Heir Hunters

[Harry Bloomfield]

It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
written off.

I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
company which is signed up. I had a friend who was tracked down by one
such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.

[Martin Brown]

On 01/03/2017 11:27, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

> It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
> amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
> on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
> client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
> The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
> written off.

Indeed, but I expect they have a fairly automated system for trawling
national records and databases to find potential heirs efficiently when
the estate valuation is sufficiently large to be interesting to them.

Their business model must work since they are still there.
How do they know which ones have a worthwhile valuation?

> I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
> company which is signed up. I had a friend who was tracked down by one
> such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
> deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.

I am guessing they have a fixed fee and then a percentage of the estate
which might be negotiable if more than one of them finds their mark.

As an aside what happens to very small unclaimed estates ?
(the sort where heir search fees >> value of estate)

The few hundred or a thousand pounds in a bank account when someone dies
without a will or any heirs. Does it eventually go to the state?

There is an implication on the gov.uk site that something happens after
30 years:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/unclaimed-estates-list

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <o96b45$hmf$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:57 on Wed, 1 Mar 2017,
Harry Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> remarked:

>It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
>amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
>on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
>client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
>The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
>written off.

Many professions do work they aren't rewarded for - most salesmen and
people applying for contracts, even freelance journalists often find
their stories 'spiked' after a lot of hard work.

>I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
>company which is signed up. I had a friend who was tracked down by one
>such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
>deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.

10-30% commission. There are many online resources with worked examples,
but also several different types of scheme.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

On 01/03/2017 11:27, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

It's notable, and a bit disturbing, that the BBC programmes never
mention the amount of the charges or how they are calculated. I agree
they mast be substantial.

The other risk the companies run is that when prompted, the benficiary
may well be able to guess the details and claim without paying the
commission.
--
Chris R

[Peter Crosland]

Eventually, if nobody claims then they revert to the Government.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Roland Perry]

In message <o96f3h$fj$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:35:34 on Wed, 1 Mar 2017,
Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

>> It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
>> amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
>> on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
>> client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
>> The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
>> written off.
>>
>> I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
>> company which is signed up. I had a friend who was tracked down by one
>> such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
>> deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.
>>
>It's notable, and a bit disturbing, that the BBC programmes never
>mention the amount of the charges or how they are calculated. I agree
>they mast be substantial.

80% of what they dig up is better than 80% of nothing.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o96b45$hmf$1...@dont-email.me...

> It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
> amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
> on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
> client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.

Actually, they have to find all the beneficiaries, not just one.

> The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
> written off.

Yes, it's called 'competition'.

> I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
> company which is signed up.

They obviously have to cover their costs including those of their failed cases.
However, in most cases, the 'heirs' know nothing or very little about the deceased
and would not be willing or able to find all the other beneficiaries and administer
the estate themselves, so whatever they get by signing up is bunce for no hassle.

> I had a friend who was tracked down by one
> such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
> deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.

Nice work if you can get it.

What I don't fully understand though is what happens if they get, say, one or two
signed up but the others refuse. For any of an estate to be distributed, each
beneficiary's share has to be calculated, so all must be known, and all must
presumably be entitled to their rightful share and will receive it in due course.
Won't the one or two that have signed up then be subsidising all those who haven't?

[tim...]

"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o96b45$hmf$1...@dont-email.me...

and what's more they don't even know the size of the estate when they start
the process so could be going to all of that work for a 20% share of 50
quid.

tim

[tim...]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ehnuvq...@mid.individual.net...

> "Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:o96b45$hmf$1...@dont-email.me...
>> It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
>> amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
>> on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
>> client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
>
> Actually, they have to find all the beneficiaries, not just one.
>
>> The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
>> written off.
>
> Yes, it's called 'competition'.
>
>> I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
>> company which is signed up.
>
> They obviously have to cover their costs including those of their failed
> cases. However, in most cases, the 'heirs' know nothing or very little
> about the deceased and would not be willing or able to find all the other
> beneficiaries and administer the estate themselves, so whatever they get
> by signing up is bunce for no hassle.

there's no need for them to do any of this

the estates are Bona Vacantia and if you think you are entitled to a share
all you have to do is make your claim with the appropriate supporting
documentation and BVD do all the rest

>> I had a friend who was tracked down by one
>> such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
>> deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.
>
> Nice work if you can get it.
>
> What I don't fully understand though is what happens if they get, say, one
> or two signed up but the others refuse.

they only get a share of the people that sign up

> For any of an estate to be distributed, each beneficiary's share has to be
> calculated, so all must be known, and all must

You have misunderstood how "all" is calculated.

It is everyone who has put their hat in the ring by the closing date, not
everyone who might have a claim but isn't known about

> presumably be entitled to their rightful share and will receive it in due
> course. Won't the one or two that have signed up then be subsidising all
> those who haven't?

yep

[Norman Wells]

"tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o96pu2$f6i$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:ehnuvq...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:o96b45$hmf$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
>>> amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
>>> on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
>>> client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
>>
>> Actually, they have to find all the beneficiaries, not just one.
>>
>>> The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
>>> written off.
>>
>> Yes, it's called 'competition'.
>>
>>> I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
>>> company which is signed up.
>>
>> They obviously have to cover their costs including those of their failed cases.
>> However, in most cases, the 'heirs' know nothing or very little about the
>> deceased and would not be willing or able to find all the other beneficiaries and
>> administer the estate themselves, so whatever they get by signing up is bunce for
>> no hassle.
>
> there's no need for them to do any of this
>
> the estates are Bona Vacantia and if you think you are entitled to a share all you
> have to do is make your claim with the appropriate supporting documentation and
> BVD do all the rest

To determine what 'share' you may be entitled to, however, requires a knowledge of
who else may also be entitled to a share, and that requires a full family tree as
well as tracing all potential heirs, not just a single person saying they have a
claim. I doubt very much that BVD would just say to one entitled claimant 'here you
are then, have the lot' or even do any research into the family tree themselves.
It's surely for the claimant to do that to their satisfaction, which is where heir
hunters come in and why they spend so much time doing it.

>>> I had a friend who was tracked down by one
>>> such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
>>> deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.
>>
>> Nice work if you can get it.
>>
>> What I don't fully understand though is what happens if they get, say, one or two
>> signed up but the others refuse.
>
> they only get a share of the people that sign up
>
>> For any of an estate to be distributed, each beneficiary's share has to be
>> calculated, so all must be known, and all must
>
> You have misunderstood how "all" is calculated.
>
> It is everyone who has put their hat in the ring by the closing date, not everyone
> who might have a claim but isn't known about

I think you're wrong. There is no 'closing date' except I believe for one 30 years
after the death, which doesn't normally apply. Do you have a cite for what you say?

