Intestacy rules, can they be challenged?

Keep_pedalling

TBagpuss said:

IT's also possible that you you could make a claim against the bank for releasing the funds to her without (one assumes) ny proof that she was the executor or administrator . Normally, the ban would have had her sign a form of indemnity stating that she was entitled to the money / was the administrator. You might be able to get your share back from the bank and they can then pursue her to recover it from her (they probably won't get it as it sounds as though there is a strong chance she's already spent it, but they have much bigger resources than you to pursue it 

Of course, it's unfiar - if you are reimbursed by the bank and they don't recover the money from her, then she will have ended up with more than you, but at least you would not be out of pocket.

Have you made a complaint to the bank? IF not., i would suggest that you do so, 

The bank have don’t nothing wrong. With small estates that do not require letters of administration or probate they will pay out to a spouse or child on production of a death certificate and proof of ID. The OP or his sister were entitled to do this, the problem rests solely with the sister not distributing the estate as she is duty bound to do having intermeddled with the estate.  

TBagpuss

Keep_pedalling said:

TBagpuss said:

IT's also possible that you you could make a claim against the bank for releasing the funds to her without (one assumes) ny proof that she was the executor or administrator . Normally, the ban would have had her sign a form of indemnity stating that she was entitled to the money / was the administrator. You might be able to get your share back from the bank and they can then pursue her to recover it from her (they probably won't get it as it sounds as though there is a strong chance she's already spent it, but they have much bigger resources than you to pursue it 

Of course, it's unfair - if you are reimbursed by the bank and they don't recover the money from her, then she will have ended up with more than you, but at least you would not be out of pocket.

Have you made a complaint to the bank? IF not., i would suggest that you do so, 

The bank have don’t nothing wrong. With small estates that do not require letters of administration or probate they will pay out to a spouse or child on production of a death certificate and proof of ID. The OP or his sister were entitled to do this, the problem rests solely with the sister not distributing the estate as she is duty bound to do having intermeddled with the estate.  

I'm fully aware of the process. That doesn't mean OP can't make a complaint. 

The forms the banks require from the spouse / child / executor explicitly  state that that person making the claim is declaring that they are entitled to the funds and will indemnify the bank against any claims or losses. having a form like that, or having someone produce a death certificate, doesn't absolve the bank of it's responsibilities or the need for them to check the information. 

In this case,  the sister was not entitled to the funds, and while the bank may have followed their normal procedures (or may not, banks are often very inconsistent as staff aren't always trained) , they nevertheless paid out the funds to someone who was not entitled to them.

That is not OPs fault and he has grounds to make a complaint against the bank, as they failed to endure that they  paid the funds to the correct person and OP has suffered a loss as a result. And unlike OPs sister, who may well have spent the money, the bank could undoubtable afford £5K. OP has absolutely nothing to lose by making a complaint against the bank. 

There is nothing to stop OP from making a complaint against the bank. It may or may not succeed, but that's no reason not to make it. certainly in cases I've seen, the bank has paid out and then pursued the person who signed the indemnity 

cc1901

I tried the bank - I was the one to register dads passing and got the death certificate- as she gave them the death certificate and had an account with the same bank as dad they didn’t need anything else. There is a disclaimer they read to you which says that you are responsible for distributing the funds which you agree to - she broke this disclaimer but the bank can’t do anything about that apparently…

Pipthecat

https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will

My sister was widowed a couple of years ago.  Her father-in-law has recently died.  Am I correct in assuming that she would not inherit anything via Intestacy rules?   My reading of the rules are that her late husbands share would go to his brother as my sister and her husband did not have any children.

Spendless

Pipthecat said:

https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will

My sister was widowed a couple of years ago.  Her father-in-law has recently died.  Am I correct in assuming that she would not inherit anything via Intestacy rules?   My reading of the rules are that her late husbands share would go to his brother as my sister and her husband did not have any children.

That's correct. Her FIL's estate is shared between his children, if one of his children has died before him and not had any children themselves even from a previous relationship and including any adopted children then FIL's estate goes to his  own surviving children. 

cc1901

Managed to speak to the money court service and as mediation failed it will go to a judge to raise a directions order- this will determine where the case goes, to another service (this could be the money claims centre or county court money centre I was told) or which county court it will go to.
I was going the judge would review, acknowledge the rules of intestacy had been broken and rule before going to court. 

It takes a couple of weeks for the direction order….

Malthusian

I agree with TBagpuss that a complaint to the bank is worth trying. The worst that can happen is the Financial Ombudsman eventually rules they have done nothing wrong, in which case you have lost nothing other than time.
I am guessing the sister did not have letters of administration? In which case she had no legal basis to receive the estate's money. The bank chanced their arm to try and save themselves some paperwork, and the chance hasn't paid off. They have lost the estate's money and should pay up, just as they would if a random fraudster had impersonated dad and successfully persuaded them to transfer his money to themselves. That is the basis on which I would make the complaint. 
The fact that lots of banks would have chanced their arm under these circumstances doesn't mean they can unilaterally transfer the risk of their own gamble on to you.

cc1901

Thanks I can’t make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman until I make one to the bank - I’ve done that now….see what happens

Keep_pedalling

Malthusian said:

I agree with TBagpuss that a complaint to the bank is worth trying. The worst that can happen is the Financial Ombudsman eventually rules they have done nothing wrong, in which case you have lost nothing other than time.
I am guessing the sister did not have letters of administration? In which case she had no legal basis to receive the estate's money. The bank chanced their arm to try and save themselves some paperwork, and the chance hasn't paid off. They have lost the estate's money and should pay up, just as they would if a random fraudster had impersonated dad and successfully persuaded them to transfer his money to themselves. That is the basis on which I would make the complaint. 
The fact that lots of banks would have chanced their arm under these circumstances doesn't mean they can unilaterally transfer the risk of their own gamble on to you.

As the nearest living relations the OP and their sister both have the legal tight to administer the estate. If banks are going to be held responsible for the actions of every rouge administrator for non- probate estate then they will simply insist on probate or LOA for every single account holder no matter how small it is, which will crash the already stretched probate service and push the time for winding up small estates from a few weeks to a year plus.

I don’t think the bank has any more work to do whether probate / LOA are in place or not, but it becomes a much harder for the administrators of the 100s of thousands of estates that are currently dealt with without probate each year if they now have apply for it.

p00hsticks

Keep_pedalling said:

Malthusian said:

I agree with TBagpuss that a complaint to the bank is worth trying. The worst that can happen is the Financial Ombudsman eventually rules they have done nothing wrong, in which case you have lost nothing other than time.
I am guessing the sister did not have letters of administration? In which case she had no legal basis to receive the estate's money. The bank chanced their arm to try and save themselves some paperwork, and the chance hasn't paid off. They have lost the estate's money and should pay up, just as they would if a random fraudster had impersonated dad and successfully persuaded them to transfer his money to themselves. That is the basis on which I would make the complaint. 
The fact that lots of banks would have chanced their arm under these circumstances doesn't mean they can unilaterally transfer the risk of their own gamble on to you.

As the nearest living relations the OP and their sister both have the legal tight to administer the estate. If banks are going to be held responsible for the actions of every rouge administrator for non- probate estate then they will simply insist on probate or LOA for every single account holder no matter how small it is, which will crash the already stretched probate service and push the time for winding up small estates from a few weeks to a year plus.

There is an intermediate position. In such cases they can - and should - at least be insisting on the person claiming the money providing a sworn statement signed by a solicitor to say that they are entitled to the money, which would protect the banks position and switch the onus squarely onto the individual. This is what my other half had to do to get the few thousand pounds from his mother's account.