Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How long is a reasonable delay in distributing a deceased's Estate
350 views
Skip to first unread message
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 16, 2016, 3:07:30 AM7/16/16
to
I'm the sole executor for the Estate. The Estates entire cash was left
to her grandson and grandaughter in the Will. No sooner had the will
been read and explained, than both were chomping at the bit to get
their hands on their inheritance money. I made it clear, they might not
get the money for months.
I was a named Executor along with two solicitors. Fearing they might
take all of the funds, I researched the possibilities of getting them
to Renounce, which suceeded. Then Probate, then dealing fairly
successfully in its outcome, with a DWP investigation, into the
Estate's value. Which came to an end almost 12 months after she had
passed away, paid them their claimed amount, followed by a letter from
them just one month ago, to say the DWP were now at last satisfied and
I could begin to distribute the Estate.
I had other bills to settle too, which I had been advised by the DWP
not to settle until their investigation and potential claim had been
settled. I then wrote the two beneficieries each a cheque for a touch
less than half the amount they were due, with a request that they
'allow time for the dust to settle', before I gave them their final
cheques - that was just four weeks ago.
Throughout these 12, now 13 months, I have suffered abuse and threats
from the two above mentioned benefactors, desperate to get their hands
on the money. Even a rather pressing insistance that I should leave the
home I had been left in the Will, to them in my own Will. Them also
consulting solicitors, to see if they might be able to claim the house
itself and put me out on the street.
I made it clear that they would not be left the house in my Will,
especially in the light of their conduct over the previous months. We
had raised the two, between us and in this home.
I had repeatedly asked them for their help to deal with the flood of
paperwork and was refused any help at all, just left to struggle on
alone with it - keep in mind how I had avoided most of the cash going
to pay solicitors bills, then perhaps a second time to the DWP.
Yesterday things kicked off again, just four weeks after I had been
cleared to begin distributing by the DWP' Claims dept.. The grandson
had promised some while ago to help me get some desperately needed work
done on the house - maybe a couple or so hours effort, a little
repayment in exchange for the inheritance money I had saved them both.
Due to his letting me down with such so many times before, I said I
would hand over his final cheque, just as soon as the work was done.
Very unstable grandson making threats and wanting his money NOW and
without any conditions on his getting it- I had sat on their money long
enough he said, gaining interest. I had it all the time in a zero
interest account, anticipating being able to pay out constantly during
those months of waiting. He suggested he had seen a solicitor who had
advised him that I was blackmailing him (?).
Today, the partner of the grandaughter rang, extremely angry and making
threats to pop round and give me a good thumping unless he/she was paid
up. My reply was to suggest he calm down, reconsider his threats or I
would call the police. I said I would not be pushed, or indeed respond
to threats, but they would have their cheque within the week.
I happened to bump into the grandson in the street just minutes later,
who had apparently kicked all this off yesterday with his sibling, who
apologised profusely for the muck he had stired up yet again. He has
spent his entire life doing similar, then having to apologise later.
The two cheques were already written out, as they had been for a while,
just needing dating and signing, which I did and gave him both
cheques.In handing them over, I made clear that because of the grief
they had caused me over the months since the passing, I no longer
wanted anything to do with either of them, that my Will will not leave
either anything at all. I had intended to leave them some funds, much
more than the £9K each they had just received.
So my question is this.... How long is a reasonable period to delay
after paying out is cleared, before actually paying out the
benefactors? Keep in mind I made an almost 50% payout almost
immediately and simply retain the other 50%, to allow the 'dust to
settle' a little.
Sorry if my submission rambles a little, its just that I wanted to get
a reasonable amount of detail in, not least because I am completely
astounded by the conduct of these two.
to her grandson and grandaughter in the Will. No sooner had the will
been read and explained, than both were chomping at the bit to get
their hands on their inheritance money. I made it clear, they might not
get the money for months.
I was a named Executor along with two solicitors. Fearing they might
take all of the funds, I researched the possibilities of getting them
to Renounce, which suceeded. Then Probate, then dealing fairly
successfully in its outcome, with a DWP investigation, into the
Estate's value. Which came to an end almost 12 months after she had
passed away, paid them their claimed amount, followed by a letter from
them just one month ago, to say the DWP were now at last satisfied and
I could begin to distribute the Estate.
I had other bills to settle too, which I had been advised by the DWP
not to settle until their investigation and potential claim had been
settled. I then wrote the two beneficieries each a cheque for a touch
less than half the amount they were due, with a request that they
'allow time for the dust to settle', before I gave them their final
cheques - that was just four weeks ago.
Throughout these 12, now 13 months, I have suffered abuse and threats
from the two above mentioned benefactors, desperate to get their hands
on the money. Even a rather pressing insistance that I should leave the
home I had been left in the Will, to them in my own Will. Them also
consulting solicitors, to see if they might be able to claim the house
itself and put me out on the street.
I made it clear that they would not be left the house in my Will,
especially in the light of their conduct over the previous months. We
had raised the two, between us and in this home.
I had repeatedly asked them for their help to deal with the flood of
paperwork and was refused any help at all, just left to struggle on
alone with it - keep in mind how I had avoided most of the cash going
to pay solicitors bills, then perhaps a second time to the DWP.
Yesterday things kicked off again, just four weeks after I had been
cleared to begin distributing by the DWP' Claims dept.. The grandson
had promised some while ago to help me get some desperately needed work
done on the house - maybe a couple or so hours effort, a little
repayment in exchange for the inheritance money I had saved them both.
Due to his letting me down with such so many times before, I said I
would hand over his final cheque, just as soon as the work was done.
Very unstable grandson making threats and wanting his money NOW and
without any conditions on his getting it- I had sat on their money long
enough he said, gaining interest. I had it all the time in a zero
interest account, anticipating being able to pay out constantly during
those months of waiting. He suggested he had seen a solicitor who had
advised him that I was blackmailing him (?).
Today, the partner of the grandaughter rang, extremely angry and making
threats to pop round and give me a good thumping unless he/she was paid
up. My reply was to suggest he calm down, reconsider his threats or I
would call the police. I said I would not be pushed, or indeed respond
to threats, but they would have their cheque within the week.
I happened to bump into the grandson in the street just minutes later,
who had apparently kicked all this off yesterday with his sibling, who
apologised profusely for the muck he had stired up yet again. He has
spent his entire life doing similar, then having to apologise later.
The two cheques were already written out, as they had been for a while,
just needing dating and signing, which I did and gave him both
cheques.In handing them over, I made clear that because of the grief
they had caused me over the months since the passing, I no longer
wanted anything to do with either of them, that my Will will not leave
either anything at all. I had intended to leave them some funds, much
more than the £9K each they had just received.
So my question is this.... How long is a reasonable period to delay
after paying out is cleared, before actually paying out the
benefactors? Keep in mind I made an almost 50% payout almost
immediately and simply retain the other 50%, to allow the 'dust to
settle' a little.
Sorry if my submission rambles a little, its just that I wanted to get
a reasonable amount of detail in, not least because I am completely
astounded by the conduct of these two.
Peter Crosland
Jul 16, 2016, 4:37:50 AM7/16/16
to
Once you have all the funds and all the debts are paid then you should
distribute the estate. Have covered yourself by publishing the statutory
notices?
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
GB
Jul 16, 2016, 4:38:24 AM7/16/16
to
Essentially, being an executor is a load of work and stress. Clearly,
these beneficiaries aren't grateful for your efforts. I suspect they
haven't a clue what's involved.
Clearly, the DWP investigation held things up. However, usually estates
are distributed inside a year. You should have been able to settle any
debts and make the final payments within a few weeks of getting DWP
clearance. The few weeks is just however long it reasonably takes you to
pay the outstanding bills and draw up final accounts. It's probably a
day or two's work, really.
It was wrong of you to expect any work done to your house as a condition
of issuing the final cheques. Understandable, but wrong. Of course, you
knew that all along. The lad's solicitor was right.
In hindsight, do you regret asking the solicitors to resign?
Robin
Jul 16, 2016, 4:39:03 AM7/16/16
to
On 16/07/2016 00:57, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry if my submission rambles a little, its just that I wanted to get
> a reasonable amount of detail in, not least because I am completely
> astounded by the conduct of these two.
>
It is of course you who are owed apologies - and more - from the
grandson and granddaughter. But they clearly have no idea.
As regards how long is reasonable to administer an estate, the only
honest answer is "it all depends". You found how long it can take to
resolve issues with DWP. If the deceased's tax affairs were complex
and/or not up to date it can easily take the same or longer to finish
dealing with HMRC. And as for claims on the estate, arguments between
family members about the will...
The risk of having to deal with such people in the family is one of the
arguments for paying a professional to administer an estate or help do
so. You could indeed have handed the whole thing over to a solicitor to
finish and told the ungrateful wretches that they had just cost
themselves several thousand pounds. But you acted in their best
interests despite them.
And as I think I said before, I hope you treated yourself for all your
work on this - even though the ungrateful wretches did not keep their
promise to reward you for all your work.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 16, 2016, 7:40:31 AM7/16/16
to
Robin a écrit :
close, that they might like to make a contribution to me for some of
the stress, effort and money I had spent over the months to resolve it,
plus the money I had laid out of my own money whilst things came to a
sucessfull end.
They each offered me a contribution of £500. It didn't come close to
covering it, or what I had saved them, but I accepted it.
> And as I think I said before, I hope you treated yourself for all your work
> on this - even though the ungrateful wretches did not keep their promise to
> reward you for all your work.
Well, not entirely true - I suggested when it was obviously coming to a
> on this - even though the ungrateful wretches did not keep their promise to
> reward you for all your work.
close, that they might like to make a contribution to me for some of
the stress, effort and money I had spent over the months to resolve it,
plus the money I had laid out of my own money whilst things came to a
sucessfull end.