>> presumably be entitled to their rightful share and will receive it in due course.
>> Won't the one or two that have signed up then be subsidising all those who
>> haven't?
>
> yep

I wonder if that is actually so. If it is, the whole process seems somewhat flawed.
If it isn't, though, it seems very unfair.

[Peter Crosland]

If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters. In
fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few, if any,
private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs to provide
detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim with copies of
all the birth, death and marriage certificates to substatinate it. Not
an easy task even for professionals. They take the risks, incur the
costs, and earn their commission.

[tim...]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:ehob5a...@mid.individual.net...

you may be right that you have to produce the family tree

but you aren't required to find the people

if you establish that there are only 2 possible claimants and that you are
one, you can take you 50% and walk away

why should it be otherwise?

[Norman Wells]

"tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:o97300$i00$1...@dont-email.me...

Maybe you're not. However, if you can show that the other line has come to an end,
you'd be entitled to the lot, so it might be in your interest to do so.

> if you establish that there are only 2 possible claimants and that you are one,
> you can take you 50% and walk away
>
> why should it be otherwise?

Because intestacy doesn't work that way. Just because there are only two possible
claimants doesn't mean they're each entitled to half of the estate. It all depends
on their relationship to the deceased.

[Davey]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:13:47 +0000
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.

When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about
£200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if the
Heir Hunter company has taken its share.

Like The Supervet, you wonder about the finances of it all.

--
Davey.

[Martin Brown]

On 02/03/2017 00:32, Davey wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:13:47 +0000
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
>> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
>> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
>> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
>> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
>> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
>> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.

It is a specific form of genealogy and with modern online searches of
the various indexes the first stages are likely automated or scripted.
An Ancestry subscription and an analytical approach would get you a long
way towards tracing a random family tree from a death certificate.
Though it is much harder if you have no initial family stories to use as
tie ins. You would only need to confirm the data in full detail to make
the BV office claim later after some folk have signed up.

I am curious about how they sort the wheat from the chaff since there
must be a lognormal distribution of estate values with many more in the
3 or 4 figure range than in the profitable 6 or 7 figure sums.

It cannot make sense for them to faff about researching unclaimed
estates where the estate value is well below their fixed costs.

> When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
> companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
> Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
> pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about

> £200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if the

> Heir Hunter company has taken its share.
>
> Like The Supervet, you wonder about the finances of it all.

I suspect they take 20-25% so each of the 8 get £160k/8 = £20k

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[tim...]

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:o97p2f$1k6$1...@dont-email.me...

doesn't work like that

they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance

The odd million pound estate is going to pay for the losses on the 100 pound
ones

As per my PP, the company don't know how much money is in the estate when
they engage in the task of signing up claimants.

Though obviously, they like to think that they are skilled at guessing from
the information that they do have about the deceased.

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <o97p2f$1k6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:32:04 on Thu, 2 Mar 2017,
Davey <da...@example.invalid> remarked:

>
>> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
>> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
>> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
>> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
>> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
>> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
>> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.
>
>When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
>companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
>Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
>pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about

>ÂŁ200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if the

>Heir Hunter company has taken its share.

In your example, the Heir Hunters will take in the region of 20%, so
that's Ł40k (and should pay for a year's researching), while each of the
eight heirs will get (say) 1/8 of Ł180k = Ł22.5k.

One of the causes of jealousy by heirs is them comparing the Ł22.5k with
Ł40k, whereas they should be comparing the Ł40k with Ł180k, and Ł22.5k
with zero.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <o98nf4$61p$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:18 on Thu, 2 Mar 2017,
tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>
>>> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
>>> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
>>> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
>>> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
>>> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
>>> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
>>> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.
>>
>> When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
>> companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
>> Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
>> pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about
>> £200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if the
>> Heir Hunter company has taken its share.
>
>doesn't work like that
>
>they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance

The percentages are negotiable (with each beneficiary, they don't all
have to have identical agreements even regarding the same estate).

And it's not uncommon for an heir-hunter to have a sliding scale, such
as 20% on the first 100k (of the total inheritance, not a share of), 10%
on the next 100K and 5% on the remainder.

>The odd million pound estate is going to pay for the losses on the 100 pound
>ones
>
>As per my PP, the company don't know how much money is in the estate when
>they engage in the task of signing up claimants.
>
>Though obviously, they like to think that they are skilled at guessing from
>the information that they do have about the deceased.

Just as salesmen have to be skilled at guessing how big an order they
might get from a potential customer, when working out how much effort to
put into their pitch. These days big contracts (rail franchises are an
extreme example) will tend to have three bidders, so two are bound to
lose out in the end.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian Reay]

On 02/03/17 09:10, tim... wrote:
> "Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:o97p2f$1k6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:13:47 +0000
>> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
>>> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
>>> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
>>> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
>>> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
>>> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
>>> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.
>>
>> When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
>> companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
>> Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
>> pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about
>> £200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if the
>> Heir Hunter company has taken its share.
>
> doesn't work like that
>
> they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance
>
> The odd million pound estate is going to pay for the losses on the 100 pound
> ones
>

I rather suspect they 'triage' the cases that they get and ignore those
which they think won't pay.

Of course, there is always the risk they will miss someone who 'looks
poor' and has a fortune tucked away but the (reasonably) sure bets will
pay off.

An older single person, in a 'valuable' property would, I suspect, be
considered a 'good punt'.

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IOCBRQMJ...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <o98nf4$61p$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:18 on Thu, 2 Mar 2017,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
>>>> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
>>>> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
>>>> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
>>>> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
>>>> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
>>>> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.
>>>
>>> When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
>>> companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
>>> Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
>>> pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about
>>> £200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if
>>> the
>>> Heir Hunter company has taken its share.
>>
>>doesn't work like that
>>
>>they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance
>
> The percentages are negotiable

are they?

I can't see what the beneficiary has to negotiate with

if they are prepared to walk away if the commission isn't reduced, then they
ought to be prepared to walk away if it isn't zero

OTOH the heir hunters do this all the time and know exactly what the options
are

>(with each beneficiary, they don't all
> have to have identical agreements even regarding the same estate).
>
> And it's not uncommon for an heir-hunter to have a sliding scale, such
> as 20% on the first 100k (of the total inheritance, not a share of), 10%
> on the next 100K and 5% on the remainder.

