Locating Next of Kin

securityguy

He said "I have been dealing with his affairs (stopping utilities etc). The only outstanding thing to do now is close his bank account." It's a hell of a stretch from "stopping utilities etc" to intermeddling. Stopping utilities is definitely not, so you're placing a pretty large weight on "etc". I'm not sure why you embolden the word "everything", as the OP never used it.

Yorkshireman99

I have previously provided links to what "Intermeddling" means I suggest you read them.

In addition

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/100321

http://www.fixedpriceprobatesolicitors.co.uk/unwilling-executors

https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/549902/an-introduction-to-being-an-executor.pdf

http://www.bishopslaw.co.uk/probate/executor-role/

Plenty more if you Google.

securityguy

None of which say that cancelling utilities is intermeddling. Again, you're completely reliant on "etc" covering something much more substantial. Let's be clear: are you saying that informing a utility company of the death of their account holder is intermeddling, and anyone who does so risks becoming an administrator by accident? Because if not, you're relying on "etc".

Yorkshireman99

Read them through properly. They state that notifying the bank of the death, amongst other things, is intermeddling. QED!

getmore4less

Mojisola wrote: »

Does just notifying utilities and other agencies of a death count as intermeddling?

No, anyone can notify banks of a death to gets accounts frozen.

Going the next stage and paying a debt(final bill) or getting a refund would be.

securityguy

"Read them through properly. They state that notifying the bank of the death, amongst other things, is intermeddling."

Last I checked, utilities aren't banks. Is your argument "I have advice about banks, therefore it applies to utilities?" Seriously? What about the milkman: do you become an administrator by accident if you tell the milkman to stop delivering? What about the newsagent? What about the neighbours? What makes utilities so special?

And in any event, that advice you're quoting directly conflicts with, for example, Holder v Holder (1967), which is an actual appeal court case and still good law, which lists a bunch of activities (up to, in fact, not merely notifying a bank but being party to the opening of an executor account) which are merely technical intermeddling and do not actually affect the running of an estate. Yes, Holder v Holder has the problem that the defendant didn't actually contest the accusation that the actions complained of were intermeddling, but the court went out of its way to say that he should not have accepted it:

"The three grounds that were relied on are so technical and trivial and not really the acts of Victor, who really simply complied with the directions of Mrs. Holder, that in my opinion they should not have the effect of preventing a renunciation of probate by an executor. However, it was conceded at the hearing that the renunciation was invalid and, accordingly, we must act on that admission and the effect that it has in regard to the position of an executor. In my view this was a mistake."

The actions that were deemed by the court of appeal to be trivial were opening an executor account, co-signing some cheques and endorsing some insurance policies. If that's trivial, what is phoning the water board? That's current case law.

Yorkshireman99

I can only repeat. Read the links I sent you fully. They state that notifying a BANK is intermeddling.

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

I can only repeat. Read the links I sent you fully. They state that notifying a BANK is intermeddling.

The OP hasn't notified the bank. You claim they have already intermeddled. On what basis? I don't believe that, in reality, a court would hold that notifying a bank was, in isolation, intermeddling sufficient to prevent later renunciation, and I cite case law, but put that to one side. The OP has not notified a bank. You assert they have already intermeddled. On what basis?

BobQ

Interesting debate about intermeddling.

The Probate Rules state

" “intermeddled” is when someone is appointed as an executor and acts in a way that shows that person has assumed the role by performing some tasks to the extent that they cannot then resign from the post;"

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/draft-rules-in-relation-to-non-contentious-probate/supporting_documents/ncprpart1intro.pdf

It seems from this that in order to have intermeddled you need to have been appointed by a will or by a court to execute the will.

As the OP has not been appointed or applied for a Grant of Administration, how can he be accused of intermeddling. He has no authority to act so anything he does in notifying anyone is for information? Based on what the OP states he has just informed people of the death. It is there decision what action to take. Unless the OP has claimed to be the executor (which seems not to be the case) I cannot see he has done anything wrong.

PasturesNew

I am intrigued by the "not seen for 35 years".

That was about 1980.

Was he in a trade where he could travel?
Is he likely to still be localish?
Did he have issues (drink/drugs)?
Was he the marrying sort? You can check records nationwide.

It could be anything from "he went to Australia as he was in the navy, so might've stayed there" through to "he was a local scrote, so probably went to prison and is now in a squat taking drugs" or "they had a disagreement about his girlfriend, who he might've married since".

I'd have another go at thinking through the potential lifestyle/choices that could've been made in the last 35 years and having another pop at that.