They each offered me a contribution of £500. It didn't come close to
covering it, or what I had saved them, but I accepted it.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 16, 2016, 7:41:22 AM7/16/16
to
GB a écrit :
happily have gone through the processes again.
Knowing what I now know in hindsight about their conduct, I would have
left it to the solicitors and let them claim all the Estate cash for
their fees.
The actual result for the kids 'was a very satisfactory one
financially'. I managed very successfully to maximumise what each of
them got.
> In hindsight, do you regret asking the solicitors to resign?
Yes, and no. Had the kids not conducted themselves as they did, I would
happily have gone through the processes again.
Knowing what I now know in hindsight about their conduct, I would have
left it to the solicitors and let them claim all the Estate cash for
their fees.
The actual result for the kids 'was a very satisfactory one
financially'. I managed very successfully to maximumise what each of
them got.
steve robinson
Jul 16, 2016, 9:07:01 AM7/16/16
to
made were probably on the basis of leverage applied if you want your
money.
If i were the grandchildren i would have pursued the op far earlier ,
if veiled threats were made .
Robin
Jul 16, 2016, 9:39:38 AM7/16/16
to
> If i were the grandchildren i would have pursued the op far earlier ,
> if veiled threats were made .
>
debt owed to them on 3 June. So I can't see how "far earlier" can have
been before that.
As for threats made by Harry, naturally I agree he should not have made
them but AFAICS he did so only yesterday ("Yesterday things kicked off
again...I would hand over his final cheque, just as soon as the work was
done.") And then handed over the cheques today. Good luck to anyone who
tries to make something of that (criminal or civil) when taken with the
threats made to him by the beneficiaries.
The only substantive point I can see is that it would have been better
to have used an interest-bearing account. But with interest rates as
they were for the past year, and all income taxable, I'd argue the net
income would have been more than matched by the fees paid to the
accountant or solicitor as tax would have been the straw that broke the
camel's back :)
Peter Crosland
Jul 16, 2016, 9:51:05 AM7/16/16
to
solicitor.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 16, 2016, 11:23:34 AM7/16/16
to
Robin a écrit :
Friday 15th. I said, enough is enough and handed the cheques over
Friday afternoon 15th.
>
> The only substantive point I can see is that it would have been better to
> have used an interest-bearing account. But with interest rates as they were
> for the past year, and all income taxable, I'd argue the net income would
> have been more than matched by the fees paid to the accountant or solicitor
> as tax would have been the straw that broke the camel's back :)
True, had I known it would take this long to settle, but I expected the
settlement to be imminent for the entire time. The best I could have
done, would have only seen it earn round £38 worth of interest over the
9 month period that the cash was sat in the bank. It seemed to be not
worth the aggravation when there were still outstanding bills to be
paid, thus needed to be in a current account.
Besides which, you could say I lost interest from my own accounts, in
settling some of the early major bills from own accounts.
> As for threats made by Harry, naturally I agree he should not have made them
> but AFAICS he did so only yesterday ("Yesterday things kicked off again...I
> would hand over his final cheque, just as soon as the work was done.") And
> then handed over the cheques today. Good luck to anyone who tries to make
> something of that (criminal or civil) when taken with the threats made to him
> by the beneficiaries.
'Yesterday', was Thursday 14th, things kicked of Thursday 14th and
> but AFAICS he did so only yesterday ("Yesterday things kicked off again...I
> would hand over his final cheque, just as soon as the work was done.") And
> then handed over the cheques today. Good luck to anyone who tries to make
> something of that (criminal or civil) when taken with the threats made to him
> by the beneficiaries.
Friday 15th. I said, enough is enough and handed the cheques over
Friday afternoon 15th.
>
> The only substantive point I can see is that it would have been better to
> have used an interest-bearing account. But with interest rates as they were
> for the past year, and all income taxable, I'd argue the net income would
> have been more than matched by the fees paid to the accountant or solicitor
> as tax would have been the straw that broke the camel's back :)
settlement to be imminent for the entire time. The best I could have
done, would have only seen it earn round £38 worth of interest over the
9 month period that the cash was sat in the bank. It seemed to be not
worth the aggravation when there were still outstanding bills to be
paid, thus needed to be in a current account.
Besides which, you could say I lost interest from my own accounts, in
settling some of the early major bills from own accounts.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 16, 2016, 11:23:59 AM7/16/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
> The Grandchildren are not obliged o do anything , and any promises
> made were probably on the basis of leverage applied if you want your
> money.
No, the promise of help was voluteered, long before I was freed to
begine distribution of the cash.
>
> If i were the grandchildren i would have pursued the op far earlier ,
> if veiled threats were made .
No, I simply used a carrot to try to have the promise fullfilled. Keep
in mind I was threatened numerous times over the past year with
physical violence and several times called a liar when trying to
explain what was happening and why the delays in paying out. They had
been invited to review the official letters and listen to my
explanations on progress, but chose generally not to get involved.
As said they are now both paid up in full and I have made it abundatly
clear they get nothing from my Will and my Will will be several times
the value. They have more than proven by their actions and deeds, that
they are not deserving.
>> But you acted in their best interests despite them.
Exactly right - despite their best efforts to derail me in my efforts.
> The Grandchildren are not obliged o do anything , and any promises
> made were probably on the basis of leverage applied if you want your
> money.
begine distribution of the cash.
>
> If i were the grandchildren i would have pursued the op far earlier ,
> if veiled threats were made .
in mind I was threatened numerous times over the past year with
physical violence and several times called a liar when trying to
explain what was happening and why the delays in paying out. They had
been invited to review the official letters and listen to my
explanations on progress, but chose generally not to get involved.
As said they are now both paid up in full and I have made it abundatly
clear they get nothing from my Will and my Will will be several times
the value. They have more than proven by their actions and deeds, that
they are not deserving.
Roger Hayter
Jul 16, 2016, 11:24:23 AM7/16/16
to
If so they would have wasted their money (and their inheritance in
legitimate defence costs) if they had done so while the DWP
investigation continued. It seems it has only been a few weeks since
this was completed and hardly yet an unreasonable delay.
I agree there is no justification for *any* delay once the paperwork has
been completed.
--
Roger Hayter
Robin
Jul 16, 2016, 11:28:29 AM7/16/16
to
would welcome the name and address of a solicitor who would administer
an estate - including the conveyance of a property and dealing with DWP
enquiries - for less than £1,000.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 16, 2016, 5:21:35 PM7/16/16
to
Roger Hayter a écrit :
Novemeber - thinking things were drawing to a close. The very next
morning arrived a letter from DWP saying not to distribute any of the
Estate until they had looked into things. I was in quite a panic, asked
them not to cash the cheques, but due to some mix up at the bank - they
didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced. Yet more
threats and abuse from them.
Wary of what had happened in November, I paid them a cheque for 50% as
soon as DWP comfirmed in writing in the mid June, that it was settled.
At the same time, I gave each a full printed statement listing all of
the assetts + all of the bills I had paid, all the calculation
including money I had already loaned them. I then said I would hold the
rest, just in case, until the 'dust had settled'. I was thinking of
around maybe 6 weeks delay until I made them their final payments.
Then I indicated I was ready to payout on last Thursday, but wanted the
promised work done first. Which triggered yet more threats of violence,
abuse and etc.. Really not nice or grateful people, their only interest
one of getting their mitts on the money.
> I agree there is no justification for *any* delay once the paperwork has
> been completed.
After Probate, I issued them each with a check for 50% back in
> been completed.
Novemeber - thinking things were drawing to a close. The very next
morning arrived a letter from DWP saying not to distribute any of the
Estate until they had looked into things. I was in quite a panic, asked
them not to cash the cheques, but due to some mix up at the bank - they
didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced. Yet more
threats and abuse from them.
Wary of what had happened in November, I paid them a cheque for 50% as
soon as DWP comfirmed in writing in the mid June, that it was settled.
At the same time, I gave each a full printed statement listing all of
the assetts + all of the bills I had paid, all the calculation
including money I had already loaned them. I then said I would hold the
rest, just in case, until the 'dust had settled'. I was thinking of
around maybe 6 weeks delay until I made them their final payments.
Then I indicated I was ready to payout on last Thursday, but wanted the
promised work done first. Which triggered yet more threats of violence,
abuse and etc.. Really not nice or grateful people, their only interest
one of getting their mitts on the money.
Flop
Jul 16, 2016, 5:22:49 PM7/16/16
to
On 16/07/2016 08:35, Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> The normal rule is that the executor has a year to deal with the estate.
> Once you have all the funds and all the debts are paid then you should
> distribute the estate. Have covered yourself by publishing the statutory
> notices?
>
>
I am not sure that this is the correct interpretation.
>
> The normal rule is that the executor has a year to deal with the estate.
> Once you have all the funds and all the debts are paid then you should
> distribute the estate. Have covered yourself by publishing the statutory
> notices?
>
>
The 'one year rule' is that a year is the minimum before beneficiaries
should start legal action.
http://www.blandy.co.uk/blog/the-executor-is-slow-in-paying-my-inheritance-what-can-i-do
"You may also have heard of “the Executor’s year”. This arises in two
ways. One of these provides that a personal representative is not bound
to distribute the estate before one year after the death. The other
provides that gifts of money normally attract interest only after one
year from the date of death."
--
Flop
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
steve robinson
Jul 16, 2016, 5:23:20 PM7/16/16
to
to control .
Their view of both yourself and promises are substantially different ,
they probably think you were out to diddle them , your mistake was
offloading the solicitors , even though you did it with good
intentions in the eyes of the grandchildren you were up to something
shifty
Unfortunately no good deed goes unpunished
steve robinson
Jul 16, 2016, 6:06:24 PM7/16/16
to
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 17:54:02 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Roger Hayter a écrit :
>> I agree there is no justification for *any* delay once the paperwork has
>> been completed.
