Banks and deceased accounts

Kew2u

I doubt I'm not the only one to fall victim to the way banks deal with relatives of the deceased.
My mother died in 2010. My sister lived close and reported the death. She was 'appointed' next of kin and given the death cert. which she produced to the bank. The bank accepted her as next of kin and transfered my mothers savings and account into her name.
It took me 18 months to get a copy of my mothers bank statements. Because the amount involved was below a certain amount, the banks take it upon themselves to accept that the family member producing the death cert has the right of access to the accounts. I questioned this and asked what happens concerning other family mambers. The reply amounted to a shrug of the shoulders.
Needless to say, the sister involved refuses to pass on any detials to her 4 siblings. We now have a family split over this issue.
Shouldn't the banks insist on a signed declaration that the person accepting responsibility also declares other 'interested parties'?

noh

Kew2u wrote: »

.......................
Shouldn't the banks insist on a signed declaration that the person accepting responsibility also declares other 'interested parties'?

I thought they did.
Here is an example of the form Nationwide requires to be completed. Other institutions forms should be similar.
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1754AA80-47C3-4BD5-8D68-B40BD1DD235A/0/C34121999.pdf

Biggles

'Next of kin' isn't a valid legal term any more.

It looks as though the daughter may well have made a statement that satisfied the bank, similar to that on the Nationwide link shown by noh, in which case she has committed fraud to obtain the whole of her mother's estate, to which she wasn't entitled. I don't think you can blame the bank.

I am assuming there was no will?

ses6jwg

Indeed, as above.

If your sister has acted dishonestly, it is up to you to pursue her via the civil court.

The bank is simply a middle man and has no part in that process.

Mikeyorks

Kew2u wrote: »

the banks take it upon themselves to accept that the family member producing the death cert has the right of access to the accounts.

That's absolute rubbish - unless your sister was joint holder of the account(s).

One assumes there was no Will and/or no overall need of Probate. Even then the Banks satisfy themselves that the transfer is only to a beneficiary(s). Not someone who just turns up with a Death Certificate because they happen to be geographically close.

So if that did happen - sounds to be 'joint' or lies.

Kew2u

Mikeyorks wrote: »

That's absolute rubbish - unless your sister was joint holder of the account(s).

One assumes there was no Will and/or no overall need of Probate. Even then the Banks satisfy themselves that the transfer is only to a beneficiary(s). Not someone who just turns up with a Death Certificate because they happen to be geographically close.
So if that did happen - sounds to be 'joint' or lies.

You missed the bit that explained the 'sister' must also be the daughter, hence a relative. (Not a joint a/c holder - so it's not absolute rubbish!). The bank accepted her as the daughter and a next of kin because she was named as next of kin on the deathe cert. and transfered the account contents to her a few days after visiting the bank. Exactly what detials my sister my told the bank I have no idea of. The fact is, the bank (by their own written admission to me) took it on themselves to do this. The reason, they told me, is that the amount involved was below their limit to go deeper into it.
I contact the bank in question 2 months later to ask what was going on. I was told (an Email) that the a/c contents had been transfered to my sister and they now no longer were involved.
I do have an issue with my sister, but. my main question is; How can the bank accept as 'sole-next of kin' and the right and only person to have access to the account?
The bank don't care a toss about other 'just as close relatives' purely due to the amount involved. They are quite happy to let families fight it out later.
I wonder how many other families have come to grief over this behavour.

Kew2u

noh wrote: »

I thought they did.
Here is an example of the form Nationwide requires to be completed. Other institutions forms should be similar.
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1754AA80-47C3-4BD5-8D68-B40BD1DD235A/0/C34121999.pdf

Tx for that, noh. In my many contacts with the bank over this matter, there was no mention of such a document being signed, had there been, then I'm pretty sure that would have been their answer from the start. So it would appear there wasn't one. It was this very thing I took up with the bank. Such a document makes it very clear...'You are solely entitled, or you are not'!
The bank certainly did nothing illegal, but I do question their methods and again, I wonder how many other people have worries about this (still happening) practice.

opinions4u

Banks can choose to "play by the book" on this issue and insist on probate / letters of administration for every single deceased customer, before distributing the funds.

Many will, usually for smaller amounts, accept a declaration from an informant that they are entitled to receive the funds and distribute them accordingly. This can allow for funds to become available much sooner than would otherwise be the case. For small estates it also saves the money, time and effort needed to obtain probate.

