Recently found shares. Who should claim them?

Shelldean

Another response. And after this one I give up. They've totally ignored my question about value and fees, but it's all irrelevant as they are adamant they go to blood relative. And not to shareholders wife, etc!
I've asked them to double check if the wife held anything, as my husband is the representative for her estate, so can claim any that are found. Looks like they will not let's us claim these.

Oh and petty of me I know, but I told them I had no knowledge of siblings, nieces or nephews. They never asked about children, so I never mentioned them either. 

Response from them below.

 

To go through the small estates process we do require that the forms are completed by the next of kin or named executor in the will.

 

As there was no will and the immediate next of kin has since passed away would need remaining next of kin to complete the form.

 

Although your husband holds Letters of administrations for Mrs XX  this does not cover Mr X shares as Letters of administration were not claimed for him previously.

 

Do you happen to know if Mr X  has any siblings, nieces/nephews etc?

 

I hope this helps and should you have any additional questions please do let us know.

 

xylophone

Is it worth a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman?
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

Manxman_in_exile

Is your husband just caught up in "letter tennis" with the search company, or has he actually spoken to a human being there and made sure that they understand what the situation is?

He simply tells them that so far as he is aware, the term "next of kin" has no legal meaning or significance, and that, in any case, he cannot provide a signature from, or a death certificate for, the shareholder's "next of kin" because the whereabouts of the son is unknown, and your husband does not know if he is alive or dead.  Neither is your husband aware of anybody else on the planet who might qualify as "next of kin", other than the beneficiaries of the shareholder's widow, whom he is now representing.  He then goes on to point out that according to what the search company has told him, there is nobody alive in these circumstances to whom the shares can be transferred, which is obviously impossible.  Challenge them to tell him who, in these circumstances, would inherit the shares as what they are saying is ludicrous!  He reminds them that it is quite clear that the shares would have been transferred to the widow if their existence had been known about at the time of the husband's death, and that they now form part of her estate.

I would also point out to them that they are clearly being unreasonably uncooperative and obstructive in demanding documentation that it is impossible for your husband to provide - yet they repeatedly ask for it and seem to be incapable of suggesting a way forward.  What do they suggest?

If you haven't already done so, find out from Equiniti what would need to be done to get the shares transferred over to the widow's estate, and be prepared to do it yourself.  My only concern there is that I'm sure the search company would want there fee paid still and might claim it.   Whether they'd have a good case - I don't know.  You haven't signed anything but you have been involved in protracted correspondence with them - but that correspondence shows them to be obstructive and uncooperative - possibly incompetent.

Not sure about complaining to FOS.  Who would you complain about?  You're not anybody's client...

xylophone

Not sure about complaining to FOS.  Who would you complain about?  You're not anybody's client...

The OP's husband was the administrator of the estate of a person to whom (it would appear) these shares would have been transferred.

Equiniti appears needlessly obstructive.

it might be worth a complaint.

Shelldean

Manxman
The latest email was from Equinti. I decided to go direct to them once I realised what the shares were ( national grid) That email is from their bereavement team.

Yes we're playing email tennis with them.  Husband can't make calls with ease during the working day. And by the time he finishes so have Equinti. Which why we've been writing originally, and more recently emailing. As these can be done at any time!

Yes they are aware of the full situation. 

They are adamant that the shares should now go to a blood relative of the deceased shareholder. Although the latest email asked about sibling and nieces and nephews of shareholder, not the son who registered the death! I do know there was several children as well as the son. But no idea of even their names, let alone addresses or how to contact them.

Manxman_in_exile

Ah - I assumed that was from the search company not Equiniti.

It seems obvious to me, and to most other posters on here, that the shares should have passed to the widow under intestacy when the husband died.  BUT... Equiniti must be the biggest provider of company registrar services in the country, so can be presumed to know(?) what they are doing, so it must be equally obvious to them that they do not belong to the widow's estate.  (Puzzled emoji!)

All I can say is, having read their email, I would ask them directly to explain why they think the shares would not follow a direct line of inheritance from the shareholder to his widow, and thence to her estate.  For intestacy purposes all the shareholder's property passed to his widow (including the shares).  The fact that the husband's ownership of the shares was unknown to everybody at the time of his death does not affect the fact that they would have been transferred to his widow if their existence had been known.  The fact that they weren't at the time does not mean that that error can't be rectified now.  Blood relatives and "next of kin" are irrelevant.

I note they say:  "To go through the small estates process we do require that the forms are completed by the next of kin or named executor in the will."  Is that a legal requirement or an internal requirement of Equiniti?  If it's an internal requirement - so what - how does it affect the question of legal ownership?