>
>After Probate, I issued them each with a check for 50% back in
>Novemeber - thinking things were drawing to a close. The very next
>morning arrived a letter from DWP saying not to distribute any of the
>Estate until they had looked into things. I was in quite a panic, asked
>them not to cash the cheques, but due to some mix up at the bank - they
>didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced. Yet more
>threats and abuse from them.
A bounced cheque would have me getting shirty to Harry , infact i
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Roger Hayter a écrit :
>> I agree there is no justification for *any* delay once the paperwork has
>> been completed.
>
>After Probate, I issued them each with a check for 50% back in
>Novemeber - thinking things were drawing to a close. The very next
>morning arrived a letter from DWP saying not to distribute any of the
>Estate until they had looked into things. I was in quite a panic, asked
>them not to cash the cheques, but due to some mix up at the bank - they
>didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced. Yet more
>threats and abuse from them.
would have been straight round the solicitor's and sued you
>
>Wary of what had happened in November, I paid them a cheque for 50% as
>soon as DWP comfirmed in writing in the mid June, that it was settled.
>At the same time, I gave each a full printed statement listing all of
>the assetts + all of the bills I had paid, all the calculation
>including money I had already loaned them. I then said I would hold the
>rest, just in case, until the 'dust had settled'. I was thinking of
>around maybe 6 weeks delay until I made them their final payments.
the estate as per the accounts , if you screwed up its your fault
Again that would have got my gander up
>
>Then I indicated I was ready to payout on last Thursday, but wanted the
>promised work done first. Which triggered yet more threats of violence,
>abuse and etc.. Really not nice or grateful people, their only interest
>one of getting their mitts on the money.
, again i would have been straight down to the solicitors , you can't
do that . Harry its not your money , no wonder they threatened you
you .
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 17, 2016, 6:18:01 AM7/17/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
prevented by a letter from the DWP.
I invited them to become more involved, help me with the work, so they
knew what was going on, but they refused to even look at it or try to
understand why things had been delayed.
One of the two walks straight past my front door twice per day, yet
couldn't be bothered to pop in to see for her self what was happening
or offer any help. Both had an open invitation to drop in to check on
progress, read the letters and etc..
They just interpreted it as me sitting on their money with out any good
cause and gaining vaste amounts in interest.
> You can't do that , once probates granted your supposed to distribute
> the estate as per the accounts , if you screwed up its your fault
> Again that would have got my gander up
As said, once probate was granted I began paying out, but that was
> the estate as per the accounts , if you screwed up its your fault
> Again that would have got my gander up
prevented by a letter from the DWP.
I invited them to become more involved, help me with the work, so they
knew what was going on, but they refused to even look at it or try to
understand why things had been delayed.
One of the two walks straight past my front door twice per day, yet
couldn't be bothered to pop in to see for her self what was happening
or offer any help. Both had an open invitation to drop in to check on
progress, read the letters and etc..
They just interpreted it as me sitting on their money with out any good
cause and gaining vaste amounts in interest.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 17, 2016, 6:20:20 AM7/17/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
been taken out of their inheritence money.
> A bounced cheque would have me getting shirty to Harry , infact i
> would have been straight round the solicitor's and sued you
The cost of my defence, I understand, could then have legitimatly have
> would have been straight round the solicitor's and sued you
been taken out of their inheritence money.
Peter Crosland
Jul 17, 2016, 6:27:36 AM7/17/16
to
it would be you responsibility.
GB
Jul 17, 2016, 6:42:22 AM7/17/16
to
"due to some mix up at the bank - they
didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced."
That doesn't sound like Harry's negligence.
didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced."
steve robinson
Jul 17, 2016, 12:30:26 PM7/17/16
to
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:01:57 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>steve robinson a écrit :
>> You can't do that , once probates granted your supposed to distribute
>> the estate as per the accounts , if you screwed up its your fault
>> Again that would have got my gander up
>
>As said, once probate was granted I began paying out, but that was
>prevented by a letter from the DWP.
Doesn't work like that Harry , you should have dealt with the DWP
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>steve robinson a écrit :
>> You can't do that , once probates granted your supposed to distribute
>> the estate as per the accounts , if you screwed up its your fault
>> Again that would have got my gander up
>
>As said, once probate was granted I began paying out, but that was
>prevented by a letter from the DWP.
long before the end of probate , that's your mistake not the
beneficiaries
>
>I invited them to become more involved, help me with the work, so they
>knew what was going on, but they refused to even look at it or try to
>understand why things had been delayed.
Wise move on their part, in their position i would refuse too, its
>I invited them to become more involved, help me with the work, so they
>knew what was going on, but they refused to even look at it or try to
>understand why things had been delayed.
not the beneficiaries job to get 'involved' to help you out. Harry you
took on the role, you asked the solicitors not to be involved this
isn't the beneficiaries fault.
>
>One of the two walks straight past my front door twice per day, yet
>couldn't be bothered to pop in to see for her self what was happening
>or offer any help. Both had an open invitation to drop in to check on
>progress, read the letters and etc..
Why should she, its not her responsibility to help you, or visit you.
>One of the two walks straight past my front door twice per day, yet
>couldn't be bothered to pop in to see for her self what was happening
>or offer any help. Both had an open invitation to drop in to check on
>progress, read the letters and etc..
>
>They just interpreted it as me sitting on their money with out any good
>cause and gaining vaste amounts in interest.
position i would draw the same conclusion , it seems you bit off more
than you could chew.
steve robinson
Jul 17, 2016, 12:41:28 PM7/17/16
to
There is rarely a defence against a bounced cheque , as the cheque's
were issued by yourself prior to any letters arriving from the DWP
you may have had to honour the payments personally if funds were no
longer available. The mistake was yours you never exercised due
diligence. It matters not that the DWP asked you to stop that was
after the payments were issued.
If you had paid out incorrectly that's your mistake
steve robinson
Jul 17, 2016, 12:44:13 PM7/17/16
to
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:42:18 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
Issuing the cheque's was , the fact that Harry had not put
signatures in place is irrelevant
wrote:
signatures in place is irrelevant
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 17, 2016, 3:47:36 PM7/17/16
to
GB a écrit :
file from my dealing with the estate, which had two accounts with them.
They issued me with a cheque book years ago, I used it for the first
time to pay the funeral bill without a problem, then a while later
issued them with their cheques which bounced due to not having a copy
of my signature.
> "due to some mix up at the bank - they
> didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced."
>
> That doesn't sound like Harry's negligence.
It wasn't my negliglence. They had numerous copies of my signature on
> didn't have my signature on file, so the cheques were bounced."
>
> That doesn't sound like Harry's negligence.
file from my dealing with the estate, which had two accounts with them.
They issued me with a cheque book years ago, I used it for the first
time to pay the funeral bill without a problem, then a while later
issued them with their cheques which bounced due to not having a copy
of my signature.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 17, 2016, 3:48:57 PM7/17/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
in AFTER Probate has decided the total value of the Estate. Probate
then advises the DWP - that is according to the DWP themselves.
All of the relevant authorities including the DWP were informed of the
death, within 7 days of the death - that is how all of the incoming
payments from the DWP were stopped.
Sensibly and usefully, the DWP could have written to me at that early
stage and advised me to not distribute any of the Estate until they had
had a chance to look at the results of the Probate.
> Doesn't work like that Harry , you should have dealt with the DWP
> long before the end of probate , that's your mistake not the
> beneficiaries
Sorry but that is not what I was told - I was told the DWP only kicks
> long before the end of probate , that's your mistake not the
> beneficiaries
in AFTER Probate has decided the total value of the Estate. Probate
then advises the DWP - that is according to the DWP themselves.
All of the relevant authorities including the DWP were informed of the
death, within 7 days of the death - that is how all of the incoming
payments from the DWP were stopped.
Sensibly and usefully, the DWP could have written to me at that early
stage and advised me to not distribute any of the Estate until they had
had a chance to look at the results of the Probate.
Robin
Jul 17, 2016, 4:21:22 PM7/17/16
to
On 17/07/2016 17:30, steve robinson wrote:
<snip>
been distributed (and before the end of the period allowed by statutory
notices if they have been published) I cannot see what the administrator
can do but delay until DWP are satisfied. And I have seen in the past
many cases where DWP or IR/HMRC enquiries determined when probate could
be ended - so DWP or IR/HMRC were in fact "dealt with" not long before
the end of probate but days before.
If you are arguing that he should have placed statutory notices or
should have done so sooner you may be right but I have seen no evidence
one way or the other to suggest that would have achieved a better result.
And on a point of detail, I am not aware that such notices can be placed
before grant. Which is why DWP usually make contact in time.
<snip>
> Doesn't work like that Harry , you should have dealt with the DWP
> long before the end of probate , that's your mistake not the
> beneficiaries
>>
I am puzzled. If DWP contact the administrator before the funds have
> long before the end of probate , that's your mistake not the
> beneficiaries
>>
been distributed (and before the end of the period allowed by statutory
notices if they have been published) I cannot see what the administrator
can do but delay until DWP are satisfied. And I have seen in the past
many cases where DWP or IR/HMRC enquiries determined when probate could
be ended - so DWP or IR/HMRC were in fact "dealt with" not long before
the end of probate but days before.
If you are arguing that he should have placed statutory notices or
should have done so sooner you may be right but I have seen no evidence
one way or the other to suggest that would have achieved a better result.
And on a point of detail, I am not aware that such notices can be placed
before grant. Which is why DWP usually make contact in time.
steve robinson
Jul 18, 2016, 4:24:08 AM7/18/16
to
present to the probate , including calculating any repayments .
The DWP won't chase you until probate is granted because they will
not be aware of the value of the estate, including debts of secured
creditors .
steve robinson
Jul 18, 2016, 4:37:59 AM7/18/16
to
you and the bank, not the beneficiaries problem its yours .
