Recently found shares. Who should claim them?

Manxman_in_exile

xylophone said:

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

 But isn't that flowchart wrong?

From the box saying:  "Is the value of the holding including any outstanding payments and employee schemes under £20,000?"  aren't the "Yes" and "No" flows the wrong way round?   Or should the "...under £20,000" actually say "...over £20,000"?

According to that flow chart, the "small estates" procedure doesn't apply to shareholdings under £20k, and you need a full grant of representation.  Does that make sense?

The shareholding here isn't over £20k is it?

Shelldean

Manxman_in_exile said:

xylophone said:

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

 But isn't that flowchart wrong?

From the box saying:  "Is the value of the holding including any outstanding payments and employee schemes under £20,000?"  aren't the "Yes" and "No" flows the wrong way round?   Or should the "...under £20,000" actually say "...over £20,000"?

According to that flow chart, the "small estates" procedure doesn't apply to shareholdings under £20k, and you need a full grant of representation.  Does that make sense?

The shareholding here isn't over £20k is it?

They have blatantly ignored my question about value. I asked as different values at death means different fees. But they ignored it.
I don't believe it's anywhere near £20k. I worked it out very approx and it was under £500 for both sets of shares.

Manxman_in_exile

I think I understand what Equiniti are trying to tell you now.  (It's perhaps a pity they could not have explained it more clearly at an earlier stage).

They are saying the widow should have applied for letters of administration upon her husband's death, and got the transfers done then.  But she didn't, and now that she is dead, and her personal representatives have no blood connection to her deceased husband, it is now too late for her PRs to do anything about it, as under intestacy rules, only certain blood relatives of her husband can do so.

I think that that is what they are trying to tell you, and it sort of makes sense under the intestacy rules.  But whether it's legally correct or not, I don't know.  Sounds wrong to me - but that doesn't mean it isn't legally correct!

So the questions that needs answering by Equiniti are:  "If the only people who can now apply for letters of administration (or to get the shares transferred) are the husband's next of kin*, what happens to the shares if the whereabouts or even the existence of any next of kin are unknown?  And what needs to be done now to put right the error several years ago when administration was not applied for on the husband's intestacy?"

It seems daft to me that what appears to be a simple oversight some years ago can't be corrected retrospectively.  But looking at the intestacy rules I can see Equiniti's point, although it seems overly technical and legalistic to me.

It may seem daft, but it's quite possible that the shares don't form part of the widow's estate, and if there is no other next of kin, they go to the state.

But it's certainly worthwhile pursuing this with Equiniti and complaining, even if you only get a better and more understandable explanation of what they are doing and why.

* I think they are using "next of kin" as shorthand to identify who qualifies under intestacy.  Again a pity they couldn't simply have said that.  And given the husband's age, I presume there is nobody else other than the son or his children who would be eligible under intestacy?

Shelldean

Manxman_in_exile said:

I think I understand what Equiniti are trying to tell you now.  (It's perhaps a pity they could not have explained it more clearly at an earlier stage).

They are saying the widow should have applied for letters of administration upon her husband's death, and got the transfers done then.  But she didn't, and now that she is dead, and her personal representatives have no blood connection to her deceased husband, it is now too late for her PRs to do anything about it, as under intestacy rules, only certain blood relatives of her husband can do so.

I think that that is what they are trying to tell you, and it sort of makes sense under the intestacy rules.  But whether it's legally correct or not, I don't know.  Sounds wrong to me - but that doesn't mean it isn't legally correct!

So the questions that needs answering by Equiniti are:  "If the only people who can now apply for letters of administration (or to get the shares transferred) are the husband's next of kin*, what happens to the shares if the whereabouts or even the existence of any next of kin are unknown?  And what needs to be done now to put right the error several years ago when administration was not applied for on the husband's intestacy?"

It seems daft to me that what appears to be a simple oversight some years ago can't be corrected retrospectively.  But looking at the intestacy rules I can see Equiniti's point, although it seems overly technical and legalistic to me.

