Dragging out probate for personal gain

troubleinparadise

All explained then.

If I suggest something to someone of a legal nature I usually prefer to reference it with a link to official guidance, but obviously I'm out of date.

So in fact it is now possible for 1 executor to write (to the Probate Registry?) saying that they have advised other executors, receive the Grant of Probate themselves and then act accordingly, without that actually being the case?

Given that we see threads on here from people who have lost out through rogue executors, this reduces the check-and-balance steps yet again.

Best choose your executors very carefully then!

And sorry to Rel77 - yes, you'd most definitely better check with the Probate Registry that Probate hasn't been applied for without your knowledge.

Mojisola

troubleinparadise wrote: »

So in fact it is now possible for 1 executor to write (to the Probate Registry?) saying that they have advised other executors, receive the Grant of Probate themselves and then act accordingly, without that actually being the case?

At the very least, the Probate Registry should write to the other executors telling them that one executor has claimed this!

joerugby

troubleinparadise wrote: »

All explained then.

If I suggest something to someone of a legal nature I usually prefer to reference it with a link to official guidance, but obviously I'm out of date.

So in fact it is now possible for 1 executor to write (to the Probate Registry?) saying that they have advised other executors, receive the Grant of Probate themselves and then act accordingly, without that actually being the case?

Given that we see threads on here from people who have lost out through rogue executors, this reduces the check-and-balance steps yet again.

Best choose your executors very carefully then!

And sorry to Rel77 - yes, you'd most definitely better check with the Probate Registry that Probate hasn't been applied for without your knowledge.

The declaration that the others have been advised is also included in the Oath sworn before probate is granted - I would have thought it would be unwise to tell porkies in an oath

rel77

troubleinparadise wrote: »

And sorry to Rel77 - yes, you'd most definitely better check with the Probate Registry that Probate hasn't been applied for without your knowledge.

Hi I have put in a standard search to check he has not finished probate without me knowing. This searches 6 months ahead and 12 months behind the date it was put in. However when I asked on the phone they said they could not tell me if it had been started. I think your in the dark about that till its done or it becomes obvious they are not doing it. Its not very helpful.

Leslie999

joerugby wrote: »

I know that. I recently applied for and was granted probate for my late father. I rang the Probate Office about the forms to see if I could get them in advance for signature by my brother and sisters. They told me they were no longer required and that I simply had to write confirming that they had been advised. I did so and probate was duly granted.

I queried the website info with the Probate Office and they said that the rules have changed but they are waiting for the online instructions to be updated

You had to write and say they had been advised ?
What checks were made to ensure you had advised your brother and sister ?
What legal remedies would have been available to your brother and sister if you had lied to the Probate office and said you had advised them when you hadn't ?
I am not suggesting you took such a course of action but just want to point out how easy it is for a person to claim the role of 'executor' and steal a deceased's estate. The only legal remedy open is then very costly and expensive civil action, as the Police do not consider this criminal.
I speak from experience .
Probate/ Confirmation is granted to whomever submits and signs the probate/ confirmation document first. Even if they tell complete lies on the the documents, their lies will accepted by the probate/ Confirmation office , the Police and the only way to have it addressed is a difficult, expensive , legal procedure.
I am trying to get my MP to help protect people more from criminally minded people who steal from bereaved and distraught families.

In making it as simple as just signing a piece of paper, the legal system is denying ordinary people protection from criminals.
Probably to save themselves a bit of money - butt he flip side is they lose the trust and respect of many ordinary law abiding citizens in society because of they are making it easier for criminals.

Do not be naive, as I was, and think the laws are their to 'protect' you.
Like tax , they are a money making scheme and seem to be set up to take money from the people who swallow the governments lies that a good society has integrity, trust and morals. Believe in those attributes and then you are a perfect target to be victim. A victim whose perpetrators are helped by the law and stupid changes in rules which allow a person to sign ( an oath) for which there is no legal remedy accessible for most to redress any theft.
Do not think the Police will help, they consider it civil... And will tell you they don't have the money to catch these criminals.
In your case it may have been ok , but what about all the others who have become victims of criminals - was it worth the ease you experienced for the emotional cost, the financial cost it puts others through ?

I wish you well and hope the situation resolves amicably.
I would not wish the living hell me and my family have been put through, not only by a fraudulent executor, but by the legal system on anyone.

I have complained to the legal society, but I am told it is acceptable for a solicitor to do their best for a client. My complaint of the the solicitors criminal activities in helping the fraudulent executor have been dismissed by the police because legal societies deal with that. The legal societies will not deal with it because I have not submitted the complaint within one year of the occurrence, knowing full weel that my solicitor dragged his heels in dealing with it so it would be outwith the time limit. Legal societies don't do anything quickly somehow can they expect the one year time limit to be realistic - they know IRS not, it's just an excuse to put solicitor's ' above the law'

Good luck