Just a word of warning....

Biggles

maxmycardagain wrote: »

The 85 year old husband is the executor as far as i know

as the widower actually went into the bank i think he must be the executer/trustee whatever

If Santander are so right why would they hand over a £20K ISA on the production of a will alone, but cos its £25K they wont?

The widower is 85 !!!!!!, is Santander holding out till he falls off HIS perch?

People have tried to help, but all you are supplying is questions; it seems like the guy's had a vague moan to you about Santander and you've come on here without bothering to bring any facts.

Go and find the answers to a few questions people have asked, like is the widower the executor, has he got probate, what exactly are Santander asking for etc, and you will find people can be more helpful.

NB In case it helps, the main change I know of re ISAs and inheritance that took place this April is that a surviving spouse can now inherit the deceased's ISA allowance. This may mean that they are trying to explain to him that he needs to set up his own ISA so that her allowance can be transferred to it (presumably with the cash). But that's just a guess. And because it's new, his branch probably won't have done it before, so their processes might not be too organised yet. Read more here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2014/12/surviving-spouse-to-inherit-tax-benefits-of-deceased-partners-isa-autumn-statement-2014.

SevenOfNine

Unfortunately, once someone consults a solicitor to obtain advice after a death, they're simply NOT going to say "you can do probate yourself for LOADS less money than I'll charge".

I was not living in UK when my Dad died, Mum saw a solicitor who charged her hundreds & did it for her (Will left all to her & everything was in joint names anyway). I'm still cross years later!

My Aunt died with no Will, did not take me long - just read the instructions that come with the paperwork, completed the form & the tax form. Saved hundreds of £££ in unnecessary solicitors fees.

Unfortunately, the bereaved are at their most vulnerable, what solicitor isn't going to jump at the chance to take full advantage of that - they are in business after all.

dunstonh

What a load of ranting.

i feel sorry for those that have answered the questions and asked for info for clarification. Only to be ignored or given wishy washy answers.

The answers are on the thread in multiple places.
1 - the money is paid to the executor once it has been verified who the executor is.
2 - There are thresholds which decide what information is needed to allow a payout. There are also different declarations made to cover that. 1p over that threshold changes the requirements.
3 - A solicitor was not required if you DIY but if you dont want to DIY then a solicitor can be used.
4 - The ISA change was about inheriting the ISA allowance on death. However, that just gives the person an increased ISA allowance. It doesnt change the death claim process. Although as a new change, different providers may go about it in different ways until they find the best way to do it.

eranou

Right so if Santander are saying they won't pay to the widower, Who ARE they saying it must be paid to?

C_Mababejive

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

You don't need to employ a solicitor to get probate.

Agreed,the OP was ripped off. I have probated two estates . Its no big deal..rip off Britain,rip off solicitors...

bowlhead99

The OP said "15 hours work at £200/hour duly invoiced" (a £3000 bill). But then later clarified in post #23 that it was actually only £2000 ish for the probate work on top of some other work done on the will.

We do not know the size or complexity of the estate or what the solicitor actually did (act as executors, perform tasks delegated by executors, IHT400 etc), as the OP is removed from the situation and is only conveying what they heard second hand about the affairs of 'a relatives mum'; the actual facts are in short supply.

It's quite possible that the tasks performed by the solicitors were not so complex that they needed a team of staff to spend 10 manhours on the job completing and reviewing the work to deliver a professional standard. Still, if the work was simple and the family wanted to avoid the bill they should not have employed a £200ph firm to do the simple work. That they did choose to employ the firm, and the firm charged its standard rates, is not really the fault of the firm or the fault of rip off Britain.

I could employ some celebrity to do an after-dinner speech at my wedding for £20,000 instead of getting my mate to do it. If I choose to do that, it is not evidence of rip off Britain or that the celebrity has overcharged me. The celebrity charges what they charge for completing the work assigned; I can use a different celebrity if I prefer, with a different price, or settle for a 'DIY' version with the help of a family member or friend, which might be much more cost effective.