Squatters using utilities

Flugelhorn

Kimlisa1 said:

Flugelhorn said:

are you both administrators for the estate or is it just you ?

We are both able to apply for LoA but there is a mutual caveat in place until this is sorted 

oh right - of course, you mentioned about the caveat 

RAS

Another instance where it would really help to keep everything to one thread as Flugelhorn has to ask question covered in your other thread.

In the absence of a will, and with mutual caveats in place, the logical thing is to talk to your own lawyer and check whether simply informing the utility supplier of the names of the occupiers can be done without undermining your legal case.

There are folk here who have used and who have fought caveats, but drip feeding info means they won't see the required messages in first your first post.

And do check the correct terms; it appears that the nephews have consent from your brother? Until you have sole administration, he can do that so they are not squatters. Terming them that wrecks your credibility.

BreakfastTea18

RAS said:

Another instance where it would really help to keep everything to one thread as Flugelhorn has to ask question covered in your other thread.

In the absence of a will, and with mutual caveats in place, the logical thing is to talk to your own lawyer and check whether simply informing the utility supplier of the names of the occupiers can be done without undermining your legal case.

There are folk here who have used and who have fought caveats, but drip feeding info means they won't see the required messages in first your first post.

And do check the correct terms; it appears that the nephews have consent from your brother? Until you have sole administration, he can do that so they are not squatters. Terming them that wrecks your credibility.

Thanks RAS, this is contrary to what my solicitor has advised. If this was the case I could give permission for anyone to go and occupy the property, in fact one of my children is between homes, I could, according to your theory, allow him to live in the property rent free, and this would be at the objection of my brother. 

Just to be clear, they are using a domestic supply from a property they have no right to occupy , for business purposes.

I'd suggest that was theft but what do I know. I'm just trying to do the right thing here. 

BreakfastTea18

I've informed the utility suppliers, nothing can be done at supply by company, only at source by the network. The water cannot be disconnected. 

BreakfastTea18

Trying not to drip feed but there is a lot of relevant info. Brother has now fenced off a significan part of the domestic garden with industrial fencing excluding me from garden buildings etc. He has also destroyed a boundary hedge .
He does not have the right to do this any more than I do. 

It is complicated, I respect that but I'm at a loss to understand why he thinks he has any more say in the administration of the estate than I do. 

p00hsticks

Kimlisa1 said:

RAS said:

Another instance where it would really help to keep everything to one thread as Flugelhorn has to ask question covered in your other thread.

In the absence of a will, and with mutual caveats in place, the logical thing is to talk to your own lawyer and check whether simply informing the utility supplier of the names of the occupiers can be done without undermining your legal case.

There are folk here who have used and who have fought caveats, but drip feeding info means they won't see the required messages in first your first post.

And do check the correct terms; it appears that the nephews have consent from your brother? Until you have sole administration, he can do that so they are not squatters. Terming them that wrecks your credibility.

Thanks RAS, this is contrary to what my solicitor has advised. If this was the case I could give permission for anyone to go and occupy the property, in fact one of my children is between homes, I could, according to your theory, allow him to live in the property rent free, and this would be at the objection of my brother. 

Unless I've mis-understood, I don't think that those two situations are comparable. In one, your late mother gave permission before her death for the land owned by her to be used as it is by who it is (I think you have said in a previous post something along the lines of your mother effectively being the landlord even though no rent was paid).
If it was a property with rent-paying tenants, I don't believe that the tenancy would automatically be voided on the death of the landlord,  and although I'm no expert the same may well be true here.

That's a very different scenario to allowing people to move in only after the owners death ,especially as you don't currently have LoA. 

RAS

If you read the posts on here, there are numerous instances when a family member legitimately occupies the deceased's house whilst probate is obtained. That's not an issue if agreed by an executor, and usually means that they pay for CT and utilities but not necessarily building insurance. Needs to be done in such a way as to not create a tenancy but can be hugely beneficial if the incumbent helps keep the place warm and secure and does a chunk of the house clearance.

It becomes a problem if one executor is using this as a way of obstructing sale or in the hope of paying a reduced price to buy out other beneficiaries.

