Gathering the estate assets

[yorkshirelad1]

Is there an idiots guide to getting probate and sorting out IHT form filling? In our family everything is straightforward just a house, some investments and cash accounts, split equally between heirs. But some IHT will be due.

Which? used to publish a book: What to do when someone dies (e.g. ISBN 9780852028162) which has been out of print for a while, so won't be completely up to date, which is (or was) quite good, and can be found online.

[smokey01]

Is there an idiots guide to getting probate and sorting out IHT form filling? In our family everything is straightforward just a house, some investments and cash accounts, split equally between heirs. But some IHT will be due.

Which? used to publish a book: What to do when someone dies (e.g. ISBN 9780852028162) which has been out of print for a while, so won't be completely up to date, which is (or was) quite good, and can be found online.

Thanks yorkshirelad1 and gerry557

[AdrianC]

I have another question if you all don't mind: when would a solicitor place a notice in the Gazette?
Would it be only after all estate assets have been gathered? It seems like it could be done as soon as probate is granted, making the estate public.
There hasn't been a notice for ours, though I do see the name of the solicitor in other notices, so they do it sometimes.

[Clitheroekid]

I have another question if you all don't mind: when would a solicitor place a notice in the Gazette?

Generally, the answer is never! It's a matter of discretion, but in most ordinary estates where a parent has died and the assets are all left to the surviving spouse and/or children there's usually no need. The only purpose of the notice is to advertise for creditors, and in this type of estate the deceased's creditors are usually easy to identify.

Furthermore, in the large majority of such estates the executors are also the beneficiaries, so even if a claim should arise they could simply pay it out of their inheritance.

The type of estate where I would always advertise is that of a single person who died without children, and where the assets are either divided according to the Intestacy Rules or are left to friends / relatives / charities. In cases like this the executors (which might well include myself) are personally liable for such debts up to the value of the estate, so it would be potentially economic suicide to distribute without having advertised.

I would normally advertise as soon as probate has been granted, so that the two month clock starts ticking ASAP. If it's left till all the assets have been gathered in it automatically creates a two month freeze on distribution, which is irritating to the beneficiaries.

Incidentally, if the estate includes a property then as well as advertising in the Gazette it's also considered advisable to advertise in a newspaper local to the area where the property is situated. However, it's quite expensive - around £250 - and I think it's very rare these days. In any case, it might be pretty difficult to find a local newspaper these days, many of them having sadly disappeared.

[Gerry557]

I did advertise in the Gazette. It was expensive and I felt a bit guilty about the expenditure but it gave me peace of mind.

I was asked to be an executor and didn't fully understand all the implications. I wasn't a beneficiary but suspect that there were some family squabbling. I did ask why they didn't ask their own offspring to do the job.

I don't think they communicated that I would be the executor or some of the family forgot. I was asked why I was "doing it to them" .

The upshot was it was tense and that doing everything by the book needed to be seen to be done especially if I was financially liable.

I did discuss if I should do the Gazette thing with one of the beneficiaries and didn't think there was a real need. The estate was fairly simple. There was a concern that there might be issues raised especially after the comment, so it was best to be covered.

On the whole though I think I saved the estate more than the extra costs of the Gazette. I suspect that if you engaged a solicitor to be executor they would elect to Gazette by default.

[AdrianC]

I have another question if you all don't mind: when would a solicitor place a notice in the Gazette?

Generally, the answer is never! It's a matter of discretion, but in most ordinary estates where a parent has died and the assets are all left to the surviving spouse and/or children there's usually no need. The only purpose of the notice is to advertise for creditors, and in this type of estate the deceased's creditors are usually easy to identify.

Furthermore, in the large majority of such estates the executors are also the beneficiaries, so even if a claim should arise they could simply pay it out of their inheritance.

Thanks, Clitheroekid. That is the case. Basically, two beneficiaries and we can handle any claim that could conceivably be made. Not that I'd expect any. The two beneficiaries are the two adult kids of the deceased. Deceased was not married.

