Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Brynismydog
    • By Brynismydog 29th Aug 17, 11:10 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Brynismydog
    Probate never completed
    • #1
    • 29th Aug 17, 11:10 PM
    Probate never completed 29th Aug 17 at 11:10 PM
    Hi Approx 14 years ago my Nan died. She had 5 children and was sole home owner. 2 off her children were still living with her when she died, they were adults at this stage. To cut a long story short the probate was kicked off , no will, but never completed for what ever reason so the house was never divided up. May be some reluctance by the 2 adults living in the property rent free and mortgage free. Recently one of these adults has died and the other has had to be taken into care so we now have 2 lots of probate to be sorted. There are now only 3 surviving children of my nan and basically it has fell to myself and sister to mop this mess up who are the grandchildren.
    The first thing we are going to have to do is sort out the death affairs of my nan which also includes the property that was also never sorted and is leasehold which is running down.
    Any advice please ?
Page 1
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 29th Aug 17, 11:46 PM
    • 3,288 Posts
    • 2,640 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #2
    • 29th Aug 17, 11:46 PM
    • #2
    • 29th Aug 17, 11:46 PM
    Hi Approx 14 years ago my Nan died. She had 5 children and was sole home owner. 2 off her children were still living with her when she died, they were adults at this stage. To cut a long story short the probate was kicked off , no will, but never completed for what ever reason so the house was never divided up. May be some reluctance by the 2 adults living in the property rent free and mortgage free. Recently one of these adults has died and the other has had to be taken into care so we now have 2 lots of probate to be sorted. There are now only 3 surviving children of my nan and basically it has fell to myself and sister to mop this mess up who are the grandchildren.
    The first thing we are going to have to do is sort out the death affairs of my nan which also includes the property that was also never sorted and is leasehold which is running down.
    Any advice please ?
    Originally posted by Brynismydog
    The nearest relative to the deceased needs to apply for letters of administration. How long is the leasehold? What other assets did your nan have such as bank accounts or other assets?
    • Brynismydog
    • By Brynismydog 31st Aug 17, 8:08 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Brynismydog
    • #3
    • 31st Aug 17, 8:08 PM
    • #3
    • 31st Aug 17, 8:08 PM
    Hi, thanks, lease is approx 17 years, there was about £500 in her account when she died, no other great assets.
    Her affairs will have to be sorted by myself and my sister as nearest relative is incapable. We have a probate number but it was never completed.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 31st Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    • 3,288 Posts
    • 2,640 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #4
    • 31st Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    • #4
    • 31st Aug 17, 9:28 PM
    What do you mean by a probate number? Have you applied for letters of administration?
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 31st Aug 17, 11:00 PM
    • 3,925 Posts
    • 4,279 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    • #5
    • 31st Aug 17, 11:00 PM
    • #5
    • 31st Aug 17, 11:00 PM
    If there is only 17 years left on the lease, it has little if any value and will be impossible to sell without extending the lease, which will be very expensive on such a very short lease.

    If as I suspect the property has no value, then the simplest thing may be to return the keys to the freeholder. This would certainly simplify things as you would not need to apply for probate for an estate that is only worth £500.

    You might find it useful to ask about what options you have with requires to the short lease over on the property board.
    Last edited by Keep pedalling; 31-08-2017 at 11:32 PM.
    • konark
    • By konark 1st Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    • 914 Posts
    • 711 Thanks
    konark
    • #6
    • 1st Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    • #6
    • 1st Sep 17, 11:01 PM
    A house with 17 years left on the lease is hardly worthless, although it may be difficult to value. The important thing is that when your Nan died the lease had 31 years left and the house would be valued much higher. At that point a lease extension would have been more viable and cheaper than now. The two children living in the house have essentially run the estate into the ground, and if they hadn't died/ been taken into care they would still be living there rent-free happy-as Larry thanks to their selfish inaction in sorting out a basic duty to the deceased.

    Under the intestacy rules the house should have been split 5 ways between her children (assuming husband had died) but 2 took the lot to the detriment of the others. They should have been paying one-fifth of the market rent of the house each month to the other 3 siblings as it was their house too, and the other 3 should have made sure they did. As it stands the 3 are £15-30,000 out of pocket each.

