Recently found shares. Who should claim them?

Shelldean

Savvy_Sue said:

Is it worth paying for a solicitor to write them a single letter pointing out the above? I mean, it's very clear to me that you're right and they're wrong, but sometimes it needs a professional to point that out before people will listen. (And IANAL ... so maybe - maybe! - a solicitor could tell you if you ARE wrong!)

I don't know, but the executor could pay for this letter and the search company to still say, computer says no!
We still don't know how much these shares are worth! Could be pence as far as we know!! The only reasons we've continued with this saga is firstly curiosity and secondly it's not costing us anything to do so.

Shelldean

Manxman_in_exile said:

OK - just one point to clarify because I think I've misunderstood something.  In an earlier post you referred to "the search company" which (I think mistakenly now!) I took to mean one of those heir hunter companies.  It's not is it - it's actually the company the husband held the shares in?  (If so it's my error as I should have clarified it earlier.  Don't think it matters anyway except the executor doesn't need to worry about inadvertantly signing up to some finder's fee).

I agree with Savvy_Sue: it's quite clear what has happened and the executor seems to have communicated that quite clearly to the company.  Not sure why they don't understand (or can't give the executor a better explanation of why they need to see it).  I don't suppose a solicitor has been used by the executor and they could ask them?

The only two possibilities I can think of are (1) the executor has had the misfortune of corresponding with somebody at the company who doesn't know what they are doing (eg there is no legal concept of "next of kin), or (2) there is some "unusual" characteristic attached to the shares that mean if they'd been known about when the husband died, they would not have gone to the wife - but I can't* imagine what that would be.  My money would be on the person at the company not understanding what they are doing.  I think if I were the executor I'd try again if only to satisfy my own curiosity.  [EDIT:  It seems they want to see his death certificate because he was identified as "the son" so they obviously think that now the wife is dead he's still the next of kin.  But if he's subsequently died wouldn't they want to know if he'd had any children or who benefited under his estate?  It makes no sense - to me, at least].

*I suppose the husband might have been the legal owner of the shares but not the beneficial owner and there were strings attached to them.  (I only say that because I was once involved in such shenanigans in a low-tax area!  I think it highly unlikely in the UK in this day and age...)

EDIT:  I don't suppose the shares are in something like a family company are they?  Maybe there are ownership restrictions on their transfer after death of the shareholder?

No not a heir Hunter company. It's a search company that reunites people with lost shares. Called "prosearch " I do believe they will request payment for reuniting us with the shares, I really need to find the first letter! And clarify.
Executor has definitely spelt it out very clearly.

This I know as it's been me who has written the letters lol 

Shelldean

xylophone said:

He also explains son's ONLY role was registering his father death as an air to the wife 

A cool breeze?   

It seems to me that  as  the shares in question were (apparently) owned by the deceased shareholder  and were therefore an asset of  his estate, it  would have fallen  to the administrator of  that estate to deal with them.

The person with the primary right to administer the (intestate) deceased's estate was his widow - it seemed at the time that because the bulk of his money and possessions were in joint accounts, and the remaining assets were valued at under £10,000, there would be no point in seeking LoA.

Under the rules of intestacy then current, the widow was entitled to provision of at the very least £125,000 - under these circumstances, the deceased's banks released the money to the widow without formality.  She was thus the de facto administrator.

When the widow died intestate, her estate was of a value high enough to require LoA - as her son  (and only child) had predeceased her, his son  (her grandson) had the primary right to be administrator and took over that role. He was therefore the administrator of an administrator.

Under these circumstances, the ultimate ownership of the shares is irrelevant to the issue- it is up to the grandson ( as administrator of an administrator) to obtain the details of the holding so that (having regard to the value of  his grandmother's husband's estate  at date of death), he can properly determine to whom they should belong?

Apologies for auto correct!!!

You've summed it up correctly. The only snag was the widow being elderly and frail, didn't register her husband's death. But she closed and transferred all accounts to her name, with the help of her son. 

Shelldean

Manxman_in_exile said:

I read the problem as being the company will not register the transfer of ownership of the shares.  Presumably, that is because for some reason that they have not yet been able to explain (and may not be able to explain) they think the husband's son is entitled to them as "next of kin", and not his widow (and her estate).

But if that's the case, why would they be satisfied with just the son's death certificate?  If he inherited from his father, surely the company would also want to know who the son's heirs were?  It makes no sense.

Either the person dealing with this at the company does not understand what they are doing, or it's some weird, small family company with some sort of restriction on who can own the shares.  My money is on the former.

If I were the administrator I wouldn't give up.  Just out of curiosity I'd want to know why this was happening.

Correct each time we write to them they just ask for the son's death certificate.
There has been no mention of  any restrictions.
As I said before this is what the company wrote in the last letter.
As the shares are held in deceased name we are required to confirm that his closest next of kin have signed and completed the relevant forms. As son is showing as son on death certificate informant please provide a copy of his death certificate.

