A professional snooker player's mother and sister are set to be reported after a family court feud ended with a judge finding they carried out a 19-year-long £200,000 benefits fraud.

World No. 37 Matthew Selt and his sisters, Claire Noble and Charlotte Hamblin, were sued by their mother, Susan Hickenbotham, over claims they ganged up to 'coerce' her into signing away ownership of their £500,000 family home in Essex, which had been her home since 1998.

While the home was originally owned by the sportsman's father, Michael Selt, Ms Hickenbotham said she secured the property after their split in 2000 with a £7,500 down-payment, with her own father later clearing the remaining mortgage.

But Central London County Court heard conflicting accounts of the home's legal standing as Ms Hickenbotham maintains that while her daughter, Ms Noble, holds the legal title, she remains the true beneficiary.

Mrs Hickenbotham sued after her children served her with an eviction notice to force her out of the house, claiming her signature on a deed she signed in 2019, handing all interest in the property to her daughter, Ms Noble, was obtained by 'coercion, duress and undue influence' and that she was 'bullied' into signing 'by her children'.

Judge Simon Monty today threw her claim out, declaring that the deed was valid, but handed Mrs Hickenbotham a 10 per cent share of the property’s value due to cash she put in when it was bought.

However, he went on to find that both Mrs Hickenbotham and Ms Noble had been involved in a massive housing benefit scam between 2000 and 2019, which had resulted in over £200,000 being paid to the mother. 

The judge found that up until 2019, Mrs Hickenbotham had been the real beneficial owner of the house, meaning 19 years of housing benefit payments claimed by Mrs Hickenbotham to be paid to Ms Noble as landlady had been 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 the three-bedroom property was originally owned by the sportsman's father Michael Selt.

The snooker star's mother claimed she bought it off her ex-husband for a £7,500 down-payment in 2000 after they split, but that it was put into Ms Noble's name as it was easier for her to obtain a mortgage.

A £96,000 payment from Mrs Hickenbotham's father was later handed to Ms Noble in 2008 with the intention that it be used to pay off the mortgage, but that was not done.

Mrs Hickenbotham argued that she was the real owner of the property despite Ms Noble being on the deeds up until 2019.

At that point, the family all signed a document signing over their interest in the property to Ms Noble.

But after the siblings asked their mother 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 Mrs Hickenbotham's claims 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 Ms Noble.

But he also went on to find that, up until 2019, Mrs Hickenbotham had been the real beneficial owner of the house, and as such had been fraudulently claiming housing benefit for 19 years.

The judge said: '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.'

He added that a 'person who genuinely believed' to be the beneficial owner would have had 'no reason to execute a false tenancy with the actual owner'

The judge said: 'The use of such a device is, in effect, an admission that the legal structure did not reflect the real ownership arrangement.'