A businessman who bought a house from Birmingham City Council for £395,000 was surprised to discover the sale also included a multi-million-pound primary school. Sukhjit Bains, 50, purchased the three-bedroom home at auction in 2013, but a paperwork mix-up meant he was also handed ownership of George Dixon Primary School.
The error occurred when Mr Bains’ solicitor accidentally sent the wrong type of paperwork and the council’s conveyancer mistakenly approved documents that transferred the school as well. In theory, Mr Bains would be entitled to remove teachers and pupils, demolish the school, or sell it for millions.
How the mistake happened
The mix-up is thought to have happened because the house and the school are registered under the same land registry number. The property was previously a caretaker’s cottage that backs onto the school grounds. The form used, a TR1, transfers all property registered under a number, whereas a TP1, which transfers only a specific part of a land parcel, should have been used.
Mr Bains, who runs the care provider NH Care Ltd, was not thought to have been aware of the error when he bought the house. He and the company’s other two directors only found out last year when the council contacted him to ask for the school back.
Legal action to recover the school
Birmingham City Council has now initiated legal action to regain ownership of the school. According to the council, Mr Bains initially agreed to give the school back but eventually stopped replying to correspondence and declined to sign paperwork. It said it had been unable to contact him by phone or letter and could not find him despite repeated visits to his office.
The council has launched proceedings against Mr Bains’ company and his lender, Lloyds Bank, at the High Court in London. The mistake was discovered on April 12, 2024, when the school was looking at becoming an academy and realised it did not own the building.
A spokesman for Birmingham Council said: ‘The council is pursuing the appropriate legal process to rectify the position. As the matter is currently the subject of ongoing legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further.’
