Complicated!

pmlindyloo

BobQ wrote: »

This is missing the point. If you sign an Indemnity you make a legal declaration that (a) you are the person entitled to the money and (b) if you make a false declaration you will re-imburse the post office.

The lady friend has falsely declared (a) so is obliged to refund the post office iaw the indemnity. It is not up to the OP to use the small claims court.

I do not believe that this is true.

When you sign the indemnity form you are not saying you are entitled to the money.

As executor of my mum's will I had the money transferred to my account and then distributed the money to the beneficiaries. And I repeat, all the bank asked for was my ID , a copy of the death certificate and asked me to sign an indemnity form. You do not need probate/ letter of administration for such a small sum.

There is some question as to whether this woman was allowed by the family to deal with the money expecting it to be then distributed to the parents. Hence my question about how she got the death certificate.

g6jns_2

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I do not believe that this is true.

When you sign the indemnity form you are not saying you are entitled to the money.

As executor of my mum's will I had the money transferred to my account and then distributed the money to the beneficiaries. And I repeat, all the bank asked for was my ID , a copy of the death certificate and asked me to sign an indemnity form. You do not need probate/ letter of administration for such a small sum.

There is some question as to whether this woman was allowed by the family to deal with the money expecting it to be then distributed to the parents. Hence my question about how she got the death certificate.

Just because one bank on one occasion did so does not mean it is universal practice. From a strict legal point of view a bank has no right to even admit they hold an account for a customer without proper authority. By getting an indemnity the bank simply protects their back. The indemnity simply means the can claim the money back if the true owner requires payment. So in this particular case it will be simpler and quicker to claim the money from the bank.

dzug1

g6jns wrote: »

. So in this particular case it will be simpler and quicker to claim the money from the bank.

Which may still require letters of administration before it can be paid out. To make sure they get it right this time

BobQ

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I do not believe that this is true.

When you sign the indemnity form you are not saying you are entitled to the money.

As executor of my mum's will I had the money transferred to my account and then distributed the money to the beneficiaries. And I repeat, all the bank asked for was my ID , a copy of the death certificate and asked me to sign an indemnity form. You do not need probate/ letter of administration for such a small sum.

There is some question as to whether this woman was allowed by the family to deal with the money expecting it to be then distributed to the parents. Hence my question about how she got the death certificate.

I'm sorry but you are wrong and opinion is not fact.

I never said that a Grant is required and I have done exactly the same as you in small estates. The indemnity form is appropriate for small estates where there is no dispute to avoid the disproportionate effort in applying for a Grant.

An indemnity form does not say that you are personally entitled to the money (I could have phased this better) but it does say that you are entitled to receive it and will reimburse the bank for any losses if you do not distribute it as the law requires.

There is only one entity authorised to deal with an estate and that is the executor (named in a will) or the administrator (appointed in law). For small estates the executor/administrator can avoid a Grant if their position is unchallenged.

An indemnity is a contract and a third party has no rights in the matter. The indemnity is a means by which small estates can be resolved, but without one the bank etc remains liable to pay a legally appointed representative the money. The Indemnity is a risk mitigation measure by the bank.

In this case I agree that there seems to be some uncertainty over what was agreed between the lady and the family, but the fact remains that she has signed a document stating she is entitled to receive the money and this is between her and the bank not her and the family.

pmlindyloo

BobQ wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are wrong and opinion is not fact.

I never said that a Grant is required and I have done exactly the same as you in small estates. The indemnity form is appropriate for small estates where there is no dispute to avoid the disproportionate effort in applying for a Grant.

An indemnity form does not say that you are personally entitled to the money (I could have phased this better) but it does say that you are entitled to receive it and will reimburse the bank for any losses if you do not distribute it as the law requires.

There is only one entity authorised to deal with an estate and that is the executor (named in a will) or the administrator (appointed in law). For small estates the executor/administrator can avoid a Grant if their position is unchallenged.

An indemnity is a contract and a third party has no rights in the matter. The indemnity is a means by which small estates can be resolved, but without one the bank etc remains liable to pay a legally appointed representative the money. The Indemnity is a risk mitigation measure by the bank.

