A psychic television poet has lost an inheritance fight with his younger sister and her daughter after he and his three other siblings were cut out of their father’s £450,000 will. 

Gary Pammen, who calls himself ‘The Cockney Bard’ and has featured on the BBC, Sky and ITV, sued his sister Tracy Pammen and her daughter Paige Pammen after receiving nothing but ‘a few worthless chattels’ in the will.  

His father Terrance Pammen, who passed away aged 83 in May 2022, left almost his entire £451,840 estate – primarily a house in Stratford, east London – to Tracy and Paige, despite having five children.

Gary challenged the 2016 will, arguing his father lacked ‘testamentary capacity’ and did not ‘know and approve’ its contents as he was too mentally frail. 

Tracy and Paige, however, insisted Terrance was ‘totally sharp’ when he completed his will, and held firm views about how he would leave his estate.   

Judge Simon Monty has now upheld the will, handing everything to Tracy and Paige, and ordered the TV psychic to pay the £216,000 costs of the case.

‘Gary is simply unable to accept that his father did not leave him, his sister Jackie or his brother Mark anything,’ the judge said. 

The poet, representing himself during the trial, told Central London County Court that the will had ‘completely disinherited’ Terrance’s children and grandchildren, apart from Tracy and Paige. 

Psychic Gary Pammen, 65, has lost an inheritance fight with his younger sister and her daughter

Terrance Pammen left almost the entirety of his estate to the his daughter Tracy Pammen (right) and her daughter Paige Pammen (left)

Excluded from everything of monetary value in the will alongside Gary were his other siblings – Mark, Jacqueline and Gemma – none of whom took part in the trial. 

Gary, 65, who was born in Plaistow and now lives in Norfolk, spoke in the past of his strange ability to produce poetry inspired by mysterious spirits from another place or time. He also believes he has powers of healing and second sight.

He claimed he spoke to his father every day by phone, adding outside court that he loved him and always got on with him, and that there was no clear reason for him to be disinherited.

In his claim to the court, he insisted his father lacked a sound mind when the will was signed, alleging that it was drawn up ‘when the deceased was suffering from documented cognitive and progressive impairment, alongside profound confusion regarding his family relations and the extent of his estate’.

He also accused Tracy of raiding their father’s bank accounts in his final years, an allegation which she and her lawyers dismissed as nonsense.

Defending the will, Tracy and Paige said Terrance was alert when he drew up the will and knew what he wanted to do with his assets. 

Tracy pointed out that her father was still working by sorting out shopping trolleys at Morrisons when he made his will, and carried on doing so for up to three years afterwards.

Her barrister, Tom Gosling, said there were ‘no real doubts’ about Terrance’s ability to grasp what he was doing when he initiated the will-drafting process in 2016 with no involvement from any family member, with expert evidence from a psychiatrist confirming he was of sound mind.

Terrance Pammen, who passed away aged 83 in May 2022, left almost his entire £451,840 estate to Tracy and Paige, despite having five children

The house in Stratford, east London, at the centre of the will dispute between members of the Pammen family 

And while accepting that Terrance was ultimately diagnosed with dementia in 2020, he displayed no signs of a failing memory until 2017 or 2018, said Mr Gosling.

‘I don’t agree that he had confusion,’ Tracy told the court, adding that she had gone round to visit him daily for stints of up to three hours and took him on shopping and social trips.

Questioned by Gary about why Terrance would have cut out four of his children as well as a vulnerable grandson, Paige replied: ‘He knew that he would be cared for by us; that’s why he left all this to me and my mother because he knew we would be responsible for him.’

Finding in favour of Tracy and Paige, the judge said: ‘It is in my view crystal clear from all of this – on a holistic evaluation of all the factual and expert evidence… that Mr Pammen had testamentary capacity.

‘I regret to say that Gary’s case to the contrary, and this entire claim, is based upon no more than suspicion borne out of a family disagreement with Tracy – the details of which I have not been told – around about the time of his mother’s death.

‘This has led Gary to see every piece of evidence as supportive of his case, whereas in fact his belief – which no doubt he strongly and genuinely holds – is based on no more than confirmation bias, a willingness to see everything as supportive, rather than objective facts and what is more likely to have been the case.’ 

The judge added: ‘Gary is simply unable to accept that his father did not leave him, his sister Jackie or his brother Mark anything, and he now sees everything as confirming that his father did not understand what was going on.

‘In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, and is that Mr Pammen’s cognitive problems did not cause any issues until at least a year after the will.

‘Part of Gary’s complaint against Tracy and Paige is that there are large unexplained withdrawals from Mr Pammen’s account, particularly after a time when on the medical evidence there had been a dementia diagnosis. Gary said that they had fleeced his late father of tens of thousands of pounds.

‘I have decided that I should make no express finding on this other than that the money was not withdrawn by Tracy and/or Paige.

‘All I need to say is that I am not persuaded that the withdrawals were made by Tracy, save where Tracy accepted having made some more modest withdrawals for groceries for Mr Pammen.’

Going on to direct Gary to pay his sister and niece’s court costs of £216,013.85, with a £150,000 up front payment, the judge concluded: ‘I can see no good reason for not ordering that Gary should make a payment on account. It seems to me that a payment on account of £150,000 is reasonable in the circumstances and I will so order.’