Any legal action due to loss would be sought from you not the bank,
you could of course seek to recover those losses from the bank legally
if you so wished but that is not anything to do with the
beneficiaries
steve robinson
Jul 18, 2016, 4:41:32 AM7/18/16
to
accounts of the estate , including filling tax returns and accounting
for any over or underpayments . This should all be included in your
paperwork before probate is granted
Once probates granted then you pay off ny debts owed and if sufficient
funds are available distribute them in accordance of the will
If tax is due on the estate this is paid first out of any unsecured
funds ( Solicitor, funeral directors and secured creditors get paid
first )
Robin
Jul 18, 2016, 6:17:29 AM7/18/16
to
executor enjoys. (Although in practice an executor often cannot prepare
the accounts, file tax returns etc etc *before* applying for probate.
There are still persons with information about assets and liabilities
who may politely tell the executor to go away and come back when they
have grant. That's one reason why the IHT returns admit estimates.)
But as Harry found the job can become more complex when the deceased
received means-tested benefits. As Harry said, DWP receive
automatically information when probate is issued. If means tested
benefits were claimed by the deceased their standard practice now is to
request details of the assets to check entitlement to the benefits over
past years in many cases. If benefits were claimed incorrectly the
estate has a debt to DWP. So once DWP give notice only a bloody stupid
executor would distribute the estate until DWP complete their enquiries.
And it can take a good deal of time and effort to deal with DWP.
Of course you may not take my word for that. If so you might give a wee
bit more weight to eg
<http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/lawyer-wins-review-of-dwp-delays/5053225.fullarticle>
"The Department for Work and Pensions has promised to review how it
handles possible benefits overpayments into estates following a
complaint by a solicitor.
Terry Moore (pictured), a partner at Hull firm Burstalls and chair of
the Hull Probate Practitioners group, told the Gazette that he hoped the
review would benefit most estates in England and Wales.
The review was promised after Moore complained to the DWP when an
investigation into his 89-year-old client’s estate caused ‘great delay’.
Moore said that while such an investigation should take roughly three
months, this enquiry took almost a year, with the DWP’s lawyers posing
questions that were impossible to answer.
According to Moore, the DWP asked for bank statements from 2003, despite
the fact that most banks do not keep records for more than six years.
He said the department caused ‘great delay and distress’ to the
executors and beneficiaries of the estate as the administration of the
assets and liabilities could not be completed until the outcome of the
enquiries was known.
He added: ‘The department’s repeated inappropriate, impractical and
misinformed enquiry set off a merry-go-round of correspondence without
any practical value.’
Following an intervention by Moore’s MP, the DWP apologised for the
delay and said that it would review processes, including how far back it
requires bank statements, and implement any improvements as soon as
possible.
A spokesperson from the DWP said that while it tries to identify
possible benefit overpayments as ‘quickly and as sensitively as
possible’ these can often be complex cases requiring timely information
from executors and solicitors.
The spokesperson added: ‘We are committed to continuously improving the
service we provide and as part of our review we welcome feedback from
the legal profession so we can ensure the process is as effective as
possible.’"
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 18, 2016, 11:04:28 AM7/18/16
to
Robin a écrit :
blue, entirely unexpected by me and sounded quite threatening.
> He added: ‘The department’s repeated inappropriate, impractical and
> misinformed enquiry set off a merry-go-round of correspondence without
> any practical value.’
That is quite similar to what I suffered, 'a merry-go-round of
correspondence' which lasted a 8 full months, with them even asking for
the very same bank statements several times and May 2007 & May 2012
statements for a temporary holding account, which the bank itself
opened after the death.
It seems they got themselves in a right muddle mixing up banks and
account numbers, so much so that after reading their last request, I
had to ring them to ask them for corrections over the phone, so I could
go through the letter with a red pen. Just to be clear on what they
actually did want and produce it.
At the end of which, their demand for repayments amounted to just
£307.20p.
Throughout this, the only contact from the two benificiaries was to
suggest I was deliberately delaying paying and threats - this despite
my invites to come round and read some of the correspondance.
> But as Harry found the job can become more complex when the deceased
> received means-tested benefits. As Harry said, DWP receive
> automatically information when probate is issued. If means tested
> benefits were claimed by the deceased their standard practice now is to
> request details of the assets to check entitlement to the benefits over
> past years in many cases. If benefits were claimed incorrectly the
> estate has a debt to DWP. So once DWP give notice only a bloody stupid
> executor would distribute the estate until DWP complete their enquiries.
> And it can take a good deal of time and effort to deal with DWP.
Which is exactly what happened here. It came completely out of the
> received means-tested benefits. As Harry said, DWP receive
> automatically information when probate is issued. If means tested
> benefits were claimed by the deceased their standard practice now is to
> request details of the assets to check entitlement to the benefits over
> past years in many cases. If benefits were claimed incorrectly the
> estate has a debt to DWP. So once DWP give notice only a bloody stupid
> executor would distribute the estate until DWP complete their enquiries.
> And it can take a good deal of time and effort to deal with DWP.
blue, entirely unexpected by me and sounded quite threatening.
> He added: ‘The department’s repeated inappropriate, impractical and
> misinformed enquiry set off a merry-go-round of correspondence without
> any practical value.’
correspondence' which lasted a 8 full months, with them even asking for
the very same bank statements several times and May 2007 & May 2012
statements for a temporary holding account, which the bank itself
opened after the death.
It seems they got themselves in a right muddle mixing up banks and
account numbers, so much so that after reading their last request, I
had to ring them to ask them for corrections over the phone, so I could
go through the letter with a red pen. Just to be clear on what they
actually did want and produce it.
At the end of which, their demand for repayments amounted to just
£307.20p.
Throughout this, the only contact from the two benificiaries was to
suggest I was deliberately delaying paying and threats - this despite
my invites to come round and read some of the correspondance.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 18, 2016, 12:41:47 PM7/18/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
inheritance money was showing considerable diligence. Had I not
undertaken the work, the liklehood was that they would have got little
or nothing.
Their issue was, that they had the money spent before they got there
hands on it. I had warned them it could be 12 months.
I took pity on one and loaned her £1000 of my own money, when the
cheque was returned.
> There is rarely a defence against a bounced cheque , as the cheque's
> were issued by yourself prior to any letters arriving from the DWP
> you may have had to honour the payments personally if funds were no
> longer available. The mistake was yours you never exercised due
> diligence. It matters not that the DWP asked you to stop that was
> after the payments were issued.
I think tackling all of the work myself, so as to maximise their
> were issued by yourself prior to any letters arriving from the DWP
> you may have had to honour the payments personally if funds were no
> longer available. The mistake was yours you never exercised due
> diligence. It matters not that the DWP asked you to stop that was
> after the payments were issued.
inheritance money was showing considerable diligence. Had I not
undertaken the work, the liklehood was that they would have got little
or nothing.
Their issue was, that they had the money spent before they got there
hands on it. I had warned them it could be 12 months.
I took pity on one and loaned her £1000 of my own money, when the
cheque was returned.
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 4:39:59 AM7/19/16
to
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:45:35 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>steve robinson a écrit :
>> There is rarely a defence against a bounced cheque , as the cheque's
>> were issued by yourself prior to any letters arriving from the DWP
>> you may have had to honour the payments personally if funds were no
>> longer available. The mistake was yours you never exercised due
>> diligence. It matters not that the DWP asked you to stop that was
>> after the payments were issued.
>
>I think tackling all of the work myself, so as to maximise their
>inheritance money was showing considerable diligence. Had I not
>undertaken the work, the liklehood was that they would have got little
>or nothing.
Quite possibly but the issue is whether you used due diligence acting
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>steve robinson a écrit :
>> There is rarely a defence against a bounced cheque , as the cheque's
>> were issued by yourself prior to any letters arriving from the DWP
>> you may have had to honour the payments personally if funds were no
>> longer available. The mistake was yours you never exercised due
>> diligence. It matters not that the DWP asked you to stop that was
>> after the payments were issued.
>
>I think tackling all of the work myself, so as to maximise their
>inheritance money was showing considerable diligence. Had I not
>undertaken the work, the liklehood was that they would have got little
>or nothing.
as an executor , you quite plainly struggled , put yourself at risk of
legal action over bounced cheque's . Failed to keep the beneficiaries
fully informed with copies of documentation from a beneficiaries
perspective it looks dodgy and threatening to withhold payment
until they help you was disgraceful
As i said before if an executor failed to keep me fully informed in
writing, bounced cheque's on me and demanded i carry out works on
their home before i get paid i would be furious too, infact you would
have had legal action taken against you as soon as the payment
bounced. and an application made to have you removed as an executor.
Its quite plain the beneficiaries don't want a relationship with you
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 19, 2016, 6:36:27 AM7/19/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
There was a standing invite to pop in to look at any or all of the
paperwork - they chose not to and not to get involved, rather to stand
back and make threats. One of the two, throughout that time was walking
past the door four times per day. The other driving down the street at
least once per week.
They gained all of their inheritance, rather than most /all of it going
to pay fees. This was despite their conduct in this.
> Failed to keep the beneficiaries
> fully informed with copies of documentation from a beneficiaries
> perspective it looks dodgy and threatening to withhold payment
> until they help you was disgraceful
Absolutely untrue, I did my best to keep them more than fully informed.
> fully informed with copies of documentation from a beneficiaries
> perspective it looks dodgy and threatening to withhold payment
> until they help you was disgraceful
There was a standing invite to pop in to look at any or all of the
paperwork - they chose not to and not to get involved, rather to stand
back and make threats. One of the two, throughout that time was walking
past the door four times per day. The other driving down the street at
least once per week.
They gained all of their inheritance, rather than most /all of it going
to pay fees. This was despite their conduct in this.
