sell the house – which is his childhood home – and give her half.
But Judge Nicholas Parfitt has now ruled that she is not entitled to any part of the property following the end of their tempestuous relationship.
Vijaya Jules (pictured), 49, said she poured £100,000 into renovations and mortgage payments on Jason Spencer’s home in Oakwood Hill, Loughton, Essex, thinking she was putting money into their future together
Former civilian police worker Mr Spencer, 51, did not promise her a share and Ms Jules must have known from his refusal to put her name on the deeds that the relationship was ‘going nowhere’, the judge said at Central London County Court.
The couple’s relationship had been ‘inherently difficult’ from the start, involved allegations of violence by both of them, and their lives ‘must have been miserable’ by the end, he added.
The court heard that Ms Jules and Mr Spencer got together in 2012 after meeting at the gym and enjoying a first date at a concert by jazz singer Diana Krall.
However, the relationship was sometimes stormy, the judge said, and they split in 2018 after – Ms Jules told the court – she was ‘evicted’ by Mr Spencer.
Former civilian police worker Mr Spencer (pictured), 51, did not promise Ms Jules a share in the property and she must have known from his refusal to put her name on the deeds that the relationship was ‘going nowhere’, according to Judge Nicholas Parfitt
By then, she claims to have spent more than £50,000 on renovations and put in £32,000 to pay off his mortgage at a time he was not working – in the belief she was investing in a property that would be half hers.
In the witness box, she told the judge: ‘We knew each other from the health club we both attended. Our first date was in October 2012. At that point I was separated from my ex-husband but still co-habiting.’
She said the couple had begun talking about buying a house together in early 2013, but instead decided that she would pay off his mortgage and refurbish his home in return for her owning half.
‘I paid for all of the works from my personal savings,’ she told the judge. ‘A lot of the times I paid for with cash and a lot of money was taken from my parents.’
Ms Jules claimed that, in 2017, she stumped up £32,000 of her own money to pay off the mortgage on the house, which Mr Spencer had bought with his late mum, Eileen.
Months after spending £32,000 to pay off his mortgage in 2017 Ms Jules claimed she was told to leave the £400,000 home and the couple split. Pictured, the home is on the left of centre
‘He wasn’t working at the time. He hadn’t worked since December 2015,’ Ms Jules continued. ‘There was no money coming from him to me ever – I paid for everything.’
Richard Bowles, for Mr Spencer, told the judge that Mr Spencer did not leave his job with the Met Police until 2017 and, while there had been discussions between the couple about the property being shared equally, there was no agreement.
‘These discussions did not result in the parties agreeing that they would each be co-owners of the property,’ he said. ‘Rather, they resulted in Mr Spencer expressly stating that he did not wish to own the property jointly with Ms Jules.’
Mr Spencer insisted he was not supported by his ex, that he had been on a £30,000-a-year police salary at the time and they had each provided the other with emotional and financial support during the relationship.
The judge ruling on the case found that Ms Jules had indeed put in more than £30,000 to pay off the mortgage on the house, but said that only entitled her to her money back plus interest, rather than a half share of the house.
The judge said the relationship between he pair had been rocky and unstable and he could not find that Mr Spencer had promised his ex half his house.
‘This is not a case where the parties’ home was being acquired by them for a joint purpose,’ he said.
‘At the point at which the payment was made, the parties had more hopes for the future than an established lifestyle: it was only a few months previously that they had broken up.
‘No sooner had the mortgage been paid off than it appears the arguments started again and the relationship rapidly deteriorated.’
By the late autumn of 2017, they were ‘arguing all the time’ and their lives ‘must have been miserable,’ he continued.
‘I am not persuaded that Mr Spencer would have made an express promise to transfer the property to Ms Jules and nor do I think he would have acted in such a way as to evidence such an intention….I do not think he ever had that intention.
‘I do not consider that Mr Spencer’s conduct in taking the benefit of Ms Jules paying off his mortgage is sufficient in and of itself to evidence an actual agreement to give an interest in the property or an implied agreement..’
The judge also ruled that Ms Jules was not entitled to get back the money she had put into the house for home improvements.
‘Her case includes the proposition that fairness requires her to be compensated for all the monies she introduced into Mr Spencer’s life during their relationship. I disagree,’ said the judge, adding that Ms Jules had ‘not established’ that the money she put in for renovations increased the value of the house.
He awarded her a payout of around £40,000, including interest, to cover her payments towards the mortgage and said she should have a charge on her ex’s house in that sum.