Communications mast application on deceased land

Bugler77

Not sure if the is the correct area but here goes.
so we received a letter addressed to the personal representative of the deceased family member. It was had delivered and signed for giving us 28 days to respond. 

The letter was from a company representing a communications company and they are applying for first tier tribunal to install equipment on land that is in the name of the deceased for an initial 10 year lease for an annual pro rata sum

we have paid and checked with land registry  and it is all correct the details listed however the land cannot be sold on under the terms. 


We had no idea that the deceased had this land and it is also jointly held by two other named people also declared as deceased in the letter. We do not know any of these people.

I am an executive to the will of the deceased however this is where it gets a little more complicated. 

The deceaseds wife also passed away a matter of weeks ago so I assume as part of his estate that automatically passed on to her which again I am an executive of her will but not a beneficiary. I assume I am now responding on her behalf?  

Maybe it’s higher powers that have brought this to light considering he has owned the land since late 1980s and in a matter of weeks we would not have had access to the property that the letter was posted to. 

we are obviously going to get some legal advice but just wondering if anything like this has occurred with anyone else? 

Marcon

Bugler77 said:

Not sure if the is the correct area but here goes.
so we received a letter addressed to the personal representative of the deceased family member. It was had delivered and signed for giving us 28 days to respond. 

The letter was from a company representing a communications company and they are applying for first tier tribunal to install equipment on land that is in the name of the deceased for an initial 10 year lease for an annual pro rata sum

we have paid and checked with land registry  and it is all correct the details listed however the land cannot be sold on under the terms. 


We had no idea that the deceased had this land and it is also jointly held by two other named people also declared as deceased in the letter. We do not know any of these people.

I am an executive to the will of the deceased however this is where it gets a little more complicated. 

The deceaseds wife also passed away a matter of weeks ago so I assume as part of his estate that automatically passed on to her which again I am an executive of her will but not a beneficiary. I assume I am now responding on her behalf?  

Maybe it’s higher powers that have brought this to light considering he has owned the land since late 1980s and in a matter of weeks we would not have had access to the property that the letter was posted to. 

we are obviously going to get some legal advice but just wondering if anything like this has occurred with anyone else? 

There are regular posts which end with the same sentence you've used. Legal advice rather than other people's war stories are the only realistic way forward. I appreciate that sounds horribly unsympathetic when you are grappling with a problem which would have been both wholly unexpected and equally unwelcome, but there are always distinguishing facts which make other people's experiences unhelpful - either giving false reassurance, or making you needlessly anxious. Yes, this sort of thing will have happened to others; and yes, legal advice will help ensure it is sorted out with the minimum of fuss and distress.

user1977

Bugler77 said:

just wondering if anything like this has occurred with anyone else? 

Which part of "this"?

Finding out about "surprise" items of an estate (after you think you've already accounted for everything) does come up here from time to time (including where it's been inherited via another estate).

Telecoms leases are unlikely to be cropping up here (or anywhere else on the forum). Be aware that although the Telecoms Code means leases can be imposed on unwilling landlords, the landlords are entitled to have their (reasonable) legal and surveyors' costs covered by the tenant, so you should at least get any professional advice paid for by the telecoms company.

RAS

And, if you can, check out the other co-owners (probate might help) and liaise.
You may or may not be able to prevent this. It may or may not make any difference to the value of the property. You may or may not be able to obtain obtain a reasonable income from this.

Meantime you need specialist legal advice.

Bugler77

Marcon said:

Bugler77 said:

Not sure if the is the correct area but here goes.
so we received a letter addressed to the personal representative of the deceased family member. It was had delivered and signed for giving us 28 days to respond. 

The letter was from a company representing a communications company and they are applying for first tier tribunal to install equipment on land that is in the name of the deceased for an initial 10 year lease for an annual pro rata sum

we have paid and checked with land registry  and it is all correct the details listed however the land cannot be sold on under the terms. 


We had no idea that the deceased had this land and it is also jointly held by two other named people also declared as deceased in the letter. We do not know any of these people.

I am an executive to the will of the deceased however this is where it gets a little more complicated. 

The deceaseds wife also passed away a matter of weeks ago so I assume as part of his estate that automatically passed on to her which again I am an executive of her will but not a beneficiary. I assume I am now responding on her behalf?  

Maybe it’s higher powers that have brought this to light considering he has owned the land since late 1980s and in a matter of weeks we would not have had access to the property that the letter was posted to. 

we are obviously going to get some legal advice but just wondering if anything like this has occurred with anyone else? 

There are regular posts which end with the same sentence you've used. Legal advice rather than other people's war stories are the only realistic way forward. I appreciate that sounds horribly unsympathetic when you are grappling with a problem which would have been both wholly unexpected and equally unwelcome, but there are always distinguishing facts which make other people's experiences unhelpful - either giving false reassurance, or making you needlessly anxious. Yes, this sort of thing will have happened to others; and yes, legal advice will help ensure it is sorted out with the minimum of fuss and distress.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Just really a strange scenario that has occurred today and fortunately I’m not sympathetic.