    Any future distribution should be split between the non-resident 3 or their descendants.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 2nd Sep 17, 12:23 AM
    • 3,288 Posts
    • 2,640 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #7
    • 2nd Sep 17, 12:23 AM
    • #7
    • 2nd Sep 17, 12:23 AM
    If there is only 17 years left on the lease, it has little if any value and will be impossible to sell without extending the lease, which will be very expensive on such a very short lease.

    If as I suspect the property has no value, then the simplest thing may be to return the keys to the freeholder. This would certainly simplify things as you would not need to apply for probate for an estate that is only worth £500.

    You might find it useful to ask about what options you have with requires to the short lease over on the property board.
    Originally posted by Keep pedalling
    The value may be small but is certainly not worthless. The OP needs to get some proper professional advice as to how to proceed.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 2nd Sep 17, 10:26 AM
    • 3,925 Posts
    • 4,279 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    • #8
    • 2nd Sep 17, 10:26 AM
    • #8
    • 2nd Sep 17, 10:26 AM
    A house with 17 years left on the lease is hardly worthless, although it may be difficult to value. The important thing is that when your Nan died the lease had 31 years left and the house would be valued much higher. At that point a lease extension would have been more viable and cheaper than now. The two children living in the house have essentially run the estate into the ground, and if they hadn't died/ been taken into care they would still be living there rent-free happy-as Larry thanks to their selfish inaction in sorting out a basic duty to the deceased.

    Under the intestacy rules the house should have been split 5 ways between her children (assuming husband had died) but 2 took the lot to the detriment of the others. They should have been paying one-fifth of the market rent of the house each month to the other 3 siblings as it was their house too, and the other 3 should have made sure they did. As it stands the 3 are £15-30,000 out of pocket each.

    Any future distribution should be split between the non-resident 3 or their descendants.
    Originally posted by konark
    The only way I can see of obtaining something out of this mess, is either to rent the place out till the lease runs out, or get the freeholder to buy our the remaining lease, although if the place needs a lot of work doing to it to bring into good repair then I don't think either of these options are in play.

    As it stands the lease cannot be extended until probate is completed and the new owners have owned it for 2 years, so the lease will then be under 15 years and the cost of doing so Is going to be prohibitivey expensive. If the place is in poor order then any sale price could wipe out any potencial profits , which would mean you have gone through all the hassle of administering an estate that may turn out to be insolvent.

    If it was me the risks outweigh any potencial gain (that needs to be split several ways) , and I would not lumber myself with being an administrator,
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 2nd Sep 17, 10:47 AM
    • 3,288 Posts
    • 2,640 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #9
    • 2nd Sep 17, 10:47 AM
    • #9
    • 2nd Sep 17, 10:47 AM
    A house with 17 years left on the lease is hardly worthless, although it may be difficult to value. The important thing is that when your Nan died the lease had 31 years left and the house would be valued much higher. At that point a lease extension would have been more viable and cheaper than now. The two children living in the house have essentially run the estate into the ground, and if they hadn't died/ been taken into care they would still be living there rent-free happy-as Larry thanks to their selfish inaction in sorting out a basic duty to the deceased.

    Under the intestacy rules the house should have been split 5 ways between her children (assuming husband had died) but 2 took the lot to the detriment of the others. They should have been paying one-fifth of the market rent of the house each month to the other 3 siblings as it was their house too, and the other 3 should have made sure they did. As it stands the 3 are £15-30,000 out of pocket each.

    Any future distribution should be split between the non-resident 3 or their descendants.
    Originally posted by konark
    On what legal basis would the two be excluded?
    • Brynismydog
    • By Brynismydog 2nd Sep 17, 7:15 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Brynismydog
    When mt nan died they kicked off the probate and they have a probate reference no but my mother said it was not completed, that is all I know. I have the number and will make enquiry;s.
    • Brynismydog
    • By Brynismydog 2nd Sep 17, 7:17 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Brynismydog
    Completely agree, this should have been sorted but nobody would do it, every time the issue was raised the occupier got shirty and would not speak about it.
    • konark
    • By konark 4th Sep 17, 12:22 AM
    • 914 Posts
    • 711 Thanks
    konark
    Completely agree, this should have been sorted but nobody would do it, every time the issue was raised the occupier got shirty and would not speak about it.
    Originally posted by Brynismydog
    Of course they did , they would have lost their free accomodation by dividing the house 5 ways.


