On 08/07/2015 12:36, stuart noble wrote:

I have a mate whose stamp collection is worth more than his house. No
audit trail there. Smart guy



Not insured then?

On 07/07/2015 14:05, Nick wrote:
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message


Harry,
sorry to hear of your loss. My condolences.
I imagine there would be CGT & IHT issues.
You might be better off re-posting this to
uk.legal.moderated

All the best,
Nick.



Harry

+ 1 on both counts.

For straightforward wills, being an executor is pretty easy. You need
professional help if there are trusts for minors, and a financial
advisor (rather than a solicitor) will probably recoup their cost if
there is any significant tax to pay.

I was a joint executor with my brother's solicitor when he died, and
they were totally professional: they were happy to minimise the costs by
letting me do the donkey work, and once the necessary trusts for minors
had been sorted, they stood down with another family member as trustee.

YMMV.

Steve

On 07/07/2015 14:31, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:24:54 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Off the top of my head, the total value will be possibly as much as
£200K.

Then IHT is irrelevant, and it should all be straightforward.

+1

On 08/07/2015 12:27, Huge wrote:
On 2015-07-08, stuart noble wrote:
On 08/07/2015 11:47, Huge wrote:
On 2015-07-08, stuart noble wrote:
On 08/07/2015 02:14, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/07/2015 13:41, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

My partner has just sadly passed away, so obviously I'm in a bit of a
spin.

Very sorry to hear that Harry. My condolences.

need to organise Probate. Probate forms look to be straight forward
enough.

Not got much to add other than, for most folks DIY probate is certainly
doable. IIRC there are server guide books available with step by step
instructions (and n doubt web sites as well these days)



Wills are usually more trouble than they're worth, especially since most
of them follow the intestacy rules anyway.

Idiot.


Normal families leave stuff to their spouses/offspring. If you're part
of a dysfunctional family then probably you need complicated
documentation. Jarndyce vs Jarndyce

If you *choose* to start dealing with the intestacy process on top of
everything else on the death of a family member, plus dealing
with all the financial & legal institutions who will want to see a
will, then you're an idiot.

I would strongly suspect that you've never acted as an executor.


Intestacy is no more complicated than a will, and is at least
unambiguous. Either way probate is issued and that is all anyone needs
as authority to release funds.
Your strong suspicions are unfounded. You don't get to my advanced age
without a few people dying.

On 08/07/2015 11:50, stuart noble wrote:
On 08/07/2015 09:32, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:00:18 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Wills are usually more trouble than they're worth, especially since most
of them follow the intestacy rules anyway.

If Harry's partner had died intestate, Harry would receive nothing.


Except that partners normally own their home jointly and have joint bank
accounts

Even if you can show that you own the house jointly it still leaves you
homeless if the beneficiaries want their half of the house. Also half
the cash in the bank account and half of anything else jointly owned.

Huge has brought this to us :
The moment you tell them the account-holder is dead, they will freeze the
account.

WRONG!

Or at least according to my bank which is the same bank in which her
accounts were held. I informed the bank on Monday, in person, with the
death cert and will in hand.

Their manager seemed to say initially - all transactions would be
stopped dead, but then later during the interview said - all DD's would
continue to be honoured, as normal. I could also top it up if
necessary, but no other money could be drawn out against the accounts,
not even by me. That status will remain, until I decided to change it.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 14:02:42 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Even if you can show that you own the house jointly it still leaves you
homeless if the beneficiaries want their half of the house.

Depends on if the house is tenants-in-common or joint-tenants.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:44:36 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Intestacy is no more complicated than a will, and is at least
unambiguous.

Oh, indeed it is unambiguous. Even if you know it's not what the deceased
wanted, it is unambiguous. George Osborne has a higher claim than an
unmarried partner.

On 08/07/2015 12:27, Huge wrote:

If you *choose* to start dealing with the intestacy process on top of
everything else on the death of a family member, plus dealing
with all the financial & legal institutions who will want to see a
will, then you're an idiot.