I find this particular solicitor has placed notices in the Gazette, but most are from a decade or more ago. Only a couple in the last few years. I expect they are not doing it in our case. That's good. Didn't want yet another two months delay.

I expect what I am seeing as interminable delays in sorting this estate are a combination of complication (a small business had to be valued for probate), bank awkwardness (HSBC), solicitor doing everything in their own sweet time, and by mail*, and passivity on the part of the executor (not asking for information).

* Example: solicitor needed more paperwork signed to get assets from HSBC. Solicitors' office is 2 miles away from executor's home. Solicitor sends the paperwork by mail. Why not phone and say come in to sign some papers?

[AdrianC]

The executor (not me) signed some papers back in January to get things going. IHT was paid and probate applied for in May. Probate granted early September. Three weeks after that the executor signed papers to allow the gathering of assets. Then just this week [Nov 30, 2023] the solicitor had them sign additional papers specifically for HSBC.

There’s possibly some complication with investments held at HSBC, maybe with Jupiter. As far as I know, the rest is simple bank accounts and ISAs.

(Quoting myself for context)

Got an update this week: the solicitor, over a year into their work on this case, says they are now just waiting on money from some shares and from HSBC. We are 5 months post grant of probate.

Could this be policy on the part of the solicitor to protect them from liability? That is, purposely delay the gathering of assets until a specific time has elapsed, say 6 months after grant of probate (or is it 10 months after application for probate?). The delay getting the assets being blamed on HSBC in this case, so the beneficiaries blame the bank, not the solicitor?

I know, Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Maybe in this case it's: Never attribute to artifice that which is adequately explained by incompetence and apathy.

[Gerry557]

I think the executor (c)should wait 6 months post grant of probate to allow for any further calls on the estate so they are not held liable.

[DrFfybes]

* Example: solicitor needed more paperwork signed to get assets from HSBC. Solicitors' office is 2 miles away from executor's home. Solicitor sends the paperwork by mail. Why not phone and say come in to sign some papers?

They make more profit from a letter than a phone call?

[Lootman]

I think the executor (c)should wait 6 months post grant of probate to allow for any further calls on the estate so they are not held liable.

An executor can only be held liable if they were somehow negligent, or otherwise failed to use reasonable due diligence. If some debt or liability could not reasonably have bee discovered and only manifests itself long afterwards then I would argue that the executor is off the hook.

If I am a beneficiary due to get a life-changing bequest you can bet that I am going to be all over the executor as soon as probate is granted.

[Clitheroekid]

* Example: solicitor needed more paperwork signed to get assets from HSBC. Solicitors' office is 2 miles away from executor's home. Solicitor sends the paperwork by mail. Why not phone and say come in to sign some papers?

They make more profit from a letter than a phone call?

Actually, it's the other way round. Most solicitors charge by the hour, but they split the hour into 10 units. Routine correspondence (traditionally letters, but these days nearly always emails) and telephone calls aren't individually timed, but are allocated one unit, i.e. 6 minutes.

As the actual effort in making a phone call is a lot less than writing and posting a letter a phone call represents a much more profitable use of time (especially if there's no answer! )

I think the executor (c)should wait 6 months post grant of probate to allow for any further calls on the estate so they are not held liable.

An executor can only be held liable if they were somehow negligent, or otherwise failed to use reasonable due diligence. If some debt or liability could not reasonably have bee discovered and only manifests itself long afterwards then I would argue that the executor is off the hook.

The 6 month `rule' derives from the fact that someone can make a claim against the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. A claim has to be issued within 6 months of the grant of representation, but there's no legal requirement for such a claim to be notified before the issue of proceedings, though it would be exceptionally unusual for such a claim not to be notified.

A very cautious executor would wait 10 months, the reason being that once a claim's been issued there's a time limit of 4 months to serve the Claim Form. Consequently, a claim could be issued but simply sit on the solicitor's desk for nearly 4 months without the executors even being aware of it.