You might be right, in part

but surely it has to be based upon share of inheritance as there is no
guarantee that all recipients are being represented by the same heir hunter
(or even one at all) and your particular one could be left just representing
say, 1/16th of the total. Few estates are going to pay out life changing
money at that dilution.

It is common on the TV program for the one who is followed to be beaten by a
competitor for one beneficiary whilst they sign up a different one and for
some of the beneficiaries to decline to be represented.

>>The odd million pound estate is going to pay for the losses on the 100
>>pound
>>ones
>>
>>As per my PP, the company don't know how much money is in the estate when
>>they engage in the task of signing up claimants.
>>
>>Though obviously, they like to think that they are skilled at guessing
>>from
>>the information that they do have about the deceased.
>
> Just as salesmen have to be skilled at guessing how big an order they
> might get from a potential customer, when working out how much effort to
> put into their pitch. These days big contracts (rail franchises are an
> extreme example) will tend to have three bidders, so two are bound to
> lose out in the end.

but you know that the value of winning is going to be billions

the quantum for a BV estate could be pennies (and on the TV program,
sometimes is)

tim

[tim...]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:o993u2$csn$1...@dont-email.me...

well obviously

but have you done any ancestry research from 100+ year old records.

It is common for the minutiae of the details not to match from one record to
the next, and you have to "guess" whether this minor difference is the same
person or a different person.

I have one ancestor who "lost" 10 years off his age from one census to the
net (presumably) in order not to appear disproportionately older than his
second wife. I *know* that this is the same person because my surname is
uncommon and once you have found George James XXXX living in a location can
be sure that all occurrences of George James are the same.

But if you have a common surname it isn't as easy. You see them making this
mistake on the TV program frequently.

> Of course, there is always the risk they will miss someone who 'looks
> poor' and has a fortune tucked away but the (reasonably) sure bets will
> pay off.

Or more crucially, spend time and effort researching someone who looks rich,
but turns out not to be.

> An older single person, in a 'valuable' property would, I suspect, be
> considered a 'good punt'.

If you watch the TV prog you'll find that even that is not a certainty

tim

[Martin Brown]

Going back to 1837 is relatively straightforward delayed only by the
time to get certificates from GRO and resolve any lies told by the
informants and participants. Marriages where the bride or groom is
disowned by their family for marrying out of the religion for instance.

But it only gets really difficult when you need medieval Latin to read
them. With a name like Brown I have to be very careful to maintain a
strict traceable lineage or I could very easily go astray. Family
legends help but they are also potentially misleading too. And that is
the one thing the heir hunters don't have until they find an heir.

>
> It is common for the minutiae of the details not to match from one record to
> the next, and you have to "guess" whether this minor difference is the same
> person or a different person.

Also the combination of illiteracy and broad accents mean that spelling
isn't always consistent in nineteenth century census records. Couple
that with US Mormon digitisation of parish records and transposition of
MM/DD with DD/MM (DD<=12) and there is endless scope for confusion.

> I have one ancestor who "lost" 10 years off his age from one census to the
> net (presumably) in order not to appear disproportionately older than his
> second wife. I *know* that this is the same person because my surname is
> uncommon and once you have found George James XXXX living in a location can
> be sure that all occurrences of George James are the same.
>
> But if you have a common surname it isn't as easy. You see them making this
> mistake on the TV program frequently.

Smith & Jones are much worse than Brown which is 5th most common.

>> Of course, there is always the risk they will miss someone who 'looks
>> poor' and has a fortune tucked away but the (reasonably) sure bets will
>> pay off.
>
> Or more crucially, spend time and effort researching someone who looks rich,
> but turns out not to be.
>
>> An older single person, in a 'valuable' property would, I suspect, be
>> considered a 'good punt'.
>
> If you watch the TV prog you'll find that even that is not a certainty

They must have some ways to establish that the estate is worthy of
investigation before they invest significant effort tracing heirs.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Brian Reay]

The stories are shown are, I suspect, chosen to be 'good TV'. For those
where there is some 'race' there are probably more where there are not.

Also, while a 'life changing' amount is perhaps what some people dream
of, at the end of the day I suspect most cases the sums are more modest
(partly due to being divided up) and, of course, unexpected.

Almost by the nature of the beast, these situations arise because the
deceased isn't in touch with the heirs. The heirs may not even be aware
of the deceased, let alone of the estate. As I understand this process,
someone from the 'hunter' company contacts a potential heir, confirms
they are an heir, 'signs them up' (if they can) and the company
completes the 'deal', the heir getting their share, less fees etc. (all
fees, including to the company). They could, of course, having learned
of the estate, 'go it alone' and 'save' the company fees, assuming they
do the leg work etc. At the end of the day, they get pot of money they
were not expecting.

In some cases, it may (perhaps) pay for a holiday, new car, in others a
lot more. It all depends on the estate size and the number of heirs.

If the estate is large, the IHT could be more than the heir hunter
company fees, assuming the figure of 20% is correct.


As far as I'm aware, the level of 'pass down' for heirs is limited to
cousins, assuming the deceased has no children, brothers, sisters, or
surviving parents, aunts, uncles, etc. (This came up in a thread on
this group some time back.)

At the end of the day, if no heirs are found, the estate goes to the
crown, effectively a 100% tax.

[Roland Perry]

In message <o999j7$1ok$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:19:41 on Thu, 2 Mar 2017,
tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance
>>
>> The percentages are negotiable
>
>are they?

Yes.

>> And it's not uncommon for an heir-hunter to have a sliding scale, such
>> as 20% on the first 100k (of the total inheritance, not a share of), 10%
>> on the next 100K and 5% on the remainder.
>
>You might be right, in part

The numbers are indicative; the proposition is exactly right.

Information gleaned from:

http://www.heirhunters-association.org.uk/index2.php?view=negotiating
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ianLEpoT...@perry.co.uk...

I would suggest that the examples do not support you view at all

they appear to assume all beneficiaries represented by the same HH

tim

[tim...]

"Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o99bna$ru2$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

FSVO relatively straightforward

the point is that these records are handwritten, and the "computerised"
records are manual transcription of same

and there can be mistakes in these transcriptions because poorly written,
less common names are assumed
to be a more common alternative

I have experienced this with my surname which fits that model exactly

[Roland Perry]

In message <o99d6d$hkv$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:21:08 on Thu, 2 Mar 2017,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>>they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance
>>>>
>>>> The percentages are negotiable
>>>
>>>are they?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> And it's not uncommon for an heir-hunter to have a sliding scale, such
>>>> as 20% on the first 100k (of the total inheritance, not a share of), 10%
>>>> on the next 100K and 5% on the remainder.
>>>
>>>You might be right, in part
>>
>> The numbers are indicative; the proposition is exactly right.
>>
>> Information gleaned from:
>>
>> http://www.heirhunters-association.org.uk/index2.php?view=negotiating
>
>I would suggest that the examples do not support you view at all
>
>they appear to assume all beneficiaries represented by the same HH

That's orthogonal to "negotiable" and "sliding scale". If you have
issues with the information, I recommend you take it up with the
organisation in question.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <o99bi0$a6g$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:53:40 on Thu, 2 Mar 2017,
Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>The stories are shown are, I suspect, chosen to be 'good TV'. For those
>where there is some 'race' there are probably more where there are not.

We are getting well into Pope defecating in the woods territory here.

I beg the readerships indulgence to recount an anecdote.

A couple of years ago a friend wanted to sell a rather unusual item, and
I said "why not try those people in Hatton Garden featured in the "Posh
Pawn" daytime reality show.

[At this point I'll refrain from infantile allusions to the inherent
double entendre]

Anyway, we went there, and as soon as we were inside the shop were
approached by a researcher for the TV Channel to ask about what was
being offered and whether (by implication) it would make "good enough
TV" for their camera crew to justify staggering out of their hidey-hole
in the back office and film the transaction.

It turned out not.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Crosland]

On 02/03/2017 14:54, Martin Brown wrote:

>>
>> but have you done any ancestry research from 100+ year old records.
>
> Going back to 1837 is relatively straightforward delayed only by the
> time to get certificates from GRO and resolve any lies told by the
> informants and participants. Marriages where the bride or groom is
> disowned by their family for marrying out of the religion for instance.

It is anything but straightforward as anyone who has actually tried to
do it will tell you. Getting certiciates from the GRO can tak weeks
unless you apply in person which is exactly what the professional firms
do. A private individual has little or no chance of beating or even
equalling the professionals.

[Chris R]

That's another programme that never mentions pricing. Though I just
don't believe the economic model that the programme portrays.
--
Chris R

[Chris R]

But you won't have to go back that far for an intestacy investigation.
--
Chris R

[Martin Brown]

On 02/03/2017 21:25, Peter Crosland wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 14:54, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>> but have you done any ancestry research from 100+ year old records.
>>
>> Going back to 1837 is relatively straightforward delayed only by the
>> time to get certificates from GRO and resolve any lies told by the
>> informants and participants. Marriages where the bride or groom is
>> disowned by their family for marrying out of the religion for instance.
>
> It is anything but straightforward as anyone who has actually tried to
> do it will tell you. Getting certiciates from the GRO can tak weeks

I have done it and I know how hard it is especially with a common name
like Brown. I have a small collection of the wrong Sarah Browns before I
hit the right one. Ironically not knowing "West Derby" was in Liverpool
was my undoing - I'd have found her much sooner if I'd known.

It takes about seven days by post to get a certificate from GRO and a
couple of hours if you visit in person (or at a local registry). Many
parish records are available as microfilm in major libraries or IGI
thanks to the Mormons having scanned them for religious reasons.

You only need the certificates to do a final proof of entitlement a lot
of the information is already out there in digital form.

> unless you apply in person which is exactly what the professional firms
> do. A private individual has little or no chance of beating or even
> equalling the professionals.

Certainly in terms of time to find the heirs to a will. They will have a
lot more practice, heuristics and experience probing the archives.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9bc0u$djf$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:53 on Fri, 3 Mar 2017,
Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

While they don't quote the interest rate they charge for loans, most of
them are for quite large sums. When acting as a sales broker they must
make enough of a margin for it to be worth while (the item I was
involved with was not sufficiently valuable, they claimed, but they did
place a phone call to one of their subject-experts).

As for the on-site valuations, that's what makes good TV, and can only
be the tip of the iceberg. And it's not as if you could get most of
those things to the shop in Hatton Garden anyway (although they do of
course have that suit of armour in the window, from an earlier series).

The least convincing part is the snap-decisions without apparently doing
due diligence about the title to the items, which is of course an
important legal step to take. But then the equally good-TV "Dragons Den"
isn't unknown for unwinding investment promises once they seen the
actual books.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9b9nl$1tp8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:32:46 on Fri, 3 Mar
2017, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>I have a small collection of the wrong Sarah Browns before I hit the
>right one. Ironically not knowing "West Derby" was in Liverpool was my
>undoing - I'd have found her much sooner if I'd known.

I had a phone scammer call me last night, who was clearly relying upon
the "survey" exception, and in order to find out whether they were going
to deny being off-shore I asked them where they were located. "North
London" said the far-eastern accented lady.

The second thing they "needed" was the county I live in.

"Cambridgeshire". Quite a bit of "hmm, lets see if I can find that on
this list..." followed by "how do you spell that".

--
Roland Perry

[Peter Crosland]

A professional heir hunter will have it all done in a day if not quicker
becuase they have access to all sorts of datasets that the Joe Public
does not.

[RobertL]

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:11:02 AM UTC, tim... wrote:
> "Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:o97p2f$1k6$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:13:47 +0000
> > Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
> >> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
> >> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
> >> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
> >> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
> >> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
> >> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.
> >
> > When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
> > companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
> > Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
> > pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about
> > £200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if the
> > Heir Hunter company has taken its share.
>
> doesn't work like that
>
> they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance
>
> The odd million pound estate is going to pay for the losses on the 100 pound
> ones

Sorry if i am being obtuse, but surely the value of the estate is publicly available when the will is proved. The hunters would only offer their services for high-value estates.


Robert

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:8cDsFkuD...@perry.co.uk...

I have no disagreement with the information

I am saying that you have interpreter it wrongly in your advice to: whoever
happens to be taking note of this discussion as an interested party.

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9bkn9$amh$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:41:52 on Fri, 3 Mar 2017,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the
>>>>>>>inheritance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The percentages are negotiable
>>>>>
>>>>>are they?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>>> And it's not uncommon for an heir-hunter to have a sliding scale, such
>>>>>> as 20% on the first 100k (of the total inheritance, not a share
>>>>>>of), 10%
>>>>>> on the next 100K and 5% on the remainder.
>>>>>
>>>>>You might be right, in part
>>>>
>>>> The numbers are indicative; the proposition is exactly right.
>>>>
>>>> Information gleaned from:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.heirhunters-association.org.uk/index2.php?view=negotiating
>>>
>>>I would suggest that the examples do not support you view at all
>>>
>>>they appear to assume all beneficiaries represented by the same HH
>>
>> That's orthogonal to "negotiable" and "sliding scale". If you have
>>issues with the information, I recommend you take it up with the
>>organisation in question.
>
>I have no disagreement with the information
>
>I am saying that you have interpreter it wrongly in your advice to:
>whoever happens to be taking note of this discussion as an interested
>party.