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 6:38:18 AM7/19/16
to
were the cheque's bounced .
If the DWP tell you to go away you do precisely that , its all about
dealing efficiently with the correct people and not the phone drones
you often get.
Suitably drafted letters usually nip problems in the bud as do
correctly posted notices .
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 6:56:48 AM7/19/16
to
KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
fully understand.
You may well have done your best , but from a purely legal
perspective you made some very basic errors hence their annoyance,
You keep repeating the same mantra , its NOT THIER RESPONSIBLITY TO
POP IN ITS NOT THIER RESPONSIBLITY TO GET INVOLVED Harry .
They are well within their rights to stand back, again from a legal
perspective its well advised , it offers them protection from claims
of interference with the executor and estate.
May i suggest you never act alone as an executor again
GB
Jul 19, 2016, 7:14:08 AM7/19/16
to
On 19/07/2016 09:39, steve robinson wrote:
> Its quite plain the beneficiaries don't want a relationship with you
Actually, that isn't at all clear to me.
> Its quite plain the beneficiaries don't want a relationship with you
Harry was clearly over-optimistic in expecting the beneficiaries to
appreciate his efforts. I don't think that anyone who hasn't had to do
it can appreciate the work involved, to say nothing of the emotional
stress dealing with a loved one's affairs. So, there was clearly a bit
of righteous indignation on both sides.
But, hopefully, peace and harmony will gradually be restored now.
Robin
Jul 19, 2016, 8:01:13 AM7/19/16
to
On 19/07/2016 11:56, steve robinson wrote:
>
> Harry your not listening open invites to look at the paperwork is NOT
> KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
> relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
> to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
> fully understand.
While I agree entirely it is *advisable* for administrators to keep
>
> Harry your not listening open invites to look at the paperwork is NOT
> KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
> relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
> to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
> fully understand.
beneficiaries informed of progress, to avoid so far as possible
suspicions and disputes, I was not aware it was an *obligation* which
required communication in writing. With beneficiaries local to the
administrator it seems to me entirely reasonable to invite them to view
original documents rather than incurring the cost of making and sending
copies. Indeed, if Harry had copied and posted copies regularly, some
clever bugger might have argued he was failing in his duty to the
beneficiaries by spending their inheritance needlessly.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 19, 2016, 8:45:48 AM7/19/16
to
GB a écrit :
they simply had no idea what was involved. I was told that all I had
done was fill a few forms in - Just how long does that take? If only it
were that easy. It was far from that easy, the DWP made numerous
errors, the banks (the TSB paid me £60 as compensation for their
mishandling) and investment institutions made numerous errors too. My
sole error was in thinking I was clear to settle everything back in
November, prior to the DWP's letter.
> Actually, that isn't at all clear to me.
>
> Harry was clearly over-optimistic in expecting the beneficiaries to
> appreciate his efforts. I don't think that anyone who hasn't had to do it can
> appreciate the work involved, to say nothing of the emotional stress dealing
> with a loved one's affairs. So, there was clearly a bit of righteous
> indignation on both sides.
>
> But, hopefully, peace and harmony will gradually be restored now.
In the last threatening phone call on Friday, it was obvious to me that
>
> Harry was clearly over-optimistic in expecting the beneficiaries to
> appreciate his efforts. I don't think that anyone who hasn't had to do it can
> appreciate the work involved, to say nothing of the emotional stress dealing
> with a loved one's affairs. So, there was clearly a bit of righteous
> indignation on both sides.
>
> But, hopefully, peace and harmony will gradually be restored now.
they simply had no idea what was involved. I was told that all I had
done was fill a few forms in - Just how long does that take? If only it
were that easy. It was far from that easy, the DWP made numerous
errors, the banks (the TSB paid me £60 as compensation for their
mishandling) and investment institutions made numerous errors too. My
sole error was in thinking I was clear to settle everything back in
November, prior to the DWP's letter.
Norman Wells
Jul 19, 2016, 8:46:55 AM7/19/16
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:er0sobt91tqbl1j6r...@4ax.com...
anything. It's usually good practice if there is a delay or if somethinmg
unexpected crops up, but the responsibility of the executor is to act diligently in
the interests of the beneficiaries to gather in and distribute the assets of the
deceased in accordance with his Will.
At the end of the process, the executor should provide a copy of the accounts to any
residue beneficiary, but that's it.
> You may well have done your best , but from a purely legal
> perspective you made some very basic errors hence their annoyance,
>
> You keep repeating the same mantra , its NOT THIER RESPONSIBLITY TO
> POP IN ITS NOT THIER RESPONSIBLITY TO GET INVOLVED Harry .
It's not their right either.
news:er0sobt91tqbl1j6r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:09:40 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
> <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Harry your not listening open invites to look at the paperwork is NOT
> KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
> relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
> to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
> fully understand.
It isn't actually. There is no legal requirement to keep anyone informed of
> <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Harry your not listening open invites to look at the paperwork is NOT
> KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
> relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
> to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
> fully understand.
anything. It's usually good practice if there is a delay or if somethinmg
unexpected crops up, but the responsibility of the executor is to act diligently in
the interests of the beneficiaries to gather in and distribute the assets of the
deceased in accordance with his Will.
At the end of the process, the executor should provide a copy of the accounts to any
residue beneficiary, but that's it.
> You may well have done your best , but from a purely legal
> perspective you made some very basic errors hence their annoyance,
>
> You keep repeating the same mantra , its NOT THIER RESPONSIBLITY TO
> POP IN ITS NOT THIER RESPONSIBLITY TO GET INVOLVED Harry .
Robin
Jul 19, 2016, 8:48:32 AM7/19/16
to
On 19/07/2016 09:13, steve robinson wrote:
> If the DWP tell you to go away you do precisely that ,
Sorry, I don't follow as ISTM DWP were doing anything but telling the OP
> If the DWP tell you to go away you do precisely that ,
to go away.
> its all about
> dealing efficiently with the correct people and not the phone drones
> you often get.
telephone staff but I see no sign Harry was dealing with the latter
rather than the former. And while I agree it helps to know and be able
to phone senior officials, that's not an option open to the average
executor (and IME is also quite properly not a get-out-jail-free card).
> Suitably drafted letters usually nip problems in the bud as do
> correctly posted notices .
But all in all I don't think there's more I can usefully add - other
than that you appear to have a lucrative business since you seem
confident you could do better than many practitioners.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 19, 2016, 8:49:20 AM7/19/16
to
Robin a écrit :
as best (s)he can. I did that and did that supremely well, I also bore
all of the costs, until just a couple of weeks ago as well as proving
one with a no interest lump sum to bail her out. I anticipated most of
the issues and discharged them well, what I failed to anticipate was
the lack of understanding, greed, ingratitude and just how underhanded
the beneficiaries might prove to be.
With the benefit of hind sight, I would have ducked out and left them
to pay the legal bills out of their inheritance money.
> While I agree entirely it is *advisable* for administrators to keep
> beneficiaries informed of progress, to avoid so far as possible suspicions
> and disputes, I was not aware it was an *obligation* which required
> communication in writing. With beneficiaries local to the administrator it
> seems to me entirely reasonable to invite them to view original documents
> rather than incurring the cost of making and sending copies. Indeed, if
> Harry had copied and posted copies regularly, some clever bugger might have
> argued he was failing in his duty to the beneficiaries by spending their
> inheritance needlessly.
Exactly! It is the Executors duty to maximise the value of the Estate
> beneficiaries informed of progress, to avoid so far as possible suspicions
> and disputes, I was not aware it was an *obligation* which required
> communication in writing. With beneficiaries local to the administrator it
> seems to me entirely reasonable to invite them to view original documents
> rather than incurring the cost of making and sending copies. Indeed, if
> Harry had copied and posted copies regularly, some clever bugger might have
> argued he was failing in his duty to the beneficiaries by spending their
> inheritance needlessly.
as best (s)he can. I did that and did that supremely well, I also bore
all of the costs, until just a couple of weeks ago as well as proving
one with a no interest lump sum to bail her out. I anticipated most of
the issues and discharged them well, what I failed to anticipate was
the lack of understanding, greed, ingratitude and just how underhanded
the beneficiaries might prove to be.
With the benefit of hind sight, I would have ducked out and left them
to pay the legal bills out of their inheritance money.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 19, 2016, 10:14:48 AM7/19/16
to
Norman Wells a écrit :
the beneficiaries which they were each told to check for errors or
anything they might dispute and retain for reference, all calculated
out - but the female (or rather the male partner of, who was making
most of the threats) still seemed clueless as to how much she was still
owed. I suppose I ought to have told him it was absolutely nothing to
do with him, but....
> At the end of the process, the executor should provide a copy of the accounts
> to any residue beneficiary, but that's it.
Which I did, on a printed A4 sheet. A copy for my file and one each for
> to any residue beneficiary, but that's it.
the beneficiaries which they were each told to check for errors or
anything they might dispute and retain for reference, all calculated
out - but the female (or rather the male partner of, who was making
most of the threats) still seemed clueless as to how much she was still
owed. I suppose I ought to have told him it was absolutely nothing to
do with him, but....
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 12:25:10 PM7/19/16
to
other, probably exacerbated from the bouncing of Payments im not
sure of his relationship with the deceased or the beneficiaries but
i don't think face to face contact would be advisable goven the
accusation of threats and possible counter claims by the
beneficiaries
I did say only relevant documents , if a tax or DWP investigation had
been initiated ater probate was granted , these would certainly come
under relevant if the subsequently appeared and Harry couldn't
honour the cheque's issued
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 12:29:33 PM7/19/16
to
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:13:44 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
Hopefully , i have executed a couple of estates and it is full of
angst , i was fortunate enough that people accepted my reasons for
hold ups and delays. Sometimes relatives just don't trust you .
wrote:
angst , i was fortunate enough that people accepted my reasons for
hold ups and delays. Sometimes relatives just don't trust you .
