Move into property during probate?

wwl

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Still a breach of trust by the executor. Executors need to realize they have that duty and abide by it.

How is making sure a property is looked after a breach of trust?
Leaving it empty when there is another option available could be seen as negligence if there is a risk of damage, vandalism, or consequences of reduced buildings insurance coverage on an empty property.
And if a temporary occupant is also helping it get into a saleable condition, everyone wins.
Of course you should get agreement of beneficaries and probably have a written agreement of terms.

Yorkshireman99

wwl wrote: »

How is making sure a property is looked after a breach of trust?
Leaving it empty when there is another option available could be seen as negligence if there is a risk of damage, vandalism, or consequences of reduced buildings insurance coverage on an empty property.
And if a temporary occupant is also helping it get into a saleable condition, everyone wins.
Of course you should get agreement of beneficaries and probably have a written agreement of terms.

It is really a question of degree. Leaving a property unoccupied is not negligent. It happens all the time. What an executor needs to be sure is that if they do rent it out that market rent is paid to the estate, insurance covering letting the property is in place and council tax is paid by the occupant. Also remember that the minimum term for a shorthold tenancy is six months and there is always the potential risk that the tenant will not leave promptly. At the same time the executor must not benefit by occupying the property themselves without paying rent. The executor is not obliged to get the agreement of the beneficiaries as it solely his responsibility.

jackyann

I did this, with the agreement of the other executor & beneficiary.

I did not pay rent as we knew the deceased would not have wished that - also the property was not fit to be rented out so it would have raised all sorts of issues.

Our agreement was that I paid all outstanding bills, all costs whilst I was there, including of course, council tax, and paid for the costs of getting the house ready / putting it on the market and solicitors' fees. The other beneficiary could visit or stay at any time, and we put a cap on the time I could be there.

Depends on the trust that exists between you, but do make sure it is in writing, and understood by any other involved parties.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Still a breach of trust by the executor. Executors need to realize they have that duty and abide by it.

IN most cases it would not, even if the person had no other place to maintain to return to.

As long as the primary intention is to facilitate the timely administration of the estate there would be no conflict or self dealing involved.

No need for rent or tenancy agreements.

In this case as far as I can tell the occupant is the OP who has a beneficial interest in the property anyway so will have a right to occupy.
Also they are not the executor.

brewerdave

Re-reading the original post -there is a charge on the property -surely the person with the legal interest has the right to stop what is being proposed ??

wwl

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It is really a question of degree. Leaving a property unoccupied is not negligent. It happens all the time.

That's rather dependent on the state of the property and the area - Although squatting private homes is now illegal, there are areas where any obviously empty place would become a drug den or just get vandalised.

What an executor needs to be sure is that if they do rent it out that market rent is paid to the estate, insurance covering letting the property is in place and council tax is paid by the occupant.

It's quite likely it wouldn't be in a state to rent to the general market. And it would probably be easier to get buildings insurance on an occupied property than an empty one, again depending on state and area.

Also remember that the minimum term for a shorthold tenancy is six months and there is always the potential risk that the tenant will not leave promptly.

So you set it up as a property guardianship contract not a tenancy.

The executor is not obliged to get the agreement of the beneficiaries as it solely his responsibility.

True but the beneficiaries are the only ones who could take any action against the executor (assuming no tax issues), so getting their agreement would be insurance against possible future claims of maladministration.

vouch0r

Ok this seems to have provokeed some reaction..

I would be moving in i am the son of the executor (mum) and girlfriend would move in.. We are hapoy to. Only stay a few months an pay all bills and rent etc agreed between us.

The charges on property for which my grandad gets half of the sale.. Is the main worry, if we agree that its ok in wiritng would this be ok?

Yorkshireman99

wwl wrote: »

That's rather dependent on the state of the property and the area - Although squatting private homes is now illegal, there are areas where any obviously empty place would become a drug den or just get vandalised.
It's quite likely it wouldn't be in a state to rent to the general market. And it would probably be easier to get buildings insurance on an occupied property than an empty one, again depending on state and area.
So you set it up as a property guardianship contract not a tenancy.

True but the beneficiaries are the only ones who could take any action against the executor (assuming no tax issues), so getting their agreement would be insurance against possible future claims of maladministration.

All noted. Some points to remember. Firstly the mortgage agreement almost certainly does not allow the property to be rented out in any way likewise the insurance cover. What form would a "guardianship contract" take? If you are suggesting some form of license then even licensees are entitled to four weeks notice and can require a court order to quit.

What I am trying to emphasize is that the executor is the one who has to take all the responsibility and if thing do go wrong they are the one who is going to have to pay the costs of putting things right that can be considerable.

getmore4less

vouch0r wrote: »

The charges on property for which my grandad gets half of the sale.. Is the main worry, if we agree that its ok in wiritng would this be ok?

Do the terms of the will and the agreement that resulted in he charge require a sale?

Sale may be what the beneficiaries think they want or need to do but may not be the only option.

SevenOfNine

SevenOfNine wrote: »

Assume those who 'move in' to the empty pending probate properties have told their Local Authority & started to pay council tax. It stops on the production of the death certificate & restarts 6 months after probate is granted, unless it's officially occupied sooner.

Our probate homes metered water rates has stopped as well, & will restart when it's sold so free water until then, (not sure if there's a time limit following probate completion as well though).

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Occupying requires payment of all taxes. What you are suggesting is fraudulent.

Suggesting those who move in to probate properties PAY the council tax is NOT a fraudulent suggestion. I am emphasising the CORRECT procedure.

I've highlighted the relevant text in my initial response in red to assist you with exactly what was written, the rest is information on what happens with probate properties so those moving in are clear on what charges STOP when the property is empty - therefore it becomes due while they are in it!