You have to say in detail why, because I think I've interpreted it
correctly.
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"RobertL" <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4410fa3a-54d0-4330...@googlegroups.com...

There is no will that's why they are Bona Vacantia.

No indication of the value of the estate is available on the BV list

you can find the current one here:

<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596234/UnclaimedEstatesList.csv>

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:1VQ+3oPO...@perry.co.uk...

There is nothing on that page that says that tired rates will be based upon
total estate value rather than amount due to the individual beneficiary

in fact, what little it does say, implies the latter

"Look for tiered commission which reduces as the value of the estate due to
*you* increases, see these examples"

tim


> --
> Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9bnvp$luk$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:37:35 on Fri, 3 Mar 2017,
tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>>>> http://www.heirhunters-association.org.uk/index2.php?view=negotiating
>>>>>
>>>>>I would suggest that the examples do not support you view at all
>>>>>
>>>>>they appear to assume all beneficiaries represented by the same HH
>>>>
>>>> That's orthogonal to "negotiable" and "sliding scale". If you have
>>>>issues with the information, I recommend you take it up with the
>>>>organisation in question.
>>>
>>>I have no disagreement with the information
>>>
>>>I am saying that you have interpreter it wrongly in your advice to:
>>>whoever happens to be taking note of this discussion as an interested
>>>party.
>>
>> You have to say in detail why, because I think I've interpreted it
>>correctly.
>
>There is nothing on that page that says that tired rates will be based
>upon total estate value rather than amount due to the individual
>beneficiary

Apart from the words "Estate Size" (rather than "bequest size") on the
green table??
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:cTNUm7a6...@perry.co.uk...

but as I pointed out previous they are just examples, and seem to assume
that all beneficiaries are represented by the same HH


> --
> Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9bqf0$utv$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:19:50 on Fri, 3 Mar 2017,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> http://www.heirhunters-association.org.uk/index2.php?view=negotiating
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would suggest that the examples do not support you view at all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>they appear to assume all beneficiaries represented by the same HH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's orthogonal to "negotiable" and "sliding scale". If you
>>>>>>have issues with the information, I recommend you take it up
>>>>>>with the organisation in question.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no disagreement with the information
>>>>>
>>>>>I am saying that you have interpreter it wrongly in your advice to:
>>>>>whoever happens to be taking note of this discussion as an
>>>>>interested party.
>>>>
>>>> You have to say in detail why, because I think I've interpreted it
>>>>correctly.
>>>
>>>There is nothing on that page that says that tired rates will be
>>>based upon total estate value rather than amount due to the
>>>individual beneficiary
>>
>> Apart from the words "Estate Size" (rather than "bequest size") on
>>the green table??
>
>but as I pointed out previous they are just examples, and seem to
>assume that all beneficiaries are represented by the same HH

I don't think either of those hold water. Let's agree to disagree.
--
Roland Perry

[JoeJoe]

I took a free trial for one of the genealogy websites a couple of years
ago. It is actually much simpler than you may think once you have access
to the various digitised databases (census, electoral register, etc) .
Took me no more than a couple of hours to trace the missus' and our
elderly neighbour's family back to the early 1800 with nothing but their
dad's date and place of birth- just a bit of common sense and cross
referencing. Someone who does it for a living will do this much faster,
and will surely have some other tools at their disposal (family tree
software, etc). Some cases, I'm sure, can be very difficult (our
neighbour is a Brown though...)

These companies must be doing something right though judging by the size
and equipment in their offices...

[Roland Perry]

In message <nKCdncwVDZkl5yTF...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:16:16 on Fri, 3 Mar 2017, JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> remarked:

>> A professional heir hunter will have it all done in a day if not quicker
>> becuase they have access to all sorts of datasets that the Joe Public
>> does not.
>
>I took a free trial for one of the genealogy websites a couple of years
>ago. It is actually much simpler than you may think once you have
>access to the various digitised databases (census, electoral register,
>etc) . Took me no more than a couple of hours to trace the missus' and
>our elderly neighbour's family back to the early 1800 with nothing but
>their dad's date and place of birth- just a bit of common sense and
>cross referencing. Someone who does it for a living will do this much
>faster, and will surely have some other tools at their disposal (family
>tree software, etc). Some cases, I'm sure, can be very difficult (our
>neighbour is a Brown though...)
>
>These companies must be doing something right though judging by the
>size and equipment in their offices...

I agree with all that. And yet Joe Public, who apparently needs to be
tested on concepts like "express a quarter as a percentage" before being
offered a place on a course for a £20k job, typically won't find it as
easy to fly the genealogy site as someone who may have technical/legal
training. And first they have to tease out the background information
which will even begin to guide their search.
--
Roland Perr

[Davey]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:16:16 +0000
JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:

> I took a free trial for one of the genealogy websites a couple of
> years ago. It is actually much simpler than you may think once you
> have access to the various digitised databases (census, electoral
> register, etc) . Took me no more than a couple of hours to trace the
> missus' and our elderly neighbour's family back to the early 1800
> with nothing but their dad's date and place of birth- just a bit of
> common sense and cross referencing.

It can be easy, but it can also be time-consuming and frustrating. I
have extensively researched my own ancestry, with the help in one area
(Wales) of a relative of my wife who still lives there.
But while doing my own research, I found it amazingly easy to find a
similar, but wrong, family to the one currently under investigation. I
was researching the family and origins of two aunts, known to me as
'Auntie Florrie' and 'Auntie Louie'. I discovered a family in Tavistock,
which fit all the facts that I knew, suitable names, approximate dates
of birth etc. When I related this to my older brother, he said that that
may well all be true, but the family in question had in fact come from
Essex. Going back to the files proved that to be so, but there were,
for a time, two families with the same surname and children of similar
Christian names, all of the same dates. The Tavistock family perfectly
fit the known details.

--
Davey.

[norman...@gmail.com]

Going backwards in a direct line is easy. But heir hunters have to go forwards too in order to discover all the relatives that may be entitled to a share in the estate. That may include children of children of children of the deceased's uncles and aunts for example, which is trickier.

[tim...]

