brother hid father's death

g6jns_2

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are wrong.

See here:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/relationships_e/relationships_death_and_wills_e/dealing_with_the_financial_affairs_of_someone_who_has_died.htm#if_the_amount_of_money_is_small

It is not always necessary to obtain probate.

I have also spoken to the Probate Office about this and they confirm that you do not need to apply for Probate in certain circumstances.

I beg to differ. Good as the guide may be it is a long way from being comprehensive. Banks owe a duty of care to their clients and handing over money from a deceased clients account without proper authority leaves them at risk if they get it wrong. Of course the exact circumstances are crucial and for that reason it is hard to generalise. Don't forget probate properly conducted protects the executor from any potential risk of being sued. Also since there is no fee for probate of estate of less than £5,000 or more if hardship can be proved, getting it is preferable. I also know of two cases with low value estates where the executor got landed with five figure bill for their failure to follow the rules. I realise it can be a pain to do but it really is better to be safe than sorry.

pmlindyloo

g6jns wrote: »

I beg to differ. Good as the guide may be it is a long way from being comprehensive. Banks owe a duty of care to their clients and handing over money from a deceased clients account without proper authority leaves them at risk if they get it wrong. Of course the exact circumstances are crucial and for that reason it is hard to generalise. Don't forget probate properly conducted protects the executor from any potential risk of being sued. Also since there is no fee for probate of estate of less than £5,000 or more if hardship can be proved, getting it is preferable. I also know of two cases with low value estates where the executor got landed with five figure bill for their failure to follow the rules. I realise it can be a pain to do but it really is better to be safe than sorry.

I do not wish to prolong this but the Probate Office does not agree with you. Also if you apply for probate when it is not needed then you will likely receive a letter telling you so!

http://www.probateforms.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/PA2-How-to-obtain-probate-leaflet.pdf

I do agree, though, that people should, at the very least, contact the probate office to ask as it can be confusing.

Tuesday_Tenor

andcow wrote: »

b) has my brother broken the law in the way he has acted?

Possibly not. If you father left a will naming your brother as executor and brother is in the process of administering the estate in accordance with the will, then he is acting entirely correctly. The will may or may not include estranged relatives as beneficiaries.

Possibly not. If your father didn't leave a will, and there is no current spouse, and the estate is small, and there is no need to apply for letters of administration (probate equivalent ) and your brother is one of the children with the closest right to deal with his affairs. In this case banks will release funds upon his signing a declaration/ indemnity. If there are any assets left after payment of funeral and other debts, and brother is now administering the estate according to the laws of intestacy, then again your brother is acting totally correctly.

Possibly. If there is no will, and there are some assets after the payment of debts, and brother has taken the lot, ignoring the rules of intestacy. In the case of intestacy all of your siblings should inherit an equal share of the estate. If this doesn't happen, then brother is out of order. (That is, he has stolen other people's inheritance).

So the first things you need to know are
A) Was there a will? And if so, who is the executor?
Is there a property involved , or other substantial assets, that would require a grant of probate (for executor where there is a will ) or letters of administration (for the administrator where there is no will)? If not, there won't be any info at the Probate Office anyway.

So probably someone needs to ask brother what the situation is. Can someone ask whether he needs any help in dealing with the estate?

g6jns_2

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I do not wish to prolong this but the Probate Office does not agree with you. Also if you apply for probate when it is not needed then you will likely receive a letter telling you so!

http://www.probateforms.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/PA2-How-to-obtain-probate-leaflet.pdf

I do agree, though, that people should, at the very least, contact the probate office to ask as it can be confusing.

My main concern is that by paying money with little or no authority the banks are failing in their duty of care. Of course different banks vary in their policy in this. This duty of care should protect the funds from unscrupulous relatives who see it as a quick way to get some cash rather than it being used correctly. Sadly it is all too common for this sort of thing to happen. Regrettably the probate system in the UK is already full of loopholes. As you rightly say asking the Probate Office for guidance is the first step. They have an enviable reputation for being helpful to people.

dzug1

I find it difficult to accept that 'duty of care' extends that far.


The recalcitrant brother IS (one of several people) entitled to claim the estate and distribute it in accordance with either the will, if any, or the intestacy rules. The paper he signed with the bank will have undertaken to do this, and to indemnify them if he doesn't.


