Intestacy rules, can they be challenged?

Malthusian

Keep_pedalling said:

As the nearest living relations the OP and their sister both have the legal tight to administer the estate. 

They both have the legal right to apply for letters of administration - AIUI the sister hadn't.
If merely being the child of the deceased gave you the right to turn up and start withdrawing money then we wouldn't have letters of administration in the first place.
In the absence of letters of administration, the bank's idea that they can discharge their liability to their accountholder by paying the balance to someone completely different who has turned up with the death certificate relies entirely on "no harm no foul". Unfortunately harm has occurred. 
If the sister did have letters of administration, the bank are in the clear, and the only recourse is against the sister for maladministering 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.

None of which is the OP's problem, nor does it allow the bank to pay out their customers' funds to other people in the hope they might have the right to the money, and then unilaterally transfer the risk of their own gamble onto the accountholder.
If the OP holds the bank liable, it will just add a small amount to the millions a year they already pay out for cloned cards, identity fraud, push payment scams, or any other case where someone withdraws a customer's money they don't have the right to, and the bank has to compensate the accountholder. 

Malthusian

p00hsticks said:

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.

That statement only gives the bank a stronger case when the bank pursues the individual for the bank's loss. It does not give the bank the right to unilaterally transfer the risk from its gamble (paying out the estate's money to someone without a legal right to the funds) on to the estate.
In this case there should be no need for the bank to pursue the sister anyway; the loss caused by the bank is half of the balance and the sister may as well keep the half she was actually entitled to.

cc1901

Just received notification from court…”The defence does not amount to a defence in law. Order required to strike out and enter judgment.”

cc1901

Thanks for all your advice and comments - I should have the count court judgment in my favour this week.
However, I’m concerned she won’t pay. I’ve done some research into ways to enforce the judgement- any advice please? Third party order? Bailiffs? She doesn’t work so attachment of earnings not suitable.

Sea_Shell

cc1901 said:

Thanks for all your advice and comments - I should have the count court judgment in my favour this week.
However, I’m concerned she won’t pay. I’ve done some research into ways to enforce the judgement- any advice please? Third party order? Bailiffs? She doesn’t work so attachment of earnings not suitable.

Do you think she actually still HAS the money, or can raise it to pay?

cc1901

I hope so - she may pay after she receives the CCJ - but just preparing for possible next steps and any experience/advice in this area please.

uknick

You might find you've won the battle but lost the war.  I hope not.

Keep_pedalling

cc1901 said:

Thanks for all your advice and comments - I should have the count court judgement in my favour this week.
However, I’m concerned she won’t pay. I’ve done some research into ways to enforce the judgement- any advice please? Third party order? Bailiffs? She doesn’t work so attachment of earnings not suitable.

Is she a home owner?

Keep_pedalling

Malthusian said:

Keep_pedalling said:

As the nearest living relations the OP and their sister both have the legal tight to administer the estate. 

They both have the legal right to apply for letters of administration - AIUI the sister hadn't.
If merely being the child of the deceased gave you the right to turn up and start withdrawing money then we wouldn't have letters of administration in the first place.
In the absence of letters of administration, the bank's idea that they can discharge their liability to their accountholder by paying the balance to someone completely different who has turned up with the death certificate relies entirely on "no harm no foul". Unfortunately harm has occurred. 
If the sister did have letters of administration, the bank are in the clear, and the only recourse is against the sister for maladministering 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.

None of which is the OP's problem, nor does it allow the bank to pay out their customers' funds to other people in the hope they might have the right to the money, and then unilaterally transfer the risk of their own gamble onto the accountholder.
If the OP holds the bank liable, it will just add a small amount to the millions a year they already pay out for cloned cards, identity fraud, push payment scams, or any other case where someone withdraws a customer's money they don't have the right to, and the bank has to compensate the accountholder. 

So what you are saying is that banks should only pay out to someone holding LOA or probate. If that was the case 100s thousands of administrators would be forced into applying for probate / LOA every year that don’t currently need to. Even then it does not prevent a situation like this occurring. 

LOA / Probate has never been an absolute requirement for small estates and in those cases there has be be a method for the administrators to release the cash to distribute it. This is not a case of the bank releasing the money to someone who it should not be released to, but that person failing to distribute it as per the laws of intestacy.

cc1901

No she is not a homeowner and has never had a job…hoping I can still get the money, it’s not a fortune but most going to my children.
I was on hold to citizens advice yesterday for over and hour and then it cut off to get advice re enforcing the judgment