<norman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19b601fb-aa72-406b...@googlegroups.com...

no they don't, only *first* cousins can quality for BV distributions

tim

[Robin]

BV follows the same law as any intestacy so in E&W one looks for - in
order -

spouse or civil partner
direct descendants (children, grandchildren etc)
parents still living
siblings of the full blood
half-siblings
grandparents still living
aunts or uncles
half-aunts or uncles

First cousins come into it if there were aunts or uncles who would have
inherited under these rules but pre-deceased, when the cousins take the
share "per stirpes".

But if the cousin was also pre-deceased AIUI their children etc in turn
took their share. And so on (possibly for some generations if the family
was prone to both teenage pregnancy and early death).

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Janet]

In article <o99a37$3r5$1...@dont-email.me>, tims_n...@yahoo.com says...

>
> "Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
> news:o993u2$csn$1...@dont-email.me...

> > On 02/03/17 09:10, tim... wrote:
> >> "Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:o97p2f$1k6$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:13:47 +0000
> >>> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters.
> >>>> In fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few,
> >>>> if any, private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs
> >>>> to provide detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim
> >>>> with copies of all the birth, death and marriage certificates to
> >>>> substatinate it. Not an easy task even for professionals. They take
> >>>> the risks, incur the costs, and earn their commission.
> >>>
> >>> When I have watched the programme, I have always wondered how the
> >>> companies make any money, or how much the heirs eventually receive.
> >>> Just the cost of the researchers' time must run into thousands of
> >>> pounds. If they then find, say, eight heirs, on a legacy of about
> >>> £200,000, that doesn't leave much for each of those heirs to get, if
> >>> the
> >>> Heir Hunter company has taken its share.
> >>
> >> doesn't work like that
> >>

> >> they take a fixed percentage regardless of the amount of the inheritance
> >>

> >> The odd million pound estate is going to pay for the losses on the 100
> >> pound
> >> ones
> >>
> >

> > I rather suspect they 'triage' the cases that they get and ignore those
> > which they think won't pay.
>
> well obviously
>

> but have you done any ancestry research from 100+ year old records.
>

> It is common for the minutiae of the details not to match from one record to
> the next, and you have to "guess" whether this minor difference is the same
> person or a different person.
>

> I have one ancestor who "lost" 10 years off his age from one census to the
> net (presumably) in order not to appear disproportionately older than his
> second wife. I *know* that this is the same person because my surname is
> uncommon and once you have found George James XXXX living in a location can
> be sure that all occurrences of George James are the same.

In Scotland, after one child died, when a new baby was born (of
the same sex) the parents would name it after the dead sib. That could
easily happen in the decade between censuses.

Janet.

[rosielee]

We had heir hunters knock at our door recently. Our neighbour died a couple of years ago and the council were originally dealing as they arranged the funeral. Eventually they traced next of kin and the house and everything was handed over to them. We know this as the council had also been calling on us making their enquiries and we, and other neighbours had been looking after the front garden so the place did not look abandoned and become a target.
Anyway, about a week after the council told us they had found the family, the family arrived and we met them. It looks like there are about 30 other family members who our neighbour had cut herself off from many years ago.
Back to the heir hunters, they turned up a week after the place was handed over by the council and they had keys and spent some time poking around. Since then there has been no action and we are now wondering if there is now a dispute going on.
None of the family are local, And if I was the heir I would have cleared the house by now and put it up for sale.
I'm wondering why the heir hunter is poking around. He did leave a business card but would not give any clues even though I told him the council had already handed the house over.

[Chris R]

To my mind it makes no sense for apparently sophisticated people to be
pawning their expensive assets, often for long-term needs. The rates
presumably charged, and the risk of loss of an asset that must be worth
far more than the loan amount (including the pawnbroker's assessment of
interest, storage costs and insurance over the entire loan period) makes
no sense when there are clearly alternatives, such as selling the asset
in an established market, or borrowing from a bank.

There is a place for a broker to help sell unusual assets, but I can't
see what this particular firm adds to the process. Most sellers would be
better off using eBay.
--
Chris R

[tim...]

"Janet" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.3323f42...@news.individual.net...

> In article <o99a37$3r5$1...@dont-email.me>, tims_n...@yahoo.com says...
>>

>>

>> I have one ancestor who "lost" 10 years off his age from one census to
>> the
>> net (presumably) in order not to appear disproportionately older than his
>> second wife. I *know* that this is the same person because my surname is
>> uncommon and once you have found George James XXXX living in a location
>> can
>> be sure that all occurrences of George James are the same.
>
> In Scotland, after one child died, when a new baby was born (of
> the same sex) the parents would name it after the dead sib. That could
> easily happen in the decade between censuses.

Yes I see what you mean

but we are talking about someone who the records show was married once in
their 20s, was widowed and then appears to have married again in their 50s
to someone aged 20 having "lost" 10 years off their age to appear as 40.

The same birthday in the year being a bit of a clue here.

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9e0sm$gbk$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:22:16 on Sat, 4 Mar 2017,
Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

>>>> A couple of years ago a friend wanted to sell a rather unusual item, and
>>>> I said "why not try those people in Hatton Garden featured in the "Posh
>>>> Pawn" daytime reality show.
>>>>

>>>> Anyway, we went there, and as soon as we were inside the shop were
>>>> approached by a researcher for the TV Channel to ask about what was
>>>> being offered and whether (by implication) it would make "good enough
>>>> TV" for their camera crew to justify staggering out of their hidey-hole
>>>> in the back office and film the transaction.
>>>
>>> That's another programme that never mentions pricing. Though I just
>>> don't believe the economic model that the programme portrays.
>>
>> While they don't quote the interest rate they charge for loans, most of
>> them are for quite large sums. When acting as a sales broker they must
>> make enough of a margin for it to be worth while (the item I was
>> involved with was not sufficiently valuable, they claimed, but they did
>> place a phone call to one of their subject-experts).
>>
>To my mind it makes no sense for apparently sophisticated people to be
>pawning their expensive assets, often for long-term needs. The rates
>presumably charged, and the risk of loss of an asset that must be worth
>far more than the loan amount (including the pawnbroker's assessment of
>interest, storage costs and insurance over the entire loan period)
>makes no sense when there are clearly alternatives, such as selling the
>asset in an established market, or borrowing from a bank.

The pawn examples they televise are usually people with a sudden debt to
pay, and need a short term load based on the collateral of a £50k car or
whatever. Sales, and bank loans make little sense in that situation.

>There is a place for a broker to help sell unusual assets, but I can't
>see what this particular firm adds to the process.

