Empty house since parent died this week

securityguy

"I am saying we managed the affairs of an intestate family member in a way that worked well for us"

Indeed. It seems a little de trop for someone to criticise you for not closing an account quickly enough when, as an intestate estate, no-one actually has the responsibility or authority to do it until the dust has settled.

And it's not even about intestacy: of the four people who I'm likely to act as an executor for over the coming years, I know for a solid, unalterable fact that they have no debt and substantial assets, so the worst that can happen is that a month or two's pension might be paid which would need to be repaid.

It's hardly unlikely that someone dies at the weekend and their pension is paid on Monday morning, so this is hardly some dire disaster which no-one can possibly risk. In the case of my father he has three pensions paid on different dates so the chance of a payment going in between death and notification is substantial. The idea that chaos or, even more ludicrously, accusations of illegality attend a few days', or indeed weeks', delay in closing bank accounts is just stories to scare children. If an account is left open, there might be some small administrative tasks to do. The end.

Savvy_Sue

For some reason, we didn't notify Water or Phone that Mum had died - we wanted to keep the phone connected for a while, and definitely didn't want the water disconnected, and we knew there was no problem paying the bills because Mum had set up a joint account with one of the executors prior to death so the account didn't have to be closed.

I know this wouldn't suit everyone: the executor involved didn't regard that account as 'their' money, and all the beneficiaries were happy and trusted us to get on with things.

What astonished me, when I did notify Mum's death, the Water backdated the closure of her account to date of death and made a refund of payments made, because the house had been unoccupied! That I was NOT expecting!

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

There are plenty of reasonable scenarios in which executors don't know of the death, or can't do anything about it, or don't themselves know that they are executors, for days or even weeks after a death. I'm an executor for an elderly relative with a complex estate whom I'm perfectly happy to act for. The other executors live abroad, and I would not (and my travel insurance company appears to feel the same) return from a holiday were they to die while I was abroad. In that scenario, it could be some considerable time before anyone does anything about assuming an executorship. The idea that executors need to leap into action the moment the death is announced is simply not realistic.

You are making an entirely different point. At no time did I suggest anything like the scenario you mention. It is ludicrous to suggest that executors have to act in this way or are responsible even when they have no knowledge of their appointment. What I was saying was a general point rather than being critical of the gardener. Let me spell it out. However well intentioned an executor may be the law requires that they treat all parties equally without favouring any particicular. Deliberately failing to promptly notify a bank of the death to make the estate administration simpler is a breach of trust. If there is plenty of money in the estate this may not matter in the long run. However doing this when the estate is short of funds may result in some creditors being wrongly paid. Under those circumstances the executor is likely to have to repay the loss themselves. There are plenty of examples where someone has apparently been financially sound but after their death a large debt is uncovered. That is just one example why an executor should be prudent in dealing with the estate. Of course being prudent and following the rules this may cause considerable inconvenience to the deceased' s family but unfortunately death is seldom convenient.

securityguy

"Deliberately failing to promptly notify a bank of the death to make the estate administration simpler is a breach of trust."

It is almost impossible to show "breach of trust" until someone is actually disadvantaged; without a victim, there is no course of action. There are no "breach of trust" police roaming estates looking for technical non-compliances, there are only people who have been disadvantaged bringing legal action. It is for individuals to decide what risks they wish to take. You are very cautious. Others are not.


"There are plenty of examples where someone has apparently been financially sound but after their death a large debt is uncovered."

And? Should all executors proceed as though they are dealing with Robert Maxwell? Sounds like a good reason to refuse to act and leave the whole thing to solicitors.

mumps

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

From my own experience, and from what I have heard on here, the problem is that the front line staff in the branches are poorly trained. All the banks I have dealt with have centrally based staff who specialize in dealing withe bereaved customers. Anyone faced with the problem should stand their ground and ask to speak to them.

Sorry but we didn't do it with the local branch, we did it with the bereavement team.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

"Deliberately failing to promptly notify a bank of the death to make the estate administration simpler is a breach of trust."

It is almost impossible to show "breach of trust" until someone is actually disadvantaged; without a victim, there is no course of action. There are no "breach of trust" police roaming estates looking for technical non-compliances, there are only people who have been disadvantaged bringing legal action. It is for individuals to decide what risks they wish to take. You are very cautious. Others are not. Certainly executors have a duty of care and should get advice before starting the process.


"There are plenty of examples where someone has apparently been financially sound but after their death a large debt is uncovered."

And? Should all executors proceed as though they are dealing with Robert Maxwell? Sounds like a good reason to refuse to act and leave the whole thing to solicitors.