Shelldean - I'd be inclined to post a question on the "Savings & Investment" board on this forum asking if anybody knows why Equiniti are being so obstructive.  Put a link to this thread too.

I'm not sure if Equiniti are subject to the FOS in their role as company registrars, but you can always find out.  If they are subject to FOS, the FOS won't take up your complaint until you've exhausted the official complaints process with Equiniti.  If your husband still has the energy to pursue this I'd be making a formal complaint to Equiniti now.  (In fact I'd want to do it anyway because I want to know if they are right or wrong, and if they are wrong I'd want an apology from them and "compo" for wasting my time wholly unnecessarily!)

xylophone

It seems to me that Equiniti is sticking rigidly to their "small estates" procedure.

See link here chttps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74550708/#Comment_74550708

The Small Estate service is a special concession offered to the Next of Kin of the deceased shareholder or executor(s) named in the Will, as an alternative to obtaining Probate.  In asking for the signature of a blood relative  (?) of the deceased, they appear to be ignoring the fact that at the time of the shareholder's death, the person  first entitled to obtain LoA would have been his widow (in effect his next of kin although this concept  apparently has no legal definition in UK law - see https://farewill.com/articles/what-is-next-of-kin.). Next of kin meaning Next of kin is a term used to describe your closest living relative or relatives. You may be asked to name someone as your next of kin if you’re in hospital, or if you’re taking part in an activity with a certain level of risk – such as a skydive or bungee jump. In the event of someone’s death, next of kin may also be used to describe the person or people who stand to inherit the most. This is usually the spouse or civil partner, but it could also be their children or parents in certain circumstances. Who is your next of kin legally in the UK? As far as UK law is concerned, there isn’t a clear rule around who can be your next of kin, except in the case of children under 18. For children under 18, next of kin is someone who has the legal authority to make decisions on their behalf – such as a parent or legal guardian. https://www.inbrief.co.uk/estate-law/types-of-grant-who-can-apply/#:~:text=If no executor is named,to apply for the grant. Grant of letters of administration Letters of administration are required where the deceased dies intestate (ie. without leaving a will); or where there is a will but all the gifts have failed. This grant gives the named personal representatives (‘admininistrators’) the legal authority to administer the estate in accordance with the statutory rules of intestacy. The law sets out a strict hierarchy of those entitled to apply for the letters of administration in order as follows: surviving spouse or civil partner; children of the deceased; grandchildren if their parent has died before the deceased;

  

Manxman_in_exile

OK.  So Equiniti are saying that they won't release the shares until application is made by the "personal representatives" of the shareholder.  But because nobody applied for letters of administration at the time of the shareholder's death, there were no personal representatives at that time to claim the shares.  And as the shareholder's widow is now dead, Equiniti are saying that the law says that the necessary letters of administration can only be filed by one of the shareholder's children or, if they are dead, a grandchild.

So does that mean this situation becomes the same as if the the shareholder hadn't married and had no (known) surviving children or grandchildren?  Who is next in line to apply?  Great grandchildren or what?  (I'm not up on intestacy - does that mean it goes to the state or something?).

If that is the case, I can understand Equiniti's position (without necessarily agreeing it is correct).  But surely this is just down to an administrative (excuse the pun) error of convenience when the shareholder died?  Nobody knew of the shareholding and as everything else that was known about was owned jointly, there was no need to apply for letters of administration.  Are we saying that now that the widow has died, this mistake simply cannot be put right?  How far can the OP/her husband be expected to try to track down the whereabouts of a son, possibly dead, or children that he may never have had?

Shelldean

Another response today..
Although we were notified of the passing of Mr XX the shares were never transferred into his wife’s name and as she now has also passed we are only able to transfer the shares across to a next of kin or other blood relative.

So I've emailed back using some of Manxman's post asking them to clearly explain why they are not following the direct line of inheritance? And told them I believe that they are being deliberately obstructive. 
So asked to raise a formal complaint.

I've noted that they ARE answerable to FOS. So when they reply telling me the same again I will write a full complaint email and send it to their complaints dept. If the bereavement team haven't already passed me over. I would do it today but have headache and am emotional So not the best time to write a complaint lol
https://www.shareview.co.uk/4/Info/Portfolio/default/en/home/help/Pages/Complaints.aspx

Shelldean

I believe with intestacy, it can go through so many generations, before it goes to the state. Not sure how many though. And I think if you go up the tree and then down it, you're allowed more steps. But again not sure how many.

And by up the tree in this instance, I would mean going up to shareholders parents, then down to siblings, then nieces and nephews etc. Rather than direct descendants, children, grandchildren etc.