There is nothing to it, and yes I have done it.
The rules are straight forward and you can't change them without a will
of some sort.

On 08/07/2015 13:01, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/07/15 12:36, stuart noble wrote:

Anything going out of the account in the previous 7 years will be deemed
a gift by default. *******s

Anything that cannot be verified to be in procurement of goods or
settlement of a bill I presume?

I don't think it can be quite that retarded. Otherwise someone who
withdrew £50-100 each week to buy groceries would be deemed to have
"gifted" £18k-36k which would have a non trivial impact.

They obviously tend to lock on to the larger amounts in round figures.
Spending £500 a week on grub might raise eyebrows.

Having dealt with probate, I cannot recall HMRC wanting to see the last
7 years of bank transactions.

I had to send the whole lot off, but left out 2 months. They got all
excited but the missing statements contained nothing significant. I was
just testing them

Just how far is an executor suppose to go?
Just the 7 years.

I meant in terms of effort?

Most of the effort will be your attempts to reduce the value of the estate


I have a mate whose stamp collection is worth more than his house. No
audit trail there. Smart guy

I am sorely tempted to start hiding gold kruggerands all over the place...

Or antiques. HMRC are only after the low hanging fruit

On 08/07/2015 13:26, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/07/2015 12:36, stuart noble wrote:

I have a mate whose stamp collection is worth more than his house. No
audit trail there. Smart guy



Not insured then?

No idea. Maybe it's all stored in Hatton Garden

newshound wrote :
I was a joint executor with my brother's solicitor when he died, and they
were totally professional: they were happy to minimise the costs by letting
me do the donkey work, and once the necessary trusts for minors had been
sorted, they stood down with another family member as trustee.

No minors involved, though they were when the will was written. Her
grandkids, now have kids of their own.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Even if you can show that you own the house jointly it still leaves you
homeless if the beneficiaries want their half of the house. Also half
the cash in the bank account and half of anything else jointly owned.


Total crap. The share of a joint tenant who dies goes to the surviving
joint tenant(s). Similarly, the money in a joint bank account goes to
the surviving account holder (without the need for probate).

On 08/07/2015 14:08, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:44:36 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Intestacy is no more complicated than a will, and is at least
unambiguous.

Oh, indeed it is unambiguous. Even if you know it's not what the deceased
wanted, it is unambiguous. George Osborne has a higher claim than an
unmarried partner.


How is anyone expected to know what the deceased wanted if they didn't
put their wishes in writing? Could have been scribbled on a piece of
toilet paper and witnessed by a drunk on a park bench. It would still be
a valid will

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:48:23 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Intestacy is no more complicated than a will, and is at least
unambiguous.

Oh, indeed it is unambiguous. Even if you know it's not what the
deceased wanted, it is unambiguous. George Osborne has a higher claim
than an unmarried partner.

How is anyone expected to know what the deceased wanted if they didn't
put their wishes in writing?

Do you need your missus to write everything down in order to know what
she wants?

Could have been scribbled on a piece of toilet paper and witnessed by a
drunk on a park bench. It would still be a valid will

So, just to be clear, you're now suggesting a will is straightforward,
and a good thing to have?

On 08/07/2015 18:06, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:48:23 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Intestacy is no more complicated than a will, and is at least
unambiguous.

Oh, indeed it is unambiguous. Even if you know it's not what the
deceased wanted, it is unambiguous. George Osborne has a higher claim
than an unmarried partner.

How is anyone expected to know what the deceased wanted if they didn't
put their wishes in writing?

Do you need your missus to write everything down in order to know what
she wants?

By "your missus" you mean my wife, or my latest girlfriend?

Could have been scribbled on a piece of toilet paper and witnessed by a
drunk on a park bench. It would still be a valid will

So, just to be clear, you're now suggesting a will is straightforward,
and a good thing to have?