If somebody has said "I'm entitled to act" and the bank's procedures allow the funds to be released, that is the end of the matter as far as the bank is concerned. Unless they have handed the money out somebody with absolutely no interest in the estate (e.g. the dustman etc). It is up to that somebody to the distribute the estate appropriately (is there a will here?). If they misappropriate funds that is a matter for the family to resolve, not the bank. Bring in the police if needed or appoint a solicitor to recover the funds and distribute them fairly.

One thing a bank cannot be expected to do is wait until 38 relatives come out of the woodwork before releasing funds. There is nothing to stop a 39th appearing 6 months later, is there?

Personally, I prefer the flexibility that some banks have that allows smaller amounts to be released prior to probate being obtained. It can allow debts within the estate to be settled (capping interest charges) and enable an early distribution of funds to beneficiaries.

Your problem here is quite clearly your sister. She has a legal duty to account for her actions (as in a statement showing money in and money out) and for the funds within the estate. If she is unable to do so she is leaving herself wide open to a charge of theft.

Kew2u

I can understand the reasoning behind any bank not wanting to spend time or money on such things. At the end of the day all bank customers would have that expense to pay for, but if a document were to be signed at the bank explaining the seriousness of illegal practice by the 'next of kin' it would go a long way to helping the situation I feel.
My mother died in Feb 2010 age 80 and there is still a sibling matter here that still needs sorting. Over the phone I was told my sister had found the will, when I arrived at my mother's home, she told me there wasn't a will. Days later, after my repeated questioning, she said there was a will but mam had left her everything. It was only when I threatened her with legal action, and only hours before the funeral (!) that I got to see the document.
The 'will' wasn't produced to the bank by my sister. I wasn't sure about the will and took a copy to a solicitor who informed me it wouldn't have been accepted due to the way it was made. So in effect, there was no will although my sister must have thought it valid to lie about in the first place. Due to my 'insistant' behavour, my sister now wants no more contact! Suprise, suprise.
I have no intention of taking this any further, legally, but isn't sad how such behavour can ruin families. I don't blame the banks, but I do question the method. Pity there isn't a better system.

Addition: I still wonder why it took the bank 18 months to forward me my mother's detials.

Mikeyorks

Kew2u wrote: »

I can understand the reasoning behind any bank not wanting to spend time or money on such things.

You clearly can't ....... as it simply doesn't happen. Banks have an absolute responsibility - in the case of death - to ensure funds are only released to those with a right to them. And 'next of kin' isn't a criteria. If they released the money and it wasn't a joint account - then they were clearly persuaded an entitlement existed.

You missed the bit that explained the 'sister' must also be the daughter, hence a relative

Relative / next of kin etc etc ........ wholly irrelevant.

tabby_cats_mum

opinions4u wrote: »

Banks can choose to "play by the book" on this issue and insist on probate / letters of administration for every single deceased customer, before distributing the funds.

Many will, usually for smaller amounts, accept a declaration from an informant that they are entitled to receive the funds and distribute them accordingly. This can allow for funds to become available much sooner than would otherwise be the case. For small estates it also saves the money, time and effort needed to obtain probate.

If somebody has said "I'm entitled to act" and the bank's procedures allow the funds to be released, that is the end of the matter as far as the bank is concerned. Unless they have handed the money out somebody with absolutely no interest in the estate (e.g. the dustman etc). It is up to that somebody to the distribute the estate appropriately (is there a will here?). If they misappropriate funds that is a matter for the family to resolve, not the bank. Bring in the police if needed or appoint a solicitor to recover the funds and distribute them fairly.

One thing a bank cannot be expected to do is wait until 38 relatives come out of the woodwork before releasing funds. There is nothing to stop a 39th appearing 6 months later, is there?

Personally, I prefer the flexibility that some banks have that allows smaller amounts to be released prior to probate being obtained. It can allow debts within the estate to be settled (capping interest charges) and enable an early distribution of funds to beneficiaries.

Your problem here is quite clearly your sister. She has a legal duty to account for her actions (as in a statement showing money in and money out) and for the funds within the estate. If she is unable to do so she is leaving herself wide open to a charge of theft.

Having dealt with three completely different banks recently when sorting out the affairs of a deceased relative this post is totally spot on.
I had to sign a waiver with each bank to say that I would distribute the money according to the will, a couple of the banks also required a form counter signed by a solicitor.
If every sibling had been involved we would have been stuffed as no one lives near each other.
I was really glad that this was how the banks operated as everything was sorted within two weeks and the money distributed. Unfortunately your problem is with your sister not the bank, good luck, I wish you well.