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 12:32:01 PM7/19/16
to
papers ?
GB
Jul 19, 2016, 12:34:26 PM7/19/16
to
On 19/07/2016 14:53, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> I suppose I ought to have told him it was absolutely nothing to
> do with him, but....
>
But ... you realised that she's entitled to have someone else represent
> I suppose I ought to have told him it was absolutely nothing to
> do with him, but....
>
her. :)
Robin
Jul 19, 2016, 1:13:33 PM7/19/16
to
On 19/07/2016 17:24, steve robinson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:01:03 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2016 11:56, steve robinson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Harry your not listening open invites to look at the paperwork is NOT
>>> KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
>>> relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
>>> to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
>>> fully understand.
>>
>> While I agree entirely it is *advisable* for administrators to keep
>> beneficiaries informed of progress, to avoid so far as possible
>> suspicions and disputes, I was not aware it was an *obligation* which
>> required communication in writing. With beneficiaries local to the
>> administrator it seems to me entirely reasonable to invite them to view
>> original documents rather than incurring the cost of making and sending
>> copies. Indeed, if Harry had copied and posted copies regularly, some
>> clever bugger might have argued he was failing in his duty to the
>> beneficiaries by spending their inheritance needlessly.
>
>
> It seems the beneficiaries and Harry have 'issues' with each
> other, probably exacerbated from the bouncing of Payments im not
> sure of his relationship with the deceased or the beneficiaries but
> i don't think face to face contact would be advisable goven the
> accusation of threats and possible counter claims by the
> beneficiaries
You may well think so but Harry manifestly did not given he posted:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:01:03 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2016 11:56, steve robinson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Harry your not listening open invites to look at the paperwork is NOT
>>> KEEPING THEM INFORMED, ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of
>>> relevant documentation updates on delays and why , its not up to them
>>> to ask , that's the roll of an executor , a roll it seems you didn't
>>> fully understand.
>>
>> While I agree entirely it is *advisable* for administrators to keep
>> beneficiaries informed of progress, to avoid so far as possible
>> suspicions and disputes, I was not aware it was an *obligation* which
>> required communication in writing. With beneficiaries local to the
>> administrator it seems to me entirely reasonable to invite them to view
>> original documents rather than incurring the cost of making and sending
>> copies. Indeed, if Harry had copied and posted copies regularly, some
>> clever bugger might have argued he was failing in his duty to the
>> beneficiaries by spending their inheritance needlessly.
>
>
> It seems the beneficiaries and Harry have 'issues' with each
> other, probably exacerbated from the bouncing of Payments im not
> sure of his relationship with the deceased or the beneficiaries but
> i don't think face to face contact would be advisable goven the
> accusation of threats and possible counter claims by the
> beneficiaries
"They had been invited to review the official letters and listen to my
explanations on progress, but chose generally not to get involved."
> I did say only relevant documents , if a tax or DWP investigation had
> been initiated ater probate was granted , these would certainly come
> under relevant if the subsequently appeared and Harry couldn't
> honour the cheque's issued
>
ask please for some authority for this obligation on personal
representives to send beneficiasries "relevant documentation, updates
on delays and why" before - NB before - distributing the estate?
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 1:18:02 PM7/19/16
to
apologize if it came across that way , it wasnt intended .
I was only trying to explain the gravity of the situation and the
legal hole you could have dug for yourself into .
I understand you tried your best and i understand you struggled not
only with the paperwork but the beneficiaries .
Executing a will is not easy , (ive done a few ) especially when
dealing with relatives .
Again i apologise if i have insulted you it wasnt my intention to do
so or case you any offence
Steve Robinson
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 1:57:56 PM7/19/16
to
aware of them . From one of Harry's posts its quite clear that one
of the beneficiaries partners did not understand the complexities .
>> I did say only relevant documents , if a tax or DWP investigation had
>> been initiated ater probate was granted , these would certainly come
>> under relevant if the subsequently appeared and Harry couldn't
>> honour the cheque's issued
>>
>
>Given your stout defence of your position here and in u.n.n.m may may I
>ask please for some authority for this obligation on personal
>representives to send beneficiasries "relevant documentation, updates
>on delays and why" before - NB before - distributing the estate?
that.
From my understanding of what Harry said he gained probate and
started to pay out, then received documentation from the DWP.
He had already i assume advised that the probate had been granted .
and sent out a cheque.
This bounced and i gather Payments were delayed.
Once Harry failed to make good on the payment ( ita an offence to
issue bouncing cheque) the relationship changed .
I never said its a legal requirement to supply all the documentation
only relevant in this case the correspondence from DWP after probate
was granted.
It is advised that regular updates are provided , this isn't the same
as providing relevant documents as you well know.
For a start as soon as Harry was in a position to distribute funds
an accurate account should have been provided this didn't seem to
happen infact he couldn't supply an accurate account because DWP stat
red to chase for the money and he bounced checks
Robin
Jul 19, 2016, 2:28:34 PM7/19/16
to
many he did a good enough job. And a good deal better than many.
>>> I did say only relevant documents , if a tax or DWP investigation had
>>> been initiated ater probate was granted , these would certainly come
>>> under relevant if the subsequently appeared and Harry couldn't
>>> honour the cheque's issued
>>>
>>
>> Given your stout defence of your position here and in u.n.n.m may may I
>> ask please for some authority for this obligation on personal
>> representives to send beneficiasries "relevant documentation, updates
>> on delays and why" before - NB before - distributing the estate?
>
> Relevant documents doesn't mean every piece of paper and you well know
> that.
> From my understanding of what Harry said he gained probate and
> started to pay out, then received documentation from the DWP.
>
> He had already i assume advised that the probate had been granted .
> and sent out a cheque.
>
> This bounced and i gather Payments were delayed.
>
> Once Harry failed to make good on the payment ( ita an offence to
> issue bouncing cheque) the relationship changed .
knowing they would bounce; did not issue them with the intention of
stopping them; did not obtain goods etc by deception. It seems to me
just a cock-up. (No offence intended to Harry: stuff happens.)
> I never said its a legal requirement to supply all the documentation
> only relevant in this case the correspondence from DWP after probate
> was granted.
"ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY to send them copies of relevant documentation
..>". All I was asking for was some authority for that as regards some
document (short of the final accounts). But that was on the basis that
"ITS YOUR REPONSIBLITY" in this context meant some legal obligation. If
you are now saying it's just good practice then we are at one.
steve robinson
Jul 19, 2016, 3:06:42 PM7/19/16
to
includes due diligence in creating accurate accounts ,dealing with
the relevant authorities and not exposing the estate to the risk of
litigation
he made which may affect the value of the estate he should have
notified them as probate by then had been granted ad payments issued
.
I actually feel for him
Big Les Wade
Jul 19, 2016, 4:55:17 PM7/19/16
to
steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> posted
Would that have cleared Harry of his and the estate's obligations to the
DWP? (Genuine question. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't.)
--
Les
DWP? (Genuine question. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't.)
--
Les
Peter Crosland
Jul 19, 2016, 5:26:23 PM7/19/16
to
removes the liability from the executor but beneficiaries can still be
liable. Perhaps someone can point to the law that apparently allows the
DWP to claim after the time limit for the statutory notice has expired.
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
Robin
Jul 19, 2016, 5:59:45 PM7/19/16
to
And as I have commented in this thread, DWP usually write soon after
grant so statutory notices are unlikely to bar their claim unless
someone can argue the notices can be placed before grant. (I think I
recall discussing that once with lawyers wot know lots more than this
jobbing administrator, that the general view was that was a contrived
reading of s.27, but that no one could come up with an authority.)
On 04/06/2016 19:14, Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> The DWP are notorious for this sort of thing. I don't understand why
> they believe they are exempt from the statutory notice that all claims
> to be submitted by a specific date.
>
>
Do you have evidence of DWP claiming to be exempt from the statutory
notice process (section 27 Trustee Act 1925)? I don't recall the OP
indicating that they were doing any such thing. IIRC what he faced fits
with what AIUI usually happens:
a. DWP give notice to the administrator quite quickly that they may be a
creditor - well before the end of the 2 months after any statutory
notice - so the s.27 notice does not permit the administrator safely to
distribute until their entitlement is settled; but
b. if DWP don't get in touch until the s.27 boat has sailed:
i. they still require *information* from the administrator as they have
a statutory right to do under section 126 of the Social Security
Administration Act 1992[1] which has no time limit and is unaffected by
s.27; and
ii. if they then establish an overpayment of benefits s.27 protects the
administrator but it does not stop DWP seeking to recover overpayments
from the beneficiaries and they may well do so if the sums are
significant and the beneficiaries have means.
[1] For ease of reference:
126. Personal representatives to give information about the estate of a
deceased person who was in receipt of income support or supplementary
benefit
(1)The personal representatives of a person who was in receipt of income
support or supplementary benefit at any time before his death shall
provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require
relating to the assets and liabilities of that person’s estate.
(2)If the personal representatives fail to supply any information within
28 days of being required to do so under subsection (1) above, then—
(a)the appropriate court may, on the application of the Secretary of
State, make an order directing them to supply that information within
such time as may be specified in the order, and
(b)any such order may provide that all costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)
of and incidental to the application shall be borne personally by any of
the personal representatives.
(3)In this section “the appropriate court” means—
(a)in England and Wales, a county court;
(b)in Scotland, the sheriff;
and any application to the sheriff under this section shall be made by
summary application.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 2:43:20 AM7/20/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
No, I already knew enough about the deceased's Estate to know what
liabilities there were. That side at least was fairly easy to resolve.
liabilities there were. That side at least was fairly easy to resolve.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 2:43:49 AM7/20/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
what I have suffered from the beneficiaries ;o)
> Harry some people seem to think i have been insulting to you , i
> apologize if it came across that way , it wasnt intended .
