Heir Hunters refusing to hand over money from estate

MobileSaver

pphillips said:

In civil cases, the general rule is that the loser pays his own costs and the winners costs.

Agreed but there are many exceptions and one of the main exceptions is whether both sides acted "reasonably" or not in bringing or defending the claim.

None of us know how a magistrate on the day will think but it's not at all impossible that a magistrate will think the same as many here that it is unreasonable of the OP to expect to receive a windfall he had zero knowledge of, without paying the Heir Hunters something for the work they put in. The HH have already pre-empted this by apparently offering a reduced fee and in my opinion the OP is at a disadvantage if they continue with their claim that they shouldn't have to pay any fee.

newatc

You have a solicitor, what is their opinion. They surely would know the pros and cons of your options than well meaning board members.

pphillips

MobileSaver said:

pphillips said:

In civil cases, the general rule is that the loser pays his own costs and the winners costs.

Agreed but there are many exceptions and one of the main exceptions is whether both sides acted "reasonably" or not in bringing or defending the claim.

None of us know how a magistrate on the day will think but it's not at all impossible that a magistrate will think the same as many here that it is unreasonable of the OP to expect to receive a windfall he had zero knowledge of, without paying the Heir Hunters something for the work they put in. The HH have already pre-empted this by apparently offering a reduced fee and in my opinion the OP is at a disadvantage if they continue with their claim that they shouldn't have to pay any fee.

It's not really whether bringing or defending a claim was reasonable, but more on whether the conduct of both sides was reasonable during the litigation.

I think you mean judge rather than magistrate - magistrates only decide criminal and family cases.
On a purely technical note, I think the heir hunter has a better chance at a quantum meruit claim against the estate than they do against the OP.

onwards&upwards

Is small claims court not an option here?  Minimal costs and clear cut that they are holding your money? 

The limit is 10K, but if you both applied for your share separately that would be fine, wouldn't it?

SevenOfNine

Which firm?  Do they boast on their website about recognising any regulatory body (Heir Hunters themselves do).

They didn't cross any lines when applying here did they?  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/make-a-claim-to-a-deceased-persons-estate 

Seems to me £1000 fee payment would be marginally reasonable, they didn't do their own job properly by not Will searching first (how did they actually find it anyway), but only using the "bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" approach.  Otherwise, any legal advice insurance cover on your house/contents/car policies as a resource you could tap into?  Onwards&upwards suggestion might be worth investigating to keep claim costs from escalating.

Depends whether you can see what you do get, if you can swallow the heir hunter firm charging £2k, as a nice unexpected windfall which you may never have known about.

relaxtwotribes

A Money Claim (as small claims is now called) would cost £410 to submit an online claim for £10,000.  Might be a worthwhile first move to send a "letter before claim" also known as a "letter before action".  That would only cost a stamp.

unholyangel

MobileSaver said:

pphillips said:

In civil cases, the general rule is that the loser pays his own costs and the winners costs.

Agreed but there are many exceptions and one of the main exceptions is whether both sides acted "reasonably" or not in bringing or defending the claim.

None of us know how a magistrate on the day will think but it's not at all impossible that a magistrate will think the same as many here that it is unreasonable of the OP to expect to receive a windfall he had zero knowledge of, without paying the Heir Hunters something for the work they put in. The HH have already pre-empted this by apparently offering a reduced fee and in my opinion the OP is at a disadvantage if they continue with their claim that they shouldn't have to pay any fee.

That's not quite the reasonable test they apply. It's that the claim never had any reasonable prospect of success or their conduct was unreasonable. Although the bar is set pretty high. Think grossly unreasonable rather than potentially unreasonable. 

A contract is only formed if the necessary legal elements are present. One of those elements is consideration - that both parties must agree to give consideration, suffering a detriment in exchange for a benefit (with the detriment of one being the benefit of the other). Without this, a contract does not exist. So possible prospect of success and no questions seem to have been raised over the OP's conduct. That we're aware of at least. 

However, it could be more complicated as I get the feeling the solicitor the OP refers to is actually working on behalf of HH rather than the OP - otherwise the solicitor surely would have advised them accordingly and the money would have been paid to them rather than HH. The solicitor completed probate - that would've required authorisation from whoever was administering the estate and it would have been whoever was administering the estate that would've been entitled to the funds. 