It's straightforward if nobody challenges it*, and it's an essential
thing to have if the intestacy rules don't cover your requirements. If
you have a wife and kids, then why would you need a will? (unless you're
Bill Gates or Warren Buffet)

* "I leave all the furniture in the dining to the barmaid at the Lamb
and Flag". Imagine the fun you could have with that if it was worth
anyone's while

On 08/07/2015 17:37, stuart noble wrote:

Even if you can show that you own the house jointly it still leaves you
homeless if the beneficiaries want their half of the house. Also half
the cash in the bank account and half of anything else jointly owned.


Total crap. The share of a joint tenant who dies goes to the surviving
joint tenant(s). Similarly, the money in a joint bank account goes to
the surviving account holder (without the need for probate).

https://www.gov.uk/joint-property-ownership/overview

Are you a joint tenant or a tenant in common?

In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

My solution wouldn't suit everyone, but I set up a joint account with my
mother. Everything got paid from there, and the account continued
working after her death.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:18:24 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so
the payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep
recods of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a
problem?

These kinds of arrangements can bite you.

Our previous next door neighbour became virtually housebound; we had
moved, but only 100 yards or so.

She visited the Post Office to get her pension occasionally (a short
distance again). But she needed to pay it into her bank account to pay
bills.

The arrangement we had was that she would give me cash and I would
electronically transfer that amount to her bank account. It saved me
going to the ATM and it helped her.

At some point the council made her show her bank statements (I think
because she wans claiming rent rebate). They queried this extra 'income'
she had and tried to remove the rent rebate.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

No, because you can match her cheques with what you have paid for her.

On 08/07/15 18:31, stuart noble wrote:

It's straightforward if nobody challenges it*, and it's an essential
thing to have if the intestacy rules don't cover your requirements. If
you have a wife and kids, then why would you need a will? (unless you're
Bill Gates or Warren Buffet)


My father never made a will. When he died thirty years ago I expect he
assume that it would all go to my mother. But that's not what the
intestacy rules laid down. It took a deed of arrangement to prevent
things getting even more complicated when my mother dies a few years
later. Needless to say having sorted out the problems on my father's
death getting my mother to write a will was something I insisted upon.
If you have a wife and kids you most certainly need a will.

In article ,
"ratsack" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

No, because you can match her cheques with what you have paid for her.

Not easily. A cheque typically covers 3 months of barclaycard, gas,
etc bills, and several loads of shopping, which were only ever added
up on back of an envelope, and not kept.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ratsack" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so
the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep
recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

No, because you can match her cheques with what you have paid for her.

Not easily. A cheque typically covers 3 months of barclaycard, gas,
etc bills, and several loads of shopping, which were only ever added
up on back of an envelope, and not kept.

Sure, but everything except the shopping is easy to prove and
the difference which is the shopping would be reasonable.
You have proven that you are paying for her and getting
that back with a cheque, that is all you have to do, not prove
the amount spent on the shopping as long as the difference
is reasonable. And even if they want to be bloody minded
and ignore the shopping, it wouldn't make much difference
to the value of the estate which has to be substantial for there
to be an inheritance tax due.

On 09/07/2015 00:25, DJC wrote:
On 08/07/15 18:31, stuart noble wrote:

It's straightforward if nobody challenges it*, and it's an essential
thing to have if the intestacy rules don't cover your requirements. If
you have a wife and kids, then why would you need a will? (unless you're
Bill Gates or Warren Buffet)


My father never made a will. When he died thirty years ago I expect he
assume that it would all go to my mother. But that's not what the
intestacy rules laid down. It took a deed of arrangement to prevent
things getting even more complicated when my mother dies a few years
later. Needless to say having sorted out the problems on my father's
death getting my mother to write a will was something I insisted upon.
If you have a wife and kids you most certainly need a will.


How did the money not go to your father's wife then?