Absolutely no offence taken I assure you. It was as nothing compared to
> apologize if it came across that way , it wasnt intended .
what I have suffered from the beneficiaries ;o)
>
> I was only trying to explain the gravity of the situation and the
> legal hole you could have dug for yourself into .
>
> I understand you tried your best and i understand you struggled not
> only with the paperwork but the beneficiaries .
Indeed, but more with the beneficiaries!
> I was only trying to explain the gravity of the situation and the
> legal hole you could have dug for yourself into .
>
> I understand you tried your best and i understand you struggled not
> only with the paperwork but the beneficiaries .
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 2:44:38 AM7/20/16
to
Robin a écrit :
They had numerous examples of my signature from other documents I had
signed - my bank is/was the same as the deceased. They had successfully
dealt with a cheque before and have since, without me needing to
provide a sample of my signature. They just said they didn't have a
specimen on file (?)
> I've failed to sport the criminal offence. He did not issue the cheques
> knowing they would bounce; did not issue them with the intention of stopping
> them; did not obtain goods etc by deception. It seems to me just a cock-up.
> (No offence intended to Harry: stuff happens.)
There was no shortage of funds in the account, by a very large margin.
> knowing they would bounce; did not issue them with the intention of stopping
> them; did not obtain goods etc by deception. It seems to me just a cock-up.
> (No offence intended to Harry: stuff happens.)
They had numerous examples of my signature from other documents I had
signed - my bank is/was the same as the deceased. They had successfully
dealt with a cheque before and have since, without me needing to
provide a sample of my signature. They just said they didn't have a
specimen on file (?)
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 2:45:05 AM7/20/16
to
GB a écrit :
asking me to speak to him? No such authority was given, he just rang up
ranting and making threats, such that I made clear that if he continued
to make threats, then I would involve the police.
> But ... you realised that she's entitled to have someone else represent her.
> :)
Er, yes - but I would assume she would need to advise of that before
> :)
asking me to speak to him? No such authority was given, he just rang up
ranting and making threats, such that I made clear that if he continued
to make threats, then I would involve the police.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 2:45:46 AM7/20/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
I explained the contents of the Will and the fact that they would only
receive the cash. I had been promised help with the costs and
considerable support - none of which actually happened.
>
> I never said its a legal requirement to supply all the documentation
> only relevant in this case the correspondence from DWP after probate
> was granted.
>
> It is advised that regular updates are provided , this isn't the same
> as providing relevant documents as you well know.
>
> For a start as soon as Harry was in a position to distribute funds
> an accurate account should have been provided this didn't seem to
> happen infact he couldn't supply an accurate account because DWP stat
> red to chase for the money and he bounced checks
I was not able to supply an accurate account when I issued the bounced
cheques, because I was still in a position of finalising the costs.
Which was why I originally wrote (the bounced) cheques for 50%.
> He had already i assume advised that the probate had been granted .
> and sent out a cheque.
>
> This bounced and i gather Payments were delayed.
>
> Once Harry failed to make good on the payment ( ita an offence to
> issue bouncing cheque) the relationship changed .
No, the relationship was bad from the very beginning, likely as soon as
> and sent out a cheque.
>
> This bounced and i gather Payments were delayed.
>
> Once Harry failed to make good on the payment ( ita an offence to
> issue bouncing cheque) the relationship changed .
I explained the contents of the Will and the fact that they would only
receive the cash. I had been promised help with the costs and
considerable support - none of which actually happened.
>
> I never said its a legal requirement to supply all the documentation
> only relevant in this case the correspondence from DWP after probate
> was granted.
>
> It is advised that regular updates are provided , this isn't the same
> as providing relevant documents as you well know.
>
> For a start as soon as Harry was in a position to distribute funds
> an accurate account should have been provided this didn't seem to
> happen infact he couldn't supply an accurate account because DWP stat
> red to chase for the money and he bounced checks
cheques, because I was still in a position of finalising the costs.
Which was why I originally wrote (the bounced) cheques for 50%.
GB
Jul 20, 2016, 2:46:05 AM7/20/16
to
On 19/07/2016 22:59, Robin wrote:
> ii. if they then establish an overpayment of benefits s.27 protects the
> administrator but it does not stop DWP seeking to recover overpayments
> from the beneficiaries
Is that peculiar to the DWP, or does it apply to any debts the estate
> ii. if they then establish an overpayment of benefits s.27 protects the
> administrator but it does not stop DWP seeking to recover overpayments
> from the beneficiaries
may have?
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 2:46:18 AM7/20/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
involve them as part of the process.
I had been promised help by an entirely independent and distant
relative of the deceased, who claimed to be familiar with what would be
needed.I had no doubt about that.
I repeatedly reminded him of the promise, but was met with excuses. It
seemed the priority was to persuade the solicitors to Renounce their
involvement, so as to maximise the Estate. Which I came on here for
help with and succeeded. So after several weeks of waiting I decided I
had no options left, but to get on with the rest of the process. The
rest of the process, looking back on it, went well, apart from the
hiccup with the DWP.
> Hopefully , i have executed a couple of estates and it is full of
> angst , i was fortunate enough that people accepted my reasons for
> hold ups and delays. Sometimes relatives just don't trust you .
That was very true in this case, which was why I tried so hard to
> angst , i was fortunate enough that people accepted my reasons for
> hold ups and delays. Sometimes relatives just don't trust you .
involve them as part of the process.
I had been promised help by an entirely independent and distant
relative of the deceased, who claimed to be familiar with what would be
needed.I had no doubt about that.
I repeatedly reminded him of the promise, but was met with excuses. It
seemed the priority was to persuade the solicitors to Renounce their
involvement, so as to maximise the Estate. Which I came on here for
help with and succeeded. So after several weeks of waiting I decided I
had no options left, but to get on with the rest of the process. The
rest of the process, looking back on it, went well, apart from the
hiccup with the DWP.
steve robinson
Jul 20, 2016, 3:22:11 AM7/20/16
to
buck stops with you
steve robinson
Jul 20, 2016, 3:26:29 AM7/20/16
to
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:21:09 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>steve robinson a écrit :
>> He had already i assume advised that the probate had been granted .
>> and sent out a cheque.
>>
>> This bounced and i gather Payments were delayed.
>>
>> Once Harry failed to make good on the payment ( ita an offence to
>> issue bouncing cheque) the relationship changed .
>
>No, the relationship was bad from the very beginning, likely as soon as
>I explained the contents of the Will and the fact that they would only
>receive the cash. I had been promised help with the costs and
>considerable support - none of which actually happened.
>
Many promises are made when bereaved, very rarely are hoses promises
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>steve robinson a écrit :
>> He had already i assume advised that the probate had been granted .
>> and sent out a cheque.
>>
>> This bounced and i gather Payments were delayed.
>>
>> Once Harry failed to make good on the payment ( ita an offence to
>> issue bouncing cheque) the relationship changed .
>
>No, the relationship was bad from the very beginning, likely as soon as
>I explained the contents of the Will and the fact that they would only
>receive the cash. I had been promised help with the costs and
>considerable support - none of which actually happened.
>
followed through , and in reality its unrealistic to expect people
to. Their emotions are all over the shop
Peter Crosland
Jul 20, 2016, 3:37:01 AM7/20/16
to
have any special rights.
steve robinson
Jul 20, 2016, 3:38:35 AM7/20/16
to
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 22:33:39 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
That makes you personally liable if anyone crawls out of the woodwork
in the future
in the future
steve robinson
Jul 20, 2016, 4:54:47 AM7/20/16
to
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 19:48:11 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
It would depend if Harry had exercised due diligence and acted upon
all the information available to him at the time of finalizing
accounts .Its reasonable to assume when someone dies there is going
to be over or under payments of pension tax etc if Harry had all
relevant paperwork so that he could reasonably be expected to
calculate any overpayment or he had contacted the DWP and they
failed to respond in good time and decided to chase after probate
many months was granted then no.
General rule of thumb once probate is granted wait 6 months to
distribute the funds, gives anyone who wants to time to challenge .
Of course if any fraud or mistakes are made you can be chased
personally as can anyone who withholds information deliberately
wrote:
all the information available to him at the time of finalizing
accounts .Its reasonable to assume when someone dies there is going
to be over or under payments of pension tax etc if Harry had all
relevant paperwork so that he could reasonably be expected to
calculate any overpayment or he had contacted the DWP and they
failed to respond in good time and decided to chase after probate
many months was granted then no.
General rule of thumb once probate is granted wait 6 months to
distribute the funds, gives anyone who wants to time to challenge .
Of course if any fraud or mistakes are made you can be chased
personally as can anyone who withholds information deliberately
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 5:20:21 AM7/20/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
three months to trace what the payment was for, to enable me to stop
it. The line on the statements was quite cryptic - it turned out to be
an NHS pension. Obviously it had over paid, so they asked for a refund.
By then the DWP had become involved, so I had to tell them I could not
refund them until the DWP were satisfied.
> It would depend if Harry had exercised due diligence and acted upon
> all the information available to him at the time of finalizing
> accounts .Its reasonable to assume when someone dies there is going
> to be over or under payments of pension tax etc if Harry had all
> relevant paperwork so that he could reasonably be expected to
> calculate any overpayment or he had contacted the DWP and they
> failed to respond in good time and decided to chase after probate
> many months was granted then no.
There was one monthly payment going into the account, which took me
> all the information available to him at the time of finalizing
> accounts .Its reasonable to assume when someone dies there is going
> to be over or under payments of pension tax etc if Harry had all
> relevant paperwork so that he could reasonably be expected to
> calculate any overpayment or he had contacted the DWP and they
> failed to respond in good time and decided to chase after probate
> many months was granted then no.
three months to trace what the payment was for, to enable me to stop
it. The line on the statements was quite cryptic - it turned out to be
an NHS pension. Obviously it had over paid, so they asked for a refund.