However, in most estates there would be no justification at all for such a delay. Applying a little common sense (not a quality for which probate lawyers are noted!) would enable the executors to see that there is no realistic possibility of such a claim. In any case, where, as is usually the case, the executors are also residuary beneficiaries, even if a claim were to be made they could just pay it out of the assets they'd received.

[didds]

* Example: solicitor needed more paperwork signed to get assets from HSBC. Solicitors' office is 2 miles away from executor's home. Solicitor sends the paperwork by mail. Why not phone and say come in to sign some papers?

They make more profit from a letter than a phone call?

On the basis for time of

"Miss Secretary - standard letter #6 to Mr Bloggs, signed PP."

versus

solicitor phones Mr Bloggs, has conversation, seeks confirmation of understanding

Both charged at the same cost/price.

When I was at Uni a million years ago my vacation job was in a local accountants. The partner would often at 1030 coffee break say he had already billed his day out ie had charged enough client letters.

didds

[scrumpyjack]

The executor (not me) signed some papers back in January to get things going. IHT was paid and probate applied for in May. Probate granted early September. Three weeks after that the executor signed papers to allow the gathering of assets. Then just this week [Nov 30, 2023] the solicitor had them sign additional papers specifically for HSBC.

There’s possibly some complication with investments held at HSBC, maybe with Jupiter. As far as I know, the rest is simple bank accounts and ISAs.

(Quoting myself for context)

Got an update this week: the solicitor, over a year into their work on this case, says they are now just waiting on money from some shares and from HSBC. We are 5 months post grant of probate.

Could this be policy on the part of the solicitor to protect them from liability? That is, purposely delay the gathering of assets until a specific time has elapsed, say 6 months after grant of probate (or is it 10 months after application for probate?). The delay getting the assets being blamed on HSBC in this case, so the beneficiaries blame the bank, not the solicitor?

I know, Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Maybe in this case it's: Never attribute to artifice that which is adequately explained by incompetence and apathy.

This illustrates why, IMO, it is best to avoid using a solicitor if you can, or do most of the work yourself and only involve a solicitor when you really need to. If you are the executor, you can gather assets, sell shares, deal with banks etc yourself. It does not need a solicitor at their hourly charge rates, non tax deductible and with VAT. Of course if it someone else's family and you are the executor, and accept that role, you may prefer to dump it all on a solicitor.

[Lootman]

IMO, it is best to avoid using a solicitor if you can, or do most of the work yourself and only involve a solicitor when you really need to. If you are the executor, you can gather assets, sell shares, deal with banks etc yourself. It does not need a solicitor at their hourly charge rates, non tax deductible and with VAT. Of course if it someone else's family and you are the executor, and accept that role, you may prefer to dump it all on a solicitor.

Yes and out of the three times I have been an executor, twice I did it all completely myself. The third time I used a solicitor, but only because the process involved the sale of a house. But even then I was able to gather all the other assets without probate, settle all the debts of the estate, and even make some preliminary distributions, all before the grant of probate.

This also informs my own estate planning and I am structuring my affairs so that, for many of my assets, my kids can gather those assets directly without needing probate.

[Clitheroekid]

On the basis for time of

"Miss Secretary - standard letter #6 to Mr Bloggs, signed PP."

versus

solicitor phones Mr Bloggs, has conversation, seeks confirmation of understanding

Both charged at the same cost/price.

When I was at Uni a million years ago my vacation job was in a local accountants. The partner would often at 1030 coffee break say he had already billed his day out ie had charged enough client letters.

didds

What you're describing sounds like a million years ago. Whereas we always used to have at least one secretary and/or access to a typing pool those days are long since gone. I don't know any solicitors that have a personal secretary these days, though I'm sure there will be a few that still do. Nearly all the solicitors that I know type their own correspondence now.

Initially it was probably not that efficient. Just because someone can type their own correspondence doesn't mean it's the best use of their time to actually do so, and if someone is charging £300 an hour it doesn't make sense for them to spend 10 minutes typing correspondence when it could have been dictated in 2 minutes and typed by a secretary on £20 an hour.