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:57:02 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

On 09/07/2015 00:25, DJC wrote:
On 08/07/15 18:31, stuart noble wrote:

It's straightforward if nobody challenges it*, and it's an essential
thing to have if the intestacy rules don't cover your requirements. If
you have a wife and kids, then why would you need a will? (unless
you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet)


My father never made a will. When he died thirty years ago I expect he
assume that it would all go to my mother. But that's not what the
intestacy rules laid down. It took a deed of arrangement to prevent
things getting even more complicated when my mother dies a few years
later. Needless to say having sorted out the problems on my father's
death getting my mother to write a will was something I insisted upon.
If you have a wife and kids you most certainly need a will.


How did the money not go to your father's wife then?

Because the rules state (current values) that the first £250,000 goes to
the widow, and she also gets half of the remainder. The rest is divided
equally among children. Can be a problem if the estate includes the house
that the widow is living in, and the children want their share now.

On 09/07/15 09:51, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:57:02 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

On 09/07/2015 00:25, DJC wrote:
On 08/07/15 18:31, stuart noble wrote:

It's straightforward if nobody challenges it*, and it's an essential
thing to have if the intestacy rules don't cover your requirements. If
you have a wife and kids, then why would you need a will? (unless
you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet)


My father never made a will. When he died thirty years ago I expect he
assume that it would all go to my mother. But that's not what the
intestacy rules laid down. It took a deed of arrangement to prevent
things getting even more complicated when my mother dies a few years
later. Needless to say having sorted out the problems on my father's
death getting my mother to write a will was something I insisted upon.
If you have a wife and kids you most certainly need a will.


How did the money not go to your father's wife then?

Because the rules state (current values) that the first £250,000 goes to
the widow, and she also gets half of the remainder. The rest is divided
equally among children. Can be a problem if the estate includes the house
that the widow is living in, and the children want their share now.

Precisely. 'Wanting share now' not the problem. The problem is the tax
and other implications (or was at that time) of a life interest in 'half
the remainder' when practically the whole estate was the family home.

I note the rules were changed in Oct 2014, but it is still probably not
as simple as most people assume.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm12111.htm

GB posted
On 07/07/2015 18:32, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
GB has brought this to us :
On 07/07/2015 15:00, Adrian wrote:

That's not your problem at the moment, though - you need to get the
solicitors to renounce their executor status.


They might *possibly* renounce, but what will induce them to?
Solicitors write wills cheaply, as a sprat to catch a mackerel, the
mackerel being the lucrative executorship work.

Which was exactly as happened in this case - £60 when they originally
drew it up.


They can really only be removed if they act incompetently, which they
probably won't. They can argue that their client was your late partner,
not the beneficiaries, and they are just carrying out your late
partner's wishes in acting as executor. It's a pretty unassailable
position.


Not true these days. Professional guidance states that a professional
executor should renounce if all the beneficiaries request it and there
is no special reason for not doing so. There is even a High Court ruling
saying so in a particular case, though the profession has kept quiet
about it

See http://lm.lyris.co.uk/read/messages?id=174956

--
Les

On 09/07/2015 18:29, Big Les Wade wrote:
GB posted
On 07/07/2015 18:32, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
GB has brought this to us :
On 07/07/2015 15:00, Adrian wrote:

That's not your problem at the moment, though - you need to get the
solicitors to renounce their executor status.


They might *possibly* renounce, but what will induce them to?
Solicitors write wills cheaply, as a sprat to catch a mackerel, the
mackerel being the lucrative executorship work.

Which was exactly as happened in this case - £60 when they originally
drew it up.


They can really only be removed if they act incompetently, which they
probably won't. They can argue that their client was your late
partner, not the beneficiaries, and they are just carrying out your
late partner's wishes in acting as executor. It's a pretty
unassailable position.


Not true these days. Professional guidance states that a professional
executor should renounce if all the beneficiaries request it and there
is no special reason for not doing so. There is even a High Court ruling
saying so in a particular case, though the profession has kept quiet
about it

See http://lm.lyris.co.uk/read/messages?id=174956


Since the beneficiaries are bound to benefit to a lesser degree with
solicitors involved, that's good news indeed

On 08/07/2015 10:58, RobertL wrote:
On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 1:41:10 PM UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Her main life cover paid out surprisingly, with just a phone call - the
cheque in my name turned up yesterday. For a second much smaller policy
a different insurance company - they want a form filled in, a copy of
the will, a death certificate and names signatures from the three
executors.