I can't see it's up to the bank to check on whether he does so - any more than it needs to check if an executor who produces probate follows the will.

pmlindyloo

g6jns wrote: »

My main concern is that by paying money with little or no authority the banks are failing in their duty of care. Of course different banks vary in their policy in this. This duty of care should protect the funds from unscrupulous relatives who see it as a quick way to get some cash rather than it being used correctly. Sadly it is all too common for this sort of thing to happen. Regrettably the probate system in the UK is already full of loopholes. As you rightly say asking the Probate Office for guidance is the first step. They have an enviable reputation for being helpful to people.

Thought it might be useful for others to see the process which Barclays use.

http://www.barclays.co.uk/Bereavement/SortingoutBarclaysaccounts/P1242633762759

The use of this personal indemnity form does mean, I presume, that they are protected themselves.

But interesting about the duty of care.

They also use the term next of kin too.

I agree that this has no particular meaning in law.

Interestingly I was told by the funeral directors that only the next of kin or the executor could sign the cremation forms. When I queried this they said that it was a fairly new EU law (???) and next of kin meant the eldest child. The next of kin would have to give permission in the form of a letter if they could not be present for the signing.

As I was executor (again no proof was seen) then this wasn't a concern and being rather preoccupied at the time didn't take this further.

It does seem to be a complete mess with no-one knowing the proper rules and regulations.

I suppose that in both situations no one is bothered because the personal indemnity form signed keeps them from any possible 'comeback'.

getmore4less

Institutions are happy to release funds using various indemnity or checks without a grant.

The highest I know of is £30k many are over £20k it is quite easy to liquidate an estate of significant value £100k+. without a grant.

Even then where there is property it is ONLY if you want to sell that you have to have a grant.

getmore4less

The current system is very cost effective.

Even then a lot of estates are made pooer by solicitors getting involved.

To put any sort of compulsory framework in place that is policed would wipe out many estates and put significant financial burden on a lot more of them.

If you make a grant compulsory the courts would have to grow masively,

1/2 million that die each year only about 50% get a grant

Even then the courts don't do that much checking and issue grants if the paperwork is correct. (eg we got a grant under POA based on a letter "signed" by the executor).

Then you have to do the check on the inventory and account(which includes the distribution),

About 3% pay IHT so they get looked at by HMRC there are probably a few that also get a looked at but don't pay tax but they probably only check major assets like property say 10% max.

But those checks are just to make sure the tax is paid.

To introduce checks that the inventory and account are correct will be a massive costly problem.

g6jns_2

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Thought it might be useful for others to see the process which Barclays use.

http://www.barclays.co.uk/Bereavement/SortingoutBarclaysaccounts/P1242633762759

The use of this personal indemnity form does mean, I presume, that they are protected themselves.

But interesting about the duty of care.

They also use the term next of kin too.

I agree that this has no particular meaning in law.

Interestingly I was told by the funeral directors that only the next of kin or the executor could sign the cremation forms. When I queried this they said that it was a fairly new EU law (???) and next of kin meant the eldest child. The next of kin would have to give permission in the form of a letter if they could not be present for the signing.

As I was executor (again no proof was seen) then this wasn't a concern and being rather preoccupied at the time didn't take this further.

It does seem to be a complete mess with no-one knowing the proper rules and regulations.

I suppose that in both situations no one is bothered because the personal indemnity form signed keeps them from any possible 'comeback'.

It is a complete mess! Much as I deplore more bureaucracy three things would help and be easy to implement. Make a grant mandatory for estates above £5,000 but with a simplified procedure for estates up to say £25,000. Secondly make the probate fee include insurance against executor fraud. Thirdly set a mandatory timescale for applying for a grant and final distribution of the estate. There seems no easy answer to the commonplace fraud by relatives helping themselves to estate assets before the executor can take control of the assets.

getmore4less

g6jns wrote: »

It is a complete mess! Much as I deplore more bureaucracy three things would help and be easy to implement. Make a grant mandatory for estates above £5,000 but with a simplified procedure for estates up to say £25,000. Secondly make the probate fee include insurance against executor fraud. Thirdly set a mandatory timescale for applying for a grant and final distribution of the estate. There seems no easy answer to the commonplace fraud by relatives helping themselves to estate assets before the executor can take control of the assets.

IT can't get much simpler than the current process.

Very simple form, swear the oath for a few £ at a solicitors or make a trip to the probate court and do it there.