They want the son to either sign the forms or us to provide his death certificate! As they say he is closest next of kin.

And while the shareholder family kept briefly in touch after their fathers death it was brief. And soon went no contact with their stepmother. So we've not any idea of their status dead or alive. And if they are alive where they are!

I simply don't understand it all tbh. And when we wrote the first letter explaining it, I really assumed it would be a swift easy task.

Savvy_Sue

Shelldean said:

Savvy_Sue said:

Is it worth paying for a solicitor to write them a single letter pointing out the above? I mean, it's very clear to me that you're right and they're wrong, but sometimes it needs a professional to point that out before people will listen. (And IANAL ... so maybe - maybe! - a solicitor could tell you if you ARE wrong!)

I don't know, but the executor could pay for this letter and the search company to still say, computer says no!
We still don't know how much these shares are worth! Could be pence as far as we know!! The only reasons we've continued with this saga is firstly curiosity and secondly it's not costing us anything to do so.

OK, do you have any free legal advice on tap? eg through home insurance, union membership, work employee assistance programme? That should be enough to confirm that the wife should have / would have received the shares. Then you write a letter stating that you have taken legal advice and ... 

Heck, you could even mock up some official looking headed paper ... 

Shelldean

Savvy_Sue said:

Shelldean said:

Savvy_Sue said:

Is it worth paying for a solicitor to write them a single letter pointing out the above? I mean, it's very clear to me that you're right and they're wrong, but sometimes it needs a professional to point that out before people will listen. (And IANAL ... so maybe - maybe! - a solicitor could tell you if you ARE wrong!)

I don't know, but the executor could pay for this letter and the search company to still say, computer says no!
We still don't know how much these shares are worth! Could be pence as far as we know!! The only reasons we've continued with this saga is firstly curiosity and secondly it's not costing us anything to do so.

OK, do you have any free legal advice on tap? eg through home insurance, union membership, work employee assistance programme? That should be enough to confirm that the wife should have / would have received the shares. Then you write a letter stating that you have taken legal advice and ... 

Heck, you could even mock up some official looking headed paper ... 

Nope, no free legal advice unfortunately!
And as curious as we are we've got bored, repeatedly saying the same thing. So the last letter has been sent now!

xylophone

Called "prosearch " I do believe they will request payment for reuniting us with the shares,

https://prosearchassets.com/asset-reunification/have-you-received-a-prosearch-claim-pack/

ProSearch have been appointed by the company in which you hold an investment. The company is concerned that you have not received all of the benefits due to you as a result of your investment in their company.

ProSearch charge an administration fee for tracing and re-uniting you with the entitlement due to you. The level of fee has been negotiated by the company in which you held the investment to ensure that it is reasonable and fair to you. Details of the fee to be charged are contained on the claim form. 

The person named on the form is deceased - what do I do?

If you are the Executor(s) of the estate of the investor, you should complete the claim form and return this along with a Court Sealed copy of the Grant of Probate or Administration. The claim form should be signed by all named representatives.

There was no Grant of LoA for the estate of the deceased shareholder - the de facto administrator was his widow.

There is a Grant of LoA for the estate of the widow.

Manxman_in_exile

Depends how far you want to take this, but I'd write back to them one more time and/or make a formal complaint in writing to them.

In the letter (or complaint) I would ask them to explain clearly why they need to see the death certificate of the shareholder's "next of kin".  Point out that the term "next of kin" has no legal significance, and that in any case the shareholder's heir under intestacy rules was his wife, not his son, so that ownership of the shares automatically transferred to her, his widow, on his death.  Now that she has died intestate(?) her heir is xxxx.  The original shareholder's son plays no part whatsoever in the ownership of the shares because he never had any claim to them, and in any case, you do not know his whereabouts or whether he is alive or dead*.  Their request directed to you to provide them with a copy of the son's death certificate is therefore an irrelevant and pointless wild goose chase.

It might be an idea (although I don't know if it's a good one or a bad one!) to say that if they don't co-operate with transfer of the shares to their legal owner, you will seek legal advice.  (They've told you the husband owned the shares - now they are unreasonably preventing transfer of them to their legal owner.)

I can understand the executor wanting to wash their hands of this - but if I were them I'd want to get to the bottom of this and I suppose that strictly speaking, they have a legal duty to get to the bottom of it...

*I suppose the potential downside of this is that the search company now waste more time starting a world-wide search to track down this irrevant nok/son - who my or may not be dead.

EDIT:  The only possible complication is if, with the value of the shares, the husband's estate went over the then intestacy limit for everything to go to his wife  I don't see why the search company simply can't tell the administrator the valus of the shares.

xylophone

irrevant nok/son-  who my or may not be dead.

Might be a revenant..... 

Manxman_in_exile

Whoops!     

(Amazing coincidence that a typo would be vaguely renevant... er relevert... revered...   Never mind.)