It is not caution on my part. I was simply setting out what the legal position is and the potential risks from ignoring the law. As you rightly say this is an area of law where there is little or no regulation. A good case could be made for making professional executors mandatory as they are in certain other countries but I don't see it as a vote winner.

Linton

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

From my own experience, and from what I have heard on here, the problem is that the front line staff in the branches are poorly trained. All the banks I have dealt with have centrally based staff who specialize in dealing withe bereaved customers. Anyone faced with the problem should stand their ground and ask to speak to them.

I found both Lloyds and NatWest excellent. They were able to fix up appointments with specially trained staff at the local branch within a few days. Santander took 2 weeks for me to be able to talk to anyone

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It is not caution on my part. I was simply setting out what the legal position is and the potential risks from ignoring the law. As you rightly say this is an area of law where there is little or no regulation. A good case could be made for making professional executors mandatory as they are in certain other countries but I don't see it as a vote winner.

Could you please fix your response to make it clear who wrote what? I didn't write "Certainly executors have a duty of care and should get advice before starting the process", and I would be interested to see some case law which says it's true.

A duty of care arises in specific circumstances towards individuals with regard to positive acts by the principal (cf. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and, for comparison where a duty of care was held not to arise from mere omission, Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd).

I would take some convincing that an executor owes a general duty of care to all possible claimants against the estate, because I think it would fail at least two arms of the Caparo test (that of reasonable forseeability - and "reasonable" does not mean "imaginable" - and that of proximity). If you've got some case law showing that executors owe a duty of care, and to whom,, I'd be interested to see it. The Administration of Estates Act 1925 long predates the rise of duties of care in case law, and is still good law: the obligations on the executors are a great deal weaker than a general duty of care.

SevenOfNine

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

For some reason, we didn't notify Water or Phone that Mum had died - we wanted to keep the phone connected for a while, and definitely didn't want the water disconnected, and we knew there was no problem paying the bills because Mum had set up a joint account with one of the executors prior to death so the account didn't have to be closed.

I know this wouldn't suit everyone: the executor involved didn't regard that account as 'their' money, and all the beneficiaries were happy and trusted us to get on with things.

What astonished me, when I did notify Mum's death, the Water backdated the closure of her account to date of death and made a refund of payments made, because the house had been unoccupied! That I was NOT expecting!

We told the water board straight away, were equally astounded when they said there would be no further charge & a small refund was due, they said just let them know when the house was sold & who the new occupiers were.

Insurers surprised us as well, policy was allowed to run but switched to 'Executor of xxx', no premium increase whatsoever & no conditions put on it (winter so we put heating/lighting on anyway) except not covered for theft - not even any burst pipe exclusions.

I can see both sides of the freeze/don't freeze bank accounts. We had a problem with only 1 refund, car tax, but Nationwide had refused to freeze or close a small savings a/c until the Grant was issued, so we put the cheque in there.....they can't have it both ways, either close/freeze the a/c or as far as I'm concerned it's open & we used it.

In general all the organisations we dealt with were pretty good, actually one of the 'stand out' ones for me were our local council - amazing as that sounds. Not just the freeze in charges & the free 6 months from Grant, but their whole compassionate wording of letters/conversations. :T

My condolences, a very difficult time to be dealing with all this complex stuff, probably could do without squabbling on here regarding close/leave open bank accounts!

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

Could you please fix your response to make it clear who wrote what? I didn't write "Certainly executors have a duty of care and should get advice before starting the process", and I would be interested to see some case law which says it's true.

A duty of care arises in specific circumstances towards individuals with regard to positive acts by the principal (cf. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and, for comparison where a duty of care was held not to arise from mere omission, Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd).

I would take some convincing that an executor owes a general duty of care to all possible claimants against the estate, because I think it would fail at least two arms of the Caparo test (that of reasonable forseeability - and "reasonable" does not mean "imaginable" - and that of proximity). If you've got some case law showing that executors owe a duty of care, and to whom,, I'd be interested to see it. The Administration of Estates Act 1925 long predates the rise of duties of care in case law, and is still good law: the obligations on the executors are a great deal weaker than a general duty of care.

An executor is a trustee and it is the law relating to trustees that is relevant. It is axiomatic that trustees owe a duty of care to the beneficiaries and as such need to be prudent in there actions. Hence they must deal with the interests of all beneficiaries in an even handed manner and not favour one rather than another. As for creditors an executor has to make sure that any claims against the estate are genuine. I said nothing, AFAIK, about a duty of care to creditors.