It may seem daft, but it's quite possible that the shares don't form part of the widow's estate, and if there is no other next of kin, they go to the state.

But it's certainly worthwhile pursuing this with Equiniti and complaining, even if you only get a better and more understandable explanation of what they are doing and why.

* I think they are using "next of kin" as shorthand to identify who qualifies under intestacy.  Again a pity they couldn't simply have said that.  And given the husband's age, I presume there is nobody else other than the son or his children who would be eligible under intestacy?

Have sent an email, asking them to explain it.
The shareholder son was one of a few siblings. Not sure how many
We had very VERY limited contact during shareholders life. Last time any was seen was not long after the funeral. 

But one thing for certain is that I'm certainly not searching for them that's for sure!

Have sent one email, I may follow up with a complaint I may not, will see how I feel.

Shelldean

Just looked on freebmd.
I can identify seven, born 1932 to 1950.
So eldest could be 88 and youngest is 70.
The son who registered the death was born 1934, so if alive is 86.

xylophone

But isn't that flowchart wrong?

I had meant that they were sticking to the "small estate"/intestacy procedure described in the box - I agree with your point about the flow chart arrows/over under £20,000.

In terms of "next of kin", see links in my previous.

Had the shareholding been know about at the time of the shareholder's death, his widow could quite legitimately have described herself as "next of kin" and indeed would have had the primary right to apply for letters of administration had these been necessary to deal with her husband's estate.

In terms of who has the right to the shares now, since on her husband's death the widow had a right to a statutory legacy  as below

 The Intestacy Laws for Deaths prior to 1st February 2009 

The law differentiates between those who die intestate with children and those who die intestate without leaving children. 

If the deceased had children, the surviving spouse or civil partner receives: 

1. The deceased’s personal possessions 

2. £125,000 (this is known as the statutory legacy) 

3. A life interest in half of the remainder of the estate.................

you said that she received barely £10,000, ( and the value of the shareholding is well below £115,000, then surely the shares now belong to the widow's heirs?

xylophone

I can identify seven, born 1932 to 1950.
So eldest could be 88 and youngest is 70.

You said that the surname is common but if any of the siblings were girls, you might (just for interest) check for marriages - one of them might have ended up as a Mrs Expialidocious and be easy to trace .............

Manxman_in_exile

xylophone said:

you said that she received barely £10,000, ( and the value of the shareholding is well below £115,000, then surely the shares now belong to the widow's heirs?

I think Equiniti are saying that, as it stands at the moment, the shares are not part of the widow's estate because she did not apply for letters of administration re her husband before she died, and that the only people entitled to deal with them now that she is dead are the husband's children or grandchildren.

Whether that is legally correct or just Equiniti's interpretation of the legal position (on which they've based their internal procedures*), I don't know.  They appear to be saying that in the absence of letters of administration, only blood relatives can deal with the shares.

Seems bonkers to me, but I'd presume Equiniti know what they're doing.  (Is that stupid of me?)

*I'm wondering if it is just an internal procedure (like banks deciding how much they'll risk handing over without probate) which could be overridden by someone with common sense.  Or maybe it is the law

xylophone

Whether that is legally correct or just Equiniti's interpretation of the legal position (on which they've based their internal procedures*), I don't know.  

It is not clear - however, I don't think that Equiniti is helping to clarify the situation - a complaint to the Ombudsman might?

Manxman_in_exile

Quite.  Even if Equiniti are correct in this matter, they could have made it a lot easier for the OP's husband (and themselves) by giving a more reasoned explantion of their position in the first place.

And I often read on these pages of situations where banks hand over amounts of £20k (and more?) on mere production of a death certificate, never mind probate.  AIUI the shares here are worth not a lot.  Can't Equiniti draft an indemnity for the OP's husband to give in the event that a better NoK surfaces?

Maybe the intestacy rules really leave Equiniti no choice, but if so I'm surprised this problem isn't more widely known