By then the DWP had become involved, so I had to tell them I could not
refund them until the DWP were satisfied.
Harry Bloomfield
Jul 20, 2016, 5:20:42 AM7/20/16
to
steve robinson a écrit :
at all, ever, no loans ever.
> That makes you personally liable if anyone crawls out of the woodwork
> in the future
No one will crawl out, like me - she paid cash for everything. No debts
> in the future
at all, ever, no loans ever.
Robin
Jul 20, 2016, 5:32:46 AM7/20/16
to
On 20/07/2016 08:35, steve robinson wrote:
<snip>
> General rule of thumb once probate is granted wait 6 months to
> distribute the funds, gives anyone who wants to time to challenge .
>
I don't know about that "rule of thumb" for challenges. I do know that
these days cautious PRs wait 6 months before they distribute more than
small gifts because 6 months from the date of the grant is the statutory
time limit for proceedings under the 1975 Act from family/dependants.
(Claims can still be made later in some circs but the PRs are protected
from those.)
<snip>
> General rule of thumb once probate is granted wait 6 months to
> distribute the funds, gives anyone who wants to time to challenge .
>
these days cautious PRs wait 6 months before they distribute more than
small gifts because 6 months from the date of the grant is the statutory
time limit for proceedings under the 1975 Act from family/dependants.
(Claims can still be made later in some circs but the PRs are protected
from those.)
GB
Jul 20, 2016, 5:34:36 AM7/20/16
to
years? Theoretically, the deceased might have liability under the
latent damages act, which can continue for 15 years after the incident!
steve robinson
Jul 20, 2016, 5:42:00 AM7/20/16
to
realised that with the relatives.)
The last thing you want is to put your own financial position at
risk .
On the occasions i have dealt with estates , i have always taken out
an insurance policy to cover my roll.
Peter Crosland
Jul 20, 2016, 6:19:26 AM7/20/16
to
then there should be no problem.
GB
Jul 20, 2016, 7:28:28 AM7/20/16
to
Norman Wells
Jul 20, 2016, 10:51:47 AM7/20/16
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:nmngj2$ru4$1...@dont-email.me...
No money you have, no goods you think you own, are ever completely safe from the
government, the DWP or HMRC. They can take what they like whenever they like,
provided only that they make the necessary laws first. And even if they don't
there's precious little you can do about it, so it's best to assume that you can
never spend anything at all.
On the other hand, if you spend it all as soon as you receive it, how are they going
to recover it from you?
It's a dilemma, and no mistake.
government, the DWP or HMRC. They can take what they like whenever they like,
provided only that they make the necessary laws first. And even if they don't
there's precious little you can do about it, so it's best to assume that you can
never spend anything at all.
On the other hand, if you spend it all as soon as you receive it, how are they going
to recover it from you?
It's a dilemma, and no mistake.
Peter Crosland
Jul 20, 2016, 1:21:43 PM7/20/16
to
GB
Jul 20, 2016, 2:13:42 PM7/20/16
to
On 7/20/2016 2:35 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
> On the other hand, if you spend it all as soon as you receive it, how
> are they going to recover it from you?
Indeed, spend 90% on booze and women, and only waste the rest.
> On the other hand, if you spend it all as soon as you receive it, how
> are they going to recover it from you?
Chris R
Jul 23, 2016, 5:12:12 AM7/23/16
to
On 19/07/2016 19:48, Big Les Wade wrote:
> > steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> posted
> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:30:42 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
> >> <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In the last threatening phone call on Friday, it was obvious to me
> >>> that
> >>> they simply had no idea what was involved. I was told that all I had
> >>> done was fill a few forms in - Just how long does that take? If only
> >>> it
> >>> were that easy. It was far from that easy, the DWP made numerous
> >>> errors, the banks (the TSB paid me £60 as compensation for their
> >>> mishandling) and investment institutions made numerous errors too. My
> >>> sole error was in thinking I was clear to settle everything back in
> >>> November, prior to the DWP's letter.
> >>
> >> Did you post all the relevant notices in London gazette , local
> >> papers ?
> >
> > Would that have cleared Harry of his and the estate's obligations to the
> > DWP? (Genuine question. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't.)
>
> Posting statutory notices in the London Gazette and a local newspaper
> removes the liability from the executor but beneficiaries can still be
> liable.
What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
> > steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> posted
> >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:30:42 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
> >> <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In the last threatening phone call on Friday, it was obvious to me
> >>> that
> >>> they simply had no idea what was involved. I was told that all I had
> >>> done was fill a few forms in - Just how long does that take? If only
> >>> it
> >>> were that easy. It was far from that easy, the DWP made numerous
> >>> errors, the banks (the TSB paid me £60 as compensation for their
> >>> mishandling) and investment institutions made numerous errors too. My
> >>> sole error was in thinking I was clear to settle everything back in
> >>> November, prior to the DWP's letter.
> >>
> >> Did you post all the relevant notices in London gazette , local
> >> papers ?
> >
> > Would that have cleared Harry of his and the estate's obligations to the
> > DWP? (Genuine question. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't.)
>
> Posting statutory notices in the London Gazette and a local newspaper
> removes the liability from the executor but beneficiaries can still be
> liable.
--
Chris R
Peter Crosland
Jul 23, 2016, 5:25:32 AM7/23/16
to
unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
quote some case law.
Robin
Jul 23, 2016, 7:39:52 AM7/23/16
to
On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
<snip>
for it explicitly in ss(2):
"but nothing in this section—
(a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
AIUI (which as usual could be as well as I understand Euskera) that's
one reason why PRs don't bother spending time/money on with statutory
notices if they are also the sole/main beneficiaries.
<snip>
>>
>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>
> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
> quote some case law.
>
>
I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>
> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
> quote some case law.
>
>
for it explicitly in ss(2):
"but nothing in this section—
(a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
AIUI (which as usual could be as well as I understand Euskera) that's
one reason why PRs don't bother spending time/money on with statutory
notices if they are also the sole/main beneficiaries.
GB
Jul 23, 2016, 8:16:24 AM7/23/16
to
On 7/23/2016 11:44 AM, Robin wrote:
> On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>>
>> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
>> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
>> quote some case law.
>>
>>
> I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
> for it explicitly in ss(2):
>
> "but nothing in this section—
>
> (a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
> property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
> a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
Does "property" include cash? It's one thing to follow the family house
> On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>>
>> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
>> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
>> quote some case law.
>>
>>
> I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
> for it explicitly in ss(2):
>
> "but nothing in this section—
>
> (a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
> property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
> a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
or silver, but cash is undifferentiated. Equities and other securities
would be somewhere in between.
Pelican
Jul 24, 2016, 4:11:49 AM7/24/16
to
On 23/07/2016 22:02, GB wrote:
> On 7/23/2016 11:44 AM, Robin wrote:
>> On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>>>
>>> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
>>> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
>>> quote some case law.
>>>
>>>
>> I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
>> for it explicitly in ss(2):
>>
>> "but nothing in this section—
>>
>> (a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
>> property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
>> a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
>
> Does "property" include cash? It's one thing to follow the family house
> or silver, but cash is undifferentiated. Equities and other securities
> would be somewhere in between.
Yes. All that provision does so far as following property is concerned
> On 7/23/2016 11:44 AM, Robin wrote:
>> On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>>>
>>> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
>>> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
>>> quote some case law.
>>>
>>>
>> I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
>> for it explicitly in ss(2):
>>
>> "but nothing in this section—
>>
>> (a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
>> property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
>> a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
>
> Does "property" include cash? It's one thing to follow the family house
> or silver, but cash is undifferentiated. Equities and other securities
> would be somewhere in between.
is recognise the pre-existing law of "tracing". It is not limited by
what section 27 does.
bernie
Jul 24, 2016, 4:12:20 AM7/24/16
to
"Liability" (and its converse) are the civil equivalents.
After that, the real answer to your question, which is "the Law does",
should be easier to grasp.
tim...
Jul 24, 2016, 5:25:39 AM7/24/16
to
news:nmvmcc$s3$1...@dont-email.me...
the asset class that was distributed.
tim
> On 7/23/2016 11:44 AM, Robin wrote:
>> On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>>>
>>> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
>>> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
>>> quote some case law.
>>>
>>>
>> I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
>> for it explicitly in ss(2):
>>
>> "but nothing in this section-
>> On 23/07/2016 10:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> What makes innocent beneficiaries liable?
>>>
>>> A wholly unsatisfactory situation but nevertheless it is the law. A very
>>> unusual situation but it does occasionally happen. Maybe someone can
>>> quote some case law.
>>>
>>>
>> I've no memory of (or time to look for) cases but section 27 provides
>> for it explicitly in ss(2):
>>
>>
>> (a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
>> property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
>> a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
>
> Does "property" include cash? It's one thing to follow the family house
> or silver, but cash is undifferentiated. Equities and other securities
> would be somewhere in between.
a wrongly distributed estate is a wrongly distributed estate, regardless of
>> (a) prejudices the right of any person to follow the property, or any
>> property representing the same, into the hands of any person, other than
>> a purchaser, who may have received it; or..."
>
> Does "property" include cash? It's one thing to follow the family house
> or silver, but cash is undifferentiated. Equities and other securities
> would be somewhere in between.
the asset class that was distributed.
tim
Roger Hayter
Jul 24, 2016, 6:32:52 AM7/24/16
to
artificially protected from a debt owed by the testator. His good
fortune was not as good as he first thought, but he has lost nothing
else. Whereas the person owed the money deserves it back.
Surely most of the totally unexpected and remote debts should be
prevented from being enforced by the time limitations on recovering
debts?
--
Roger Hayter
0 new messages