In this case I agree that there seems to be some uncertainty over what was agreed between the lady and the family, but the fact remains that she has signed a document stating she is entitled to receive the money and this is between her and the bank not her and the family.

If the form does say that the bank will be reinbursed for any losses if it is not distributed as the law requires then I agree that this would be between the PO and the person.

I do not remember this wording on the form I signed but that isn't to say it wasn't there

If it was a PO savings account then the terms and conditions here:

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/sites/default/files/56353_PO_OnlineSaver_Issue%204%20v1.pdf

say that the money would be given to the personal representative.

My argument (sorry, not the right word) is that from the OP's original post it suggests that the lady was the personal representative of the beneficiaries and the PO was right to give her the money.

Seems that it depends on what was signed.

All very interesting anyway. Just hope the lady pays up.

rpc

pmlindyloo wrote: »

say that the money would be given to the personal representative.

My argument (sorry, not the right word) is that from the OP's original post it suggests that the lady was the personal representative of the beneficiaries and the PO was right to give her the money.

Without letter of administration or a grant of probate, there is no personal representative (and the personal representative represents the deceased's estate, not the beneficiaries). Personal representative is a term that covers executors (both dative and nominate in Scotland) and administrators.

Mojisola

I didn't have to wait for probate before closing my Dad's PO account but I had to show the death certificate and the will showing that I was named as executor and proof of my identity and address (even though I was well-known by the staff).

It doesn't seem right that someone can turn up with a death certificate and empty an account.

linkin

My brother has been in contact with her now and she is under the opinion that we should pay for the funeral, but said she will pay if we produce the reciept. Not sure I will actually get the money, but I will keep you posted. At the end of the day it was my own fault trusting her and giving her the death certificate.

BobQ

rpc wrote: »

Without letter of administration or a grant of probate, there is no personal representative (and the personal representative represents the deceased's estate, not the beneficiaries). Personal representative is a term that covers executors (both dative and nominate in Scotland) and administrators.

I am not sure that this is correct. It is true that PR is a term used to cover executors and administrators but some financial institutions use the term too in relation to their indemnity form. See below.

pmlindyloo wrote: »

If the form does say that the bank will be reinbursed for any losses if it is not distributed as the law requires then I agree that this would be between the PO and the person.

I do not remember this wording on the form I signed but that isn't to say it wasn't there

If it was a PO savings account then the terms and conditions here:

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/sites/default/files/56353_PO_OnlineSaver_Issue%204%20v1.pdf

say that the money would be given to the personal representative.

My argument (sorry, not the right word) is that from the OP's original post it suggests that the lady was the personal representative of the beneficiaries and the PO was right to give her the money.

Seems that it depends on what was signed.

All very interesting anyway. Just hope the lady pays up.

I agree it will depend on the form. The enclosed from Nationwide uses the term Personal Representative and in effect invites the applicant to "self certify" they are the PR. The applicant must also state that other potential PRs have agreed to the application and they are acting for them.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/_common_images/talisma/SF220_Nov_2011.pdf

In this case, above a certain amount, the applicant must swear an Oath to a Solicitor which if untrue would also be illegal. Either way Nationwide have the applicant's signature to indemnify them if another PR comes forward.

Mojisola wrote: »

I didn't have to wait for probate before closing my Dad's PO account but I had to show the death certificate and the will showing that I was named as executor and proof of my identity and address (even though I was well-known by the staff).

It doesn't seem right that someone can turn up with a death certificate and empty an account.

I think the OP just demonstrates that it is unwise to use the indemnity form if there is any doubt about who the PR would be if a Grant were applied for! I suspect your case was straightforward as in most cases.

The OP's situation is uncertain but if the lady has acted without the permission of the other potential PRs and does not distribute the money legally then a bank with an Indemnity Form cannot walk away from its obligations but can sue the lady personally for breaching the contract.

Mojisola

BobQ wrote: »

I suspect your case was straightforward as in most cases.

It was straightforward because the PO staff made sure I was named in the will as executor.

If the staff in this case had asked the friend to prove she had a right to close the account, this situation wouldn't have happened.