Most of the items shown are indeed for sale, are very unusual[1], and
the firm adds two important things: using a team of freelance experts to
authenticate and value an item. Was that guitar really owned by, and
signed, by one of the Beatles? Are those really diamonds rather than
paste and how many tens of thousand are they worth?

[1] for example the £8k set of armour and like-size horse, now in their
shop window https://shop.prestigepawnbrokers.co.uk/product/coat-of-arms/

>Most sellers would be better off using eBay.

Given a lot of time, some might make a sale through a specialist
auction, but those sometimes crop up only once a quarter or whatever.
And the only buyers available are those who know about the auction,
rather than people in the broker's little black book.

Most sellers could use eBay, but this channel is absolutely not dealing
with "most sellers". Would this fly (un-authenticated) on eBay:

https://shop.prestigepawnbrokers.co.uk/product/diamond-dress-ring-32/
--
Roland Perry

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:uGsIzrw8...@perry.co.uk...

>>Most sellers would be better off using eBay.
>
> Given a lot of time, some might make a sale through a specialist
> auction, but those sometimes crop up only once a quarter or whatever.
> And the only buyers available are those who know about the auction,
> rather than people in the broker's little black book.

I've never seen this program so I don't know what part of the process it
shows

but it is my understanding of the Pawnbroking business, that if the pledge
is sold to cover the loan (plus interest, selling/storage costs etc) the
excess proceeds of the sale belongs to the original owner.

do you ever see that part of the process or is it implied by the program
that the PBs get to keep this windfall.

Obviously if the value of items is low (I one used to walk past one that had
low value electronic items in the window for sale) then the indirect costs
of sale/storage are going to eat up the difference, but if they are selling
£50,000 items that is going to be insignificant (and I'm sure that the
original loan is only going to be a fraction of that value to allow for the
risk of unsubstantiated provenance)

tim

[Chris R]

That's true, but the secured creditor has little or no incentive to get
the bset possible price, or to dealy sale until the bset price can be
obtained. It's likely to be pretty rare for there to be a substantial
surplus, and charges for storage, insurance and sale costs are likely to
be high.
--
Chris R

[tim...]

"Chris R" <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:o9e72g$514$1...@dont-email.me...

Isn't there?

surely he is legally bound to make reasonable attempts to do so

He can't just sell to a mate for the 10,000 pound outstanding loan/interest
amount, for the mate to just stick it in an auction and it sells for 50,000.

> or to dealy sale until the bset price can be
> obtained. It's likely to be pretty rare

The point is that sample set of pledged items on the TV program ARE already
the pretty rare high value ones (unless I have miss-understood the MO of the
program).

I can't accept that only a rare few of the rare few high value items sells
for a profit, it's seems awfully unlikely.

> for there to be a substantial
> surplus, and charges for storage, insurance and sale costs are likely to
> be high.

Surely these will be restricted to actual costs - you can't just add on 1000
pounds per day willy-nilly

The numbers that I have used above seem to be reasonable ball-park figures
of loan/real value. I struggle to see that £40,000 difference disappearing
in storage/sales costs

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9e5iv$ud3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:59 on Sat, 4 Mar 2017,
tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>>Most sellers would be better off using eBay.
>>
>> Given a lot of time, some might make a sale through a specialist
>> auction, but those sometimes crop up only once a quarter or whatever.
>> And the only buyers available are those who know about the auction,
>> rather than people in the broker's little black book.
>
>I've never seen this program so I don't know what part of the process it
>shows

From the buyer arriving in the shop to either being given a loan, or
declined/declining to accept the offer. It's about half and half.

>but it is my understanding of the Pawnbroking business, that if the pledge
>is sold to cover the loan (plus interest, selling/storage costs etc) the
>excess proceeds of the sale belongs to the original owner.
>
>do you ever see that part of the process or is it implied by the program
>that the PBs get to keep this windfall.

I've never seen that phase on the show, its probably too difficult to
set up for a relatively short amount of airtime. They get their stories
by lurking in the shop and asking people if they'd like to be on the
programme, and then do a dummy-run at the counter to see if it's a
go-er. The initial encounter as shown on TV has to be a re-take.

>Obviously if the value of items is low (I one used to walk past one that had
>low value electronic items in the window for sale) then the indirect costs
>of sale/storage are going to eat up the difference, but if they are selling
>£50,000 items that is going to be insignificant (and I'm sure that the
>original loan is only going to be a fraction of that value to allow for the
>risk of unsubstantiated provenance)

It depends what they are storing - everything from diamond rings to
boats. Often they appear to leave the bigger items where they are, and
lease them back to the original owner.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

On 01/03/2017 17:13, Peter Crosland wrote:
> On 01/03/2017 12:35, Chris R wrote:
>> On 01/03/2017 11:27, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>>> It must cost these various heir hunter companies (TV) a considerable
>>> amount of investment, tracking down heirs and from what I have watched
>>> on TV, only one of the companies will end up being able to sign a
>>> client up. Basically a race by these companies to find a beneficiary.
>>> The other companies investments and efforts will be wasted/ have to be
>>> written off.
>>>
>>> I suspect most/much of the inheritance must therefore have to go to the
>>> company which is signed up. I had a friend who was tracked down by one
>>> such companies, who got signed up and got a few thousand out of the
>>> deal, was on TV, but I never heard the full details.
>>>
>> It's notable, and a bit disturbing, that the BBC programmes never
>> mention the amount of the charges or how they are calculated. I agree
>> they mast be substantial.
>>
>> The other risk the companies run is that when prompted, the benficiary
>> may well be able to guess the details and claim without paying the
>> commission.

>
> If it was that simple then there would be no commercial heir hunters. In
> fact it takes considerable resources to do the research and few, if any,
> private individuals can hope to compete. The applicant needs to provide
> detailed proof to the BV office to substatiate a claim with copies of
> all the birth, death and marriage certificates to substatinate it. Not
> an easy task even for professionals. They take the risks, incur the
> costs, and earn their commission.
>

I don't doubt that they provide a valuable service. But the degrees of
separation under which you might inherit are not very great, and most
people have some knowledge of their families. If approached by an heir
hunter, many might immediately guess that Uncle Scrooge had died
intestate, and claim for themselves. If you needed help at that point, I
am sure the feees charged by a competing firm for proving the
relationship to Uncle Scrooge would be a lot less than the percentage
charged for finding the heirs.

Presumably the located heir then has to apply for letters of
administration, at least in relation to substantial estates, and can
then advertise for further claims so they can ignore unknown relatives
who do not appear. Or does he The govenrmant may well want payment of
some of its costs too, especially if it has administered the estate,
sold property etc.