However, there are two factors that have gradually made it worthwhile. The first is the replacement of posted letters with email, so there'e no longer any of the faff involved in actually printing the letter, preparing and printing an envelope, getting the letter signed, checking any enclosures, putting the letter in an envelope, applying postage and then arranging for it to be posted, all of which was undertaken by a secretary or her underlings.

But the second factor, which has certainly made a huge difference to me, is the advent of reliable and free voice recognition. I now dictate any document of more than a couple of lines into my iPhone and I would say that it's 90% accurate - as good as most competent secretaries and far better than many temps I've been landed with over the years.

So to get back to the point, in the absence of someone to type your letters for you a phone call is almost always a more efficient use of time than sending a letter, though the difference is probably marginal compared to sending an email, particularly as you generally have to make a file note of a phone conversation whereas an email is its own record.

But I must admit that although the contemporary way of doing things may be more cost-efficient it's nothing like as pleasant. A good secretary was so much more than someone who just typed one's letters or took calls. We would work together as a genuine team, and as they gained more experience and understood the nature of the job we would discuss cases I was handling and I often gained very useful insights and suggestions that would never have occurred to me.

I suspect the net outcome is that we are all now doing more work than we were then - the days of skiving off to the golf course at 10:30 are just a distant memory - but for the same reward and without the human element, which is really quite sad and makes me wonder whether we are actually better off at all. (Incidentally, apologies for the thread drift!)

[didds]

What you're describing sounds like a million years ago.

Whereas we always used to have at least one secretary and/or access to a typing pool those days are long since gone. I don't know any solicitors that

wrt my experience in my holiday accountant job...

40 anyway!



didds

[Jopo1]

In case this helps, I notified first direct (part of HSBC and use the same processes and systems) of my dad's death in early October.

The bank finally decided to get in touch about it about 4 weeks later (and they wanted proof of ID from all executors, fortunately my 2 brothers rescinded their executorships so they didn't have to go through that). As the bank account was a joint account, they just changed it to mum's name only. They said the share dealing side of the business would be in touch soon about the S&S ISA.

Weeks later, HSBC sharedealing sent me a very badly written letter about what I had to do with the FD sharedealing account. There were sentences that didn't make sense, terrible grammar, and also half a phone number where the letter just ended "0345 850". Oh, and a garbled incomprehensible phrase about APS and ISAs. I couldn't make head or tail of it! Some part of it directed me to contact HSBC, another part of it directed my to contact FD.

FINALLY several weeks after I sent back all the forms, on 9th feb the S&S finally appeared in mum's sharedealing account. It took 4 months for them to do what it took the bank a few days to do.

So I can fully believe that HSBC is taking months to do something that should be much quicker.

Jopo

[Gerry557]

I might make a formal complaint regarding that letter. It might help lots more people later on. It's bad enough with the circumstances but adding poor admin on top.

[Gersemi]

I might make a formal complaint regarding that letter. It might help lots more people later on. It's bad enough with the circumstances but adding poor admin on top.

Yes, I mean it's not as if it's a really unusual situation.

[AdrianC]

It took 4 months for them to do what it took the bank a few days to do.

So I can fully believe that HSBC is taking months to do something that should be much quicker.

Jopo

Thanks. I heard last week that the HSBC stuff was finally sorted out, or at least the executor thinks so. It took about 4 1/2 months. I'm guessing it was a similar ordeal as yours.

Now we are just "waiting on the shares". Aarghhhh! This is a trivial holding of Centrica and Abdrn shares. The solicitor, just last week, asked if the family knew if there were any share certificates. So that means they just started to look at cashing these shares, 5 1/2 months after grant of representation. Likely we will spend more in solicitors' fees to get them cashed than they are worth.

I have no clue about the share certificates. I assume the shares are held at some dealing service (Equiniti?). Shouldn't be too difficult. Looks like it has to be done by post. That will suit this solicitor.