Bequests to charities - have we done the right thing?

madbadrob

Charities are notorious for chasing executors of wills where they are named as beneficiaries of a sum whether that be fixed amount or a percentage.  Somehow or other they get informed they are included in a will and they then become like sharks.  Whilst not exactly what is being asked a quick read of this https://www.myerssolicitors.co.uk/supreme-court-supports-wishes-of-lady-who-left-everything-to-charity-in-her-will/ shows how a charity will chase the money they are left.  A synopsis.  MOther dies leaving everything to charity and explainig why in the will.  Daughter livingh on benefits makes a claim under inheritance act as no reasonable financial provision had been made for her.  The court agreed and ordered 50k be paid to the daughter.  Greedy daughter not happy appeals saying it should be more.  Appeal court agreed ordered 163k.  CHarities disagreed and took the case to the supreme court which overturned both earlier decisions.  

Rob

madbadrob

This is another one where the RSPCA received a lot of bad publicity https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/analysis-far-charities-go-pursue-disputed-legacies/finance/article/946474  This was presented on this site back in 2014  see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5003589/charities-chasing-legacies-in-wills

Ive found as well how charities are able to find out whats left them in wills.  Smee and Ford are a company that have been doing just this for over 100 years.  Google to read abnout them

ROb

Marcon

madbadrob said:

Ive found as well how charities are able to find out whats left them in wills.  Smee and Ford are a company that have been doing just this for over 100 years.  Google to read abnout them

ROb

Nothing secret or underhand about what they do. The information is in the public domain and they are perfectly entitled to provide a notification service (as do some other entities).

Marcon

madbadrob said:

Charities are notorious for chasing executors of wills where they are named as beneficiaries of a sum whether that be fixed amount or a percentage.  Somehow or other they get informed they are included in a will and they then become like sharks.  Whilst not exactly what is being asked a quick read of this https://www.myerssolicitors.co.uk/supreme-court-supports-wishes-of-lady-who-left-everything-to-charity-in-her-will/ shows how a charity will chase the money they are left.  A synopsis.  MOther dies leaving everything to charity and explainig why in the will.  Daughter livingh on benefits makes a claim under inheritance act as no reasonable financial provision had been made for her.  The court agreed and ordered 50k be paid to the daughter.  Greedy daughter not happy appeals saying it should be more.  Appeal court agreed ordered 163k.  CHarities disagreed and took the case to the supreme court which overturned both earlier decisions.  

Rob

Rightly so when the whole lot has been left to them with an explanation of why that's the case.

Really not sure what point you are trying to make?

Savvy_Sue

Spendless said:

I feel same way tbh though I have also read (on here) that it tends to be the bigger charities who do this and smaller ones don't always know anything about anything left to them till they receive the money.

If you can afford it then you can make charity donations with what you have during your lifetime and keep them out of your wills altogether (the approach I am taking) 

Indeed, working for a small local charity I remember two bequests of which we knew nothing until they arrived! 

The best known horror story I'm aware of is the one to which we have a link, but there have been others. And as already stated, charity trustees do have a duty to ensure they receive monies to which they are entitled.

The idea of leaving a percentage to be distributed at the discretion of the executors seems sensible - and if it's going to affect the amount of IHT due then there's a definite incentive to make the donations as outlined, because it's likely HMRC will want to see that they were indeed made!

madbadrob

Marcon said:

madbadrob said:

Charities are notorious for chasing executors of wills where they are named as beneficiaries of a sum whether that be fixed amount or a percentage.  Somehow or other they get informed they are included in a will and they then become like sharks.  Whilst not exactly what is being asked a quick read of this https://www.myerssolicitors.co.uk/supreme-court-supports-wishes-of-lady-who-left-everything-to-charity-in-her-will/ shows how a charity will chase the money they are left.  A synopsis.  MOther dies leaving everything to charity and explainig why in the will.  Daughter livingh on benefits makes a claim under inheritance act as no reasonable financial provision had been made for her.  The court agreed and ordered 50k be paid to the daughter.  Greedy daughter not happy appeals saying it should be more.  Appeal court agreed ordered 163k.  CHarities disagreed and took the case to the supreme court which overturned both earlier decisions.  

Rob

Rightly so when the whole lot has been left to them with an explanation of why that's the case.

Really not sure what point you are trying to make?

Whether they were right to or not is immaterial.  They litigated when they could have said ok we will take 350K.  The rights and wrongs are immaterial in my point and I hope that is now clearer

poppystar

madbadrob said:

Marcon said:

madbadrob said:

Charities are notorious for chasing executors of wills where they are named as beneficiaries of a sum whether that be fixed amount or a percentage.  Somehow or other they get informed they are included in a will and they then become like sharks.  Whilst not exactly what is being asked a quick read of this https://www.myerssolicitors.co.uk/supreme-court-supports-wishes-of-lady-who-left-everything-to-charity-in-her-will/ shows how a charity will chase the money they are left.  A synopsis.  MOther dies leaving everything to charity and explainig why in the will.  Daughter livingh on benefits makes a claim under inheritance act as no reasonable financial provision had been made for her.  The court agreed and ordered 50k be paid to the daughter.  Greedy daughter not happy appeals saying it should be more.  Appeal court agreed ordered 163k.  CHarities disagreed and took the case to the supreme court which overturned both earlier decisions.  

Rob

Rightly so when the whole lot has been left to them with an explanation of why that's the case.

Really not sure what point you are trying to make?

Whether they were right to or not is immaterial.  They litigated when they could have said ok we will take 350K.  The rights and wrongs are immaterial in my point and I hope that is now clearer

But charity employees/ board members are not in a position to just let bequests fail or to reduce them when there is a clear instruction in the Will that the money is to go to the charity. Their role is to ensure the charity receives what it is due, anything else would be a failure to perform their duties and might leave them personally responsible for the loss. 

poseidon1

Despite considerable objections on this forum to the concept of discretionary will trusts, this might be one of the few areas of suitability, when accompanied by an appropriate letter of wishes.

There are special provisions which ensure that as long as the trust property is distributed within 2 years of death, the significant tax and compliance obligations normally attaching to discretionary trusts will not apply.

Two years should be ample time for trustees to figure out if they can fairly balance gifts to charities against expectations of non exempt beneficiaries given the quantum of assets remaining on death. The EOW could provide for either a percentage or a fixed sum to Charity and even provide an asset ceiling below which the potential charitable gifts fall away.

Of course one is then relying on the trustees to honorably discharging their duties, which might be a bit of a stretch if they or their family members stand to 'suffer' as a result  of excercising their discretion in favour of charities as set out in the EOW.  However, arguably the same care in choosing ones executors should apply in the case of Will trustees,

boingy

Personally I think you shouldn't pay too much attention to the horror stories on the net. They are the outliers, not the norm. A much bigger potential issue is where parents make several of their kids executors and those kids disagree or fall out during the process. Much better to nominate just one of them (the sensible one!) as the executor and then others as backup executors. Everyone thinks their kids will be fine in the role but once both parents have gone the ties that held the kids together can also go. I've seen this first hand. That's a much bigger risk than charities being overly pushy imo.