Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but
where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds
to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's household (informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years ago gets
named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account into
the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because of confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had
always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the executor's business.
The executors do have access to the last seven years of transactions on
the one-time joint account (although that's 7yrs back from the date of enquiring online, not the date of death, so for every week which passes, another week of transactions disappears into the fog). Don't ask how,
they just do.
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns the last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been spent
in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss Daughter
isn't minded to co-operate.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint account.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank
that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten years ago,
would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps asking the bank
if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but
where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds
to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's household (informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years ago gets
named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account into
the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because of confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had
always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the executor's business.
The executors do have access to the last seven years of transactions on
the one-time joint account (although that's 7yrs back from the date of enquiring online, not the date of death, so for every week which passes, another week of transactions disappears into the fog). Don't ask how,
they just do.
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns the last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been spent
in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss Daughter
isn't minded to co-operate.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint account.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank
that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten years ago,
would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps asking the bank
if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss
Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten years ago, would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps asking the bank if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but
where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds
to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
It is beyond the 7 year gift horizon so no reason why there should still
be paper records kept. Were there any big cruises or similar holiday(s)
of a lifetime that occurred at about the same time? That is what seems
to happen fairly often when people downsize...
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's household
(informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years ago gets
named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account into
the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because of
confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had
always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the executor's
business.
The executors do have access to the last seven years of transactions on
the one-time joint account (although that's 7yrs back from the date of
enquiring online, not the date of death, so for every week which passes,
another week of transactions disappears into the fog). Don't ask how,
they just do.
They probably want to snapshot the entire thing as a CSV file ASAP to preserve what access they have (or whatever download the bank permits).
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns the
last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been spent
in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss Daughter
isn't minded to co-operate.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong
exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint
account.
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts records
going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than that).
How you obtain such access in the new AI botsRus era IDK. The
bereavement teams were still fairly helpful when I last had to do it,
but I expect everything has been "improved" by the use of AI to make it virtually impossible to speak to a human now. Certainly there are far
fewer branches and bank personnel that know what they are doing :(
(and they were already in short supply)
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank
that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss
Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten years ago,
would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps asking the bank
if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
I don't think the executors have any right to go back beyond what is
needed for confirming IHT liability and lifetime gift tax taper.
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k -
but where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more
funds to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
It is beyond the 7 year gift horizon so no reason why there should
still be paper records kept.
Were there any big cruises or similar holiday(s) of a lifetime that
occurred at about the same time? That is what seems to happen fairly
often when people downsize...
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's
household (informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years
ago gets named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account
into the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because
of confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had >>always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the
executor's business.
The executors do have access to the last seven years of transactions
on the one-time joint account (although that's 7yrs back from the
date of enquiring online, not the date of death, so for every week
which passes, another week of transactions disappears into the fog).
Don't ask how, they just do.
They probably want to snapshot the entire thing as a CSV file ASAP to >preserve what access they have (or whatever download the bank permits).
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns
the last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been
spent in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss >>Daughter isn't minded to co-operate.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >>exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a
joint account.
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts records
going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than that).
How you obtain such access in the new AI botsRus era IDK. The
bereavement teams were still fairly helpful when I last had to do it,
but I expect everything has been "improved" by the use of AI to make it >virtually impossible to speak to a human now. Certainly there are far
fewer branches and bank personnel that know what they are doing :(
(and they were already in short supply)
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the
bank that the older historic information belongs to the executors,
not Miss Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten
years ago, would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps
asking the bank if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
I don't think the executors have any right to go back beyond what is
needed for confirming IHT liability and lifetime gift tax taper.
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k -
but where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more
funds to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the
bank that the older historic information belongs to the executors,
not Miss Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten
years ago, would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps
asking the bank if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
I'd expect Mrs Mum to put that amount of money in an ISA, building
society savings account, premium bonds etc, rather than a current
account anyway.
Preferably with a different fscs identity.
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns
the last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been
spent in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss >>Daughter isn't minded to co-operate.
Unless she's an executor, which raises the question of why not if she
was so closely involved, I doubt if she has to at all. It may not
anyway be any of the executors' business to go fishing into such
history unless there is significant existing evidence of fraud without
that information.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >>exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a
joint account.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the
bank that the older historic information belongs to the executors,
not Miss Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten
years ago, would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps
asking the bank if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
You can check anyway with all banks:
https://www.mylostaccount.org.uk/
In message <vqpbuf$1vn9i$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:56:41 on Tue, 11 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns
the last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been >>> spent in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss
Daughter isn't minded to co-operate.
 According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong
exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a
joint account.
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts
records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than
that).
Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the
bank that the older historic information belongs to the executors,
not Miss Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten
years ago, would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps
asking the bank if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with
them.
I don't think the executors have any right to go back beyond what is
needed for confirming IHT liability and lifetime gift tax taper.
They must also investigate the net worth of the estate, and a duty of
care towards the beneficiaries. That includes assets more than 7yrs old, including the possibility of zombie accounts with sums of money in them.
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts
records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than >>>that).
Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
I don't know. That is just my recollection of what happens.
On 11 Mar 2025 at 12:56:41 GMT, "Martin Brown" <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> >wrote:
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but
where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds
to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
It is beyond the 7 year gift horizon so no reason why there should still
be paper records kept. Were there any big cruises or similar holiday(s)
of a lifetime that occurred at about the same time? That is what seems
to happen fairly often when people downsize...
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's household >>> (informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years ago gets
named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account into
the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because of
confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had
always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the executor's
business.
The executors do have access to the last seven years of transactions on
the one-time joint account (although that's 7yrs back from the date of
enquiring online, not the date of death, so for every week which passes, >>> another week of transactions disappears into the fog). Don't ask how,
they just do.
They probably want to snapshot the entire thing as a CSV file ASAP to
preserve what access they have (or whatever download the bank permits).
The balance ~7yrs ago was about £10k, and based on spending patterns the >>> last 7yrs, it's very unlikely that £40k (or is it £50k) had been spent
in the previous three, but they want to check. I'm told Miss Daughter
isn't minded to co-operate.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong
exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint
account.
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts records
going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than that).
How you obtain such access in the new AI botsRus era IDK. The
bereavement teams were still fairly helpful when I last had to do it,
but I expect everything has been "improved" by the use of AI to make it
virtually impossible to speak to a human now. Certainly there are far
fewer branches and bank personnel that know what they are doing :(
(