But I do agree that I wouldn't bother with legal action in the circumstances - £1k off an unexpected windfall. Although I might try to negotiate their price down, particularly if I did have appropriate leverage. 

Malthusian

pphillips said:

MobileSaver said:

pdel61 said:

I'd generate as much publicity as possible, MP, papers, local papers, social media and then fight them.

Sometimes I would agree but in this particular case life is too short; the Heir Hunters firm won't care about bad publicity and will counter that the OP would never have known about this windfall but for their time and effort.

The OP will almost certainly have to fight this in court with all the time, effort and stress that involves. I think that even if the OP wins the case, the magistrate will decide that the Heir Hunters were not being unreasonable in asking for their fees and so costs will not be awarded against them - in other words the OP will have to pay his own legal costs.

My advice, pay the fees with gritted teeth, enjoy your windfall and move on with your life. (As Shedman said you have nothing to lose by trying to negotiate a discounted fee but if they decline just immediately move on.)

In civil cases, the general rule is that the loser pays his own costs and the winners costs.

In civil cases, the general rule is that dodgy firms pay nothing because if you win, it turns out the firm has no assets to pay you with, and liquidates.

So in the worst case the OP would end up with worse than nothing as their £5k would have gone and they would have to pay their solicitors out of their own pocket.

It's a no-brainer. Take the £4k and enjoy spending it.

pphillips

Malthusian said:

pphillips said:

MobileSaver said:

pdel61 said:

I'd generate as much publicity as possible, MP, papers, local papers, social media and then fight them.

Sometimes I would agree but in this particular case life is too short; the Heir Hunters firm won't care about bad publicity and will counter that the OP would never have known about this windfall but for their time and effort.

The OP will almost certainly have to fight this in court with all the time, effort and stress that involves. I think that even if the OP wins the case, the magistrate will decide that the Heir Hunters were not being unreasonable in asking for their fees and so costs will not be awarded against them - in other words the OP will have to pay his own legal costs.

My advice, pay the fees with gritted teeth, enjoy your windfall and move on with your life. (As Shedman said you have nothing to lose by trying to negotiate a discounted fee but if they decline just immediately move on.)

In civil cases, the general rule is that the loser pays his own costs and the winners costs.

In civil cases, the general rule is that dodgy firms pay nothing because if you win, it turns out the firm has no assets to pay you with, and liquidates.

So in the worst case the OP would end up with worse than nothing as their £5k would have gone and they would have to pay their solicitors out of their own pocket.

It's a no-brainer. Take the £4k and enjoy spending it.

Isn't the £5k a trust asset that takes priority over the firms other debts?

Malthusian

pphillips said:

Malthusian said:

pphillips said:

MobileSaver said:

pdel61 said:

I'd generate as much publicity as possible, MP, papers, local papers, social media and then fight them.

Sometimes I would agree but in this particular case life is too short; the Heir Hunters firm won't care about bad publicity and will counter that the OP would never have known about this windfall but for their time and effort.

The OP will almost certainly have to fight this in court with all the time, effort and stress that involves. I think that even if the OP wins the case, the magistrate will decide that the Heir Hunters were not being unreasonable in asking for their fees and so costs will not be awarded against them - in other words the OP will have to pay his own legal costs.

My advice, pay the fees with gritted teeth, enjoy your windfall and move on with your life. (As Shedman said you have nothing to lose by trying to negotiate a discounted fee but if they decline just immediately move on.)

In civil cases, the general rule is that the loser pays his own costs and the winners costs.

In civil cases, the general rule is that dodgy firms pay nothing because if you win, it turns out the firm has no assets to pay you with, and liquidates.

So in the worst case the OP would end up with worse than nothing as their £5k would have gone and they would have to pay their solicitors out of their own pocket.

It's a no-brainer. Take the £4k and enjoy spending it.

Isn't the £5k a trust asset that takes priority over the firms other debts?

If the firm has no assets after the liquidators have taken their fees it doesn't matter who has priority over their no money.

Which would almost certainly be the case given we are dealing with the kind of firm who will issue try-on demands for £1,000.

The OP's post suggests it hasn't been ringfenced. If it had been, the OP's solicitor could apply to whoever was holding the money directly and bypass the heir hunters, as the ringfenced account would be the estate's property and not the heir hunters'. That they haven't suggests "the actual money is with the Heir Hunters" means exactly that.