The difference might not be due to the different company procedures. It is possible that the OP's name was specified on the first policy (but not the second) so no probate was required to distribute the money of the first policy.

Robert

Also insurance companies seem to be much more relaxed about what they
consider to be small sums (istr £5k).

It happens that stuart noble formulated :

Not true these days. Professional guidance states that a professional
executor should renounce if all the beneficiaries request it and there
is no special reason for not doing so. There is even a High Court ruling
saying so in a particular case, though the profession has kept quiet
about it

See http://lm.lyris.co.uk/read/messages?id=174956


Since the beneficiaries are bound to benefit to a lesser degree with
solicitors involved, that's good news indeed

That is absolutely brilliant news indeed. Thank you very much :|

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 10/07/2015 10:46, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
It happens that stuart noble formulated :

Not true these days. Professional guidance states that a professional
executor should renounce if all the beneficiaries request it and there
is no special reason for not doing so. There is even a High Court ruling
saying so in a particular case, though the profession has kept quiet
about it

See http://lm.lyris.co.uk/read/messages?id=174956


Since the beneficiaries are bound to benefit to a lesser degree with
solicitors involved, that's good news indeed

That is absolutely brilliant news indeed. Thank you very much :|


You can change anything about the will if all the beneficiaries agree,
so it would have seemed odd if you couldn't replace the executor

On 08/07/2015 12:53, Martin Brown wrote:

Unless you are on an Apple you will probably need to download a decent
PDF tool - the free version of PDF-Xchange seems to work OK with the
official probate forms. Several others I tried could not compute the
subtotals as they seem to have used some non-standard Adobe extensions.

The bog standard version of Acrobat Reader worked for me on Windows.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 08/07/2015 14:05, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Huge has brought this to us :
The moment you tell them the account-holder is dead, they will freeze the
account.

WRONG!

Not always wrong...

My father's bank froze his account the moment I told them of his death.
But the branch manager asked me if I needed anything out of it for the
inevitable upcoming expenses (I had Power of Attorney) before she heard
what I had just told her.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 08/07/2015 11:50, stuart noble wrote:
On 08/07/2015 09:32, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:00:18 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Wills are usually more trouble than they're worth, especially since most
of them follow the intestacy rules anyway.

If Harry's partner had died intestate, Harry would receive nothing.


Except that partners normally own their home jointly and have joint bank
accounts

When it comes to sorting out an estate, 'normally' is next to useless.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 10/07/2015 20:03, F wrote:
On 08/07/2015 11:50, stuart noble wrote:
On 08/07/2015 09:32, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:00:18 +0100, stuart noble wrote:

Wills are usually more trouble than they're worth, especially since
most
of them follow the intestacy rules anyway.

If Harry's partner had died intestate, Harry would receive nothing.


Except that partners normally own their home jointly and have joint bank
accounts

When it comes to sorting out an estate, 'normally' is next to useless.


There's as much normality as in any other walk of life (death)

On 7/9/2015 12:58 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"ratsack" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
I can tell you from experience that the burden of proof is firmly on
you. It's 40% unless you can prove otherwise. The last one I dealt with
ground to a halt because the bank could not provide cheque stubs, so the
payee couldn't be identified. Jolly frustrating, but it's no doubt
easier these days.

Hum, I pay a lot of my mum's bills online from my account and buy her
shopping. She pays me back by cheque periodially, and I don't keep recods
of what each one was for afterwards. I could see that being a problem?

No, because you can match her cheques with what you have paid for her.

Not easily. A cheque typically covers 3 months of barclaycard, gas,
etc bills, and several loads of shopping, which were only ever added
up on back of an envelope, and not kept.

Sounds like keeping a running total in a spreadsheet might not be a bad
idea...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/