is this legal ?

moneypenny_14

My 2 children had some money left to them in a will. Therefore the executor wrote 2 checks for them from an executor's account. So, i pay the checks into their accounts at the Holmesdale Building Society. Several days pass and the checks are returned to me and I am told that they are "not signed in accordance with mandate" and that the holmesdale is charging a fee of £15 for each cheque to be deducted from each account. Is this legal?

The holmesdale says the bank the cheques were issued from didn't like the executors signature ie) something not right and i should try to recover costs from them ?

Does anyone know anything from similar past experiences ? comments, ideas would be greatly appreciated.

dunstonh

Is this legal?

What you tried to do is potentially unlawful (depend on wording in Will). What the building society have done is correct.

"not signed in accordance with mandate"

Most commonly seen when the mandate requires two signatures and only one has signed. If the signature differed then the returned cheque reason would state "signature differs". It would be unusual to use not signed in accordance with mandate when its actually signature differs.

What does the executor say?

Mikeyorks

It's not usual for the payee Bank to charge ..... but it does figure in their tariff (No 22) :

http://www.holmesdale.org.uk/savings.htm#

It sounds as though the Executor account requires more than a single signature? You could ask the Building Society to waive the charges .... it's not as though the cheques were from an unknown source?

Unlikely the Executor would agree to defer the costs, even if it is their error. As it's not within their remit.

dkmax_2

dunstonh wrote: »

What you tried to do is potentially unlawful (depend on wording in Will).

Illegal in what regard? The OP has nothing to do with executing or interpreting the will but merely accepted two cheques in good faith for his/her children and lodged them in accounts in their respective names.

The OP does not have sight of any mandate which may exist between the executors and the bank, nor should they. I cannot see how there is any potential illegality by the OP here and the banks advice is correct - he/she should reclaim the charges from the executors as one would when any invalid cheque is handed over in payment.

LillythePink

dkmax wrote: »

Illegal in what regard? The OP has nothing to do with executing or interpreting the will but merely accepted two cheques in good faith for his/her children and lodged them in accounts in their respective names.

The OP does not have sight of any mandate which may exist between the executors and the bank, nor should they. I cannot see how there is any potential illegality by the OP here and the banks advice is correct - he/she should reclaim the charges from the executors as one would when any invalid cheque is handed over in payment.

Totally agree with this.

If there is a mandate on the account saying that two signatures were needed, then the executor must have known this therefore incorrectly issues the cheques.....so they should reimburse the fees.

If the bank just didn't like the signature, then again, fees should be reimbursed.

It is not the OP's fault that the cheques were not correctly issued and they were banked in good faith.

And yes, to echo the previous poster - how has the OP acted potentially unlawfully?

dunstonh

Illegal in what regard? The OP has nothing to do with executing or interpreting the will but merely accepted two cheques in good faith for his children and lodged them in accounts in their respective names.

I didnt say illegal. I said unlawful and I said potentially. If the children are under 18, or under some other age mentioned in the will (21-25 are common), a trust must come into existence until the contingency age is reached. The wording of the Will is important in this respect.

Many people do take the money and incorrectly place it in accounts with the incorrect ownership. Most of whom will get away with it as it requires the beneficiary to take action against the trustee for mishandling of funds. Unlikely on a few thousand pounds and/or a stable family.

dkmax_2

dunstonh wrote: »

I didnt say illegal. I said unlawful and I said potentially. If the children are under 18, or under some other age mentioned in the will (21-25 are common), a trust must come into existence until the contingency age is reached. The wording of the Will is important in this respect.

Many activities are potentially unlawful but there's no need to put the wind up the OP who is acting in good faith. We'd be here all day if we caveat every action with a range of hypotheticals. The OP wanted to know about who has to pay the bounced cheque fees and so the precise circumstances are really not that relevant.

Loughton_Monkey

In practice, I would suggest you are perfectly entitled to go to the executors and ask for 'correct' payment together with an additional £30 to cover the costs of [what was] their mistake. They may, or may not agree, but obviously they have a legal duty to pay the legacies, and must provide new valid cheques - or some alternative payment method.

But you are not in any good 'legal' position as far as I know. They have a legal duty to pay the correct amount to the correct person(s). This I am sure they will do. They have already made an attempt, but made a mistake. But they have no 'duty of care' over your banking arrangments. You are not even in a contractual relationship with them.

That leaves the charge by Holmesdale. On the assumption that this charge is correctly in their terms and conditions, then you certainly have no legal recourse against them. But if it were me, if I got no joy from executors, I would certainly be writing a letter to the MD of Holmesdale, explaining all the circumstances, asking him if it were 'reasonable' to make £15 charges against innocent minors for such a routine and blameless error.

And as a very, very, last resort, I can imagine the local press being very interested in a story like this. You know the sort of thing: "Local Building Society robs children of their inheritance"

"As if Banks did not have an evil enough reputation, it seems that local Building Society Holmsdale is joining the fray by robbing Tracy, aged X, and Kevin, aged Y, of £15 of their inheritance money for a 'mistake' they didn't make. ......... suggest that Mr Evil, the manager, has now got enough money to buy a bottle of Nuits St George at nearby [posh restaurant nearby Head Office pictured below]....... wonder how much this extortionate charging system for children will encourage other local money-wise children to 'do the right thing' and save their money instead of spending it....."

[Picture of said children looking sad, eating beans on toast while looking longingly at a broken pink money pig on the kitchen table......]

System

It's the executor's job to pay the bequests. If he makes a mistake (like forgetting to get his co-executor to sign the cheques ) then he is liable for rectifying it.


If the children have accounts in their own names, what is unlawful about paying money into them? That's the point of having the accounts isn't it?

bendix

Is it worth creating a fuss about? At the end of the day it's the cost of a two or three Happy Meals at McDonalds. Why worry about it?

lisyloo

Is it worth creating a fuss about? At the end of the day it's the cost of a two or three Happy Meals at McDonalds. Why worry about it?

It's the principle.
Why should the children pay?
I'd be writing a letter to the bank. They will probably pay it on the basis it will cost them a lot more than £30 to answer the letter.

[Picture of said children looking sad, eating beans on toast while looking longingly at a broken pink money pig on the kitchen table......]

Loving your style :-)