BreakfastTea18

p00hsticks said:

Kimlisa1 said:

RAS said:

Another instance where it would really help to keep everything to one thread as Flugelhorn has to ask question covered in your other thread.

In the absence of a will, and with mutual caveats in place, the logical thing is to talk to your own lawyer and check whether simply informing the utility supplier of the names of the occupiers can be done without undermining your legal case.

There are folk here who have used and who have fought caveats, but drip feeding info means they won't see the required messages in first your first post.

And do check the correct terms; it appears that the nephews have consent from your brother? Until you have sole administration, he can do that so they are not squatters. Terming them that wrecks your credibility.

Thanks RAS, this is contrary to what my solicitor has advised. If this was the case I could give permission for anyone to go and occupy the property, in fact one of my children is between homes, I could, according to your theory, allow him to live in the property rent free, and this would be at the objection of my brother. 

Unless I've mis-understood, I don't think that those two situations are comparable. In one, your late mother gave permission before her death for the land owned by her to be used as it is by who it is (I think you have said in a previous post something along the lines of your mother effectively being the landlord even though no rent was paid).
If it was a property with rent-paying tenants, I don't believe that the tenancy would automatically be voided on the death of the landlord,  and although I'm no expert the same may well be true here.

That's a very different scenario to allowing people to move in only after the owners death ,especially as you don't currently have LoA. 

Thanks for your input, permission given needs to be examined, particularly towards the end of her life, it became more of a 'we'll do what we like'  situation.

She had lost capacity at the end of her life. There were things she objected to, like use of her utilities but she became too powerless and unwell to do anything. 

The point is, my brother has never had a say in who does and doesn't use the land, in any way more than I've had any legal say. 

If a  tenancy has been created, presumably it can be terminated. At the very least, I'd expect a business to pay a market rent to the estate to maximise its income. Business rates are a matter for the LA and they are investigating.

The current use of the land is by a Ltd Company rather than an individual as a sole trader. 

BreakfastTea18

RAS said:

If you read the posts on here, there
 are numerous instances when a family member legitimately occupies the deceased's house whilst probate is obtained. That's not an issue if agreed by an executor, and usually means that they pay for CT and utilities but not necessarily building insurance. Needs to be done in such a way as to not create a tenancy but can be hugely beneficial if the incumbent helps keep the place warm and secure and does a chunk of the house clearance.

It becomes a problem if one executor is using this as a way of obstructing sale or in the hope of paying a reduced price to buy out other beneficiaries.

That does feel much more like what is happening.

Keeping the place warm is pointless, it is in such bad condition it will need major work, probably easier to pull down. Property is  180 years old.

The damp is horrendous, with plaster falling off the walls in chunks  and no amount of keeping it warm will resolve that unfortunately. Some of the electrical wiring is pre 1960 and in very poor condition. 

The full council tax payable, band E,  will outstrip any benefit of keeping it warm but a sensible suggestion in general. 

lincroft1710

Kimlisa1 said:

Kimlisa1 said:

Devongardener said:

You need to consider whether your brother has entered into any sort of tenancy arrangement with these people, formal or not.  If he has you might be on uncertain ground if you cut off the electricity supply.   Do you know for sure that they are not paying rent to your brother? Are they living there or just running a business?

He hasn't, it wasn't his to give as he doesn't nor ever has owned the land in question. There was an informal agreement that my late mum had, now ceased upon her death. 
Title is 100% in favour of my mother, in fact it still has my late Father on the deeds too. Adverse possession is not in the equation as permission was always given. 

Devongardener said:

You need to consider whether your brother has entered into any sort of tenancy arrangement with these people, formal or not.  If he has you might be on uncertain ground if you cut off the electricity supply.   Do you know for sure that they are not paying rent to your brother? Are they living there or just running a business?

Land didn't come to the attention of Business Rates until a fortnight ago. There may well be a large backdated amount to pay.

 Unfortunately much went on under the radar of relevant authorities, and still does. 

The furthest any rating assessment can be backdated is 1 April 2023 as that is when the current Non Domestic Valuation List came into force. If the Rateable Value is £12,000 or less and it is the sole premises of that business then there is 100% rates relief