[Delayed - this has been in my drafts folder for a coule of days.]

--
Chris R

[Chris R]

That doesn't work as pawnbroking - taking possession is an essential
part of the security. Otherwise you would have to register a security
bill of sale, which is largely impractable, although some logbook loans
companies do it. Security over ships and aircraft is different.
--
Chris R

[tim...]

"August West" <aug...@kororaa.eu> wrote in message
news:87tw79c...@news2.kororaa.eu...

>
> The entity calling itself tim... wrote:
>>
>> "Chris R" <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:o9e72g$514$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>

>>> That's true, but the secured creditor has little or no incentive to get
>>> the bset possible price,
>>
>> Isn't there?
>>
>> surely he is legally bound to make reasonable attempts to do so
>>
>> He can't just sell to a mate for the 10,000 pound outstanding
>> loan/interest
>> amount, for the mate to just stick it in an auction and it sells for
>> 50,000.
>

> As usual, the answwers are in the law...
>
> Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.121(6):
>
> "If the pawnor alleges that the gross amount is less than the true
> market value of the pawn on the date of sale, it is for the pawnee to
> prove that he and any agents employed by him in the sale used
> reasonable care to ensure that the true market value was obtained, and
> if he fails to do so subsections (3) and (4) shall have effect as if
> the reference in subsection (5) to the gross amount were a reference to
> the true market value."

>
>>> for there to be a substantial surplus, and charges for storage,
>>> insurance and sale costs are likely to be high.
>>
>> Surely these will be restricted to actual costs - you can't just add
>> on 1000 pounds per day willy-nilly
>

> Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.121(7):
>
> "If the pawnor alleges that the expenses of the sale were unreasonably
> high, it is for the pawnee to prove that they were reasonable, and if
> he fails to do so subsections (3) and (4) shall have effect as if the
> reference in subsection (5) to expenses were a reference to reasonable
> expenses."

thanks

tis as I thought

tim

[tim...]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:sVH4Hp2R...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <o9e5iv$ud3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:59 on Sat, 4 Mar 2017,
> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
>>>>Most sellers would be better off using eBay.
>>>
>>> Given a lot of time, some might make a sale through a specialist
>>> auction, but those sometimes crop up only once a quarter or whatever.
>>> And the only buyers available are those who know about the auction,
>>> rather than people in the broker's little black book.
>>
>>I've never seen this program so I don't know what part of the process it
>>shows
>
> From the buyer arriving in the shop to either being given a loan, or
> declined/declining to accept the offer. It's about half and half.
>

Well the first part was clear from the fact that this is a pawn brokers.

it was the redemption part that I was interested in (I note your info on
that)

But that fact that people decline offers suggest that they have no real
intention of redeeming the pledge so perhaps, even at this level many are
not redeemed.

which leaves the question of whether the punters get their excess value back
as unknown

I do so wish that TV programs of this type wouldn't give the viewer a less
than correct view of how things work. It leaves them more at at the mercy
of rip-offs than they need be.

I know that it's only entertainment, but it's what people watch and they
could easily gain better financial info from doing so if it were factually
complete. Expecting a gripped audience for "Martin's Money" is expecting
too much (I watched it once - an absolute yawn-fest).

tim

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9f631$u2n$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:56:41 on Sat, 4 Mar 2017,

tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
>
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:sVH4Hp2R...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <o9e5iv$ud3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:41:59 on Sat, 4 Mar 2017,
>> tim... <tims_n...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>Most sellers would be better off using eBay.
>>>>
>>>> Given a lot of time, some might make a sale through a specialist
>>>> auction, but those sometimes crop up only once a quarter or whatever.
>>>> And the only buyers available are those who know about the auction,
>>>> rather than people in the broker's little black book.
>>>
>>>I've never seen this program so I don't know what part of the process it
>>>shows
>>
>> From the buyer arriving in the shop to either being given a loan, or
>> declined/declining to accept the offer. It's about half and half.
>>
>
>Well the first part was clear from the fact that this is a pawn brokers.
>
>it was the redemption part that I was interested in (I note your info
>on that)
>
>But that fact that people decline offers suggest that they have no real
>intention of redeeming the pledge so perhaps, even at this level many
>are not redeemed.

Based on my recollection of the show, most reasonable offers of a loan
are accepted, which means they are expecting to redeem the items.

The main reason for loans not being offered is when the item turns out
to be a fake, or other reasons why it's too low valued or quirky for the
pawn shop to handle.

But around half the items shown are offered for sale, and the customers
routinely over-value their items which means many deals fall through.

The balance between these scenarios is *not* a documentary, they are
chosen to make good TV. Hence the way each flavour of transaction gets
roughly equal airtime.

>which leaves the question of whether the punters get their excess value
>back as unknown

And we are never going to know by analysing that TV show.

>I do so wish that TV programs of this type wouldn't give the viewer a
>less than correct view of how things work. It leaves them more at at
>the mercy of rip-offs than they need be.
>
>I know that it's only entertainment, but it's what people watch and
>they could easily gain better financial info from doing so if it were
>factually complete.

While the shows don't give the viewer any idea of the probability of
each kind of outcome, they inform about the process and the viewer can
then build upon that with their own investigations.

Another show with the same formula is "Flog it", where viewers bring
along antiques to be valued by the usual suspect TV-experts. At the end,
three (they'll have to film many more to get the range of outcomes
required to make good TV) items are auctioned, which are usually, in
order: fails to meet reserve - just about sells for the reserve - sells
for 2-3x the reserve.

>Expecting a gripped audience for "Martin's Money" is expecting too much
>(I watched it once - an absolute yawn-fest).

Expecting reality TV to be a documentary is expecting too much.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

I still think it unlikely that there would be a significant surplus in
many cases. Forced sale proceeds are likely to be much lower than
careful amrketing over an extended period, and the interst and costs
will absorb most of any difference between loan amount and proceeds. The
pawnbroker might not sell until he is likely to start losing money on
uncovered interest.
--
Chris R

[Roland Perry]

In message <o9gpq0$d8s$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:39:44 on Sun, 5 Mar 2017,
Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:

Most of the interest is in effect an insurance premium for those deals
which go bad (for whatever reason). Plus an arrangement fee, which once
"paid off" doesn't continue accruing if the item is in storage (unless
it's an exceptionally big item). The suit of armour and horse has been
"in storage" in his shop window for several years now.

They clearly don't have any shortage of working capital, and in any
event making all these things work out OK in the long run is precisely
the skill of a successful pawn broker.
--
Roland Perry