    On what legal basis would the two be excluded?
    Simple, back rent would have wiped out their share , if there is a share at all.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 4th Sep 17, 2:25 AM
    • 3,288 Posts
    • 2,640 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    Of course they did , they would have lost their free accomodation by dividing the house 5 ways.




    Simple, back rent would have wiped out their share , if there is a share at all.
    Originally posted by konark
    Morally you are probably correct though an arbitrary amount like this is unlikely to have a legal basis. Of course if someone has applied for letters of administration, and been granted them, and then done nothing they would be liable to the estate for all the losses incurred.
    • ThePants999
    • By ThePants999 5th Sep 17, 11:54 PM
    • 855 Posts
    • 997 Thanks
    ThePants999
    I'm gobsmacked that someone would advocate literally throwing away a 17-year lease on a house. Fancy paying my mortgage for 17 years?
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 6th Sep 17, 11:00 AM
    • 3,925 Posts
    • 4,279 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    I'm gobsmacked that someone would advocate literally throwing away a 17-year lease on a house. Fancy paying my mortgage for 17 years?
    Originally posted by ThePants999
    Leases should be extended before they fall below 80 years otherwise it becomes very expensive to do so. At 17 years someone would have to raise a serious amount of money to extend the lease and there does not appear to be money in the estate to do so, and I can't see the beneficiaries raising the money in this case.

    If the place is in reasonable condition to rent out then their is some potencial there, but again under the circumstances I suspect that money would have to be spent to get the place up to scratch, and there is the problem of who is going to take responsability of being the landlord for the next 17 years.
    • ThePants999
    • By ThePants999 6th Sep 17, 6:09 PM
    • 855 Posts
    • 997 Thanks
    ThePants999
    Leases should be extended before they fall below 80 years otherwise it becomes very expensive to do so. At 17 years someone would have to raise a serious amount of money to extend the lease and there does not appear to be money in the estate to do so, and I can't see the beneficiaries raising the money in this case.

    If the place is in reasonable condition to rent out then their is some potencial there, but again under the circumstances I suspect that money would have to be spent to get the place up to scratch, and there is the problem of who is going to take responsability of being the landlord for the next 17 years.
    Originally posted by Keep pedalling
    I didn't say extend the lease. But how about, y'know, LIVE in the house? The OP refers to "the 2 adults living in the property rent free and mortgage free", and presumably they'd quite like to continue doing so. You suggested that in order to solve the problem of 2 children getting a benefit and 3 children getting none, they should surrender the lease and have NONE of the children getting any benefit - which sounds like lunacy to me!

    Here's a suggestion: how about the 2 people living there pay 1/5th of the market rent to each of the other 3?
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 7th Sep 17, 12:37 AM
    • 3,925 Posts
    • 4,279 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    I didn't say extend the lease. But how about, y'know, LIVE in the house? The OP refers to "the 2 adults living in the property rent free and mortgage free", and presumably they'd quite like to continue doing so. You suggested that in order to solve the problem of 2 children getting a benefit and 3 children getting none, they should surrender the lease and have NONE of the children getting any benefit - which sounds like lunacy to me!

    Here's a suggestion: how about the 2 people living there pay 1/5th of the market rent to each of the other 3?
    Originally posted by ThePants999
    If you had read the opening post you will have seen that one of those people has died and the other is now in care. Yes the other 3 could move in, but assuming they have there own place why would they want to. This mess is down to the 5 beneficiaries, and if none of those can be bothered to sort it out, then I don't see why the OP should make make life difficult for themselves by trying to sort out someone else's mess for little or no gain.

    One other point I failed to make earlier, for leasehold properties it is the leaseholder who is responsible for paying for repairs, so there is a chance with such a short lease that should the property have been allowed to fall into a poor state of repair, those repair bills could easily exceed the value of the remaining lease.

    In the OPs shoes I would not touch this with a very long bargepole.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,105Posts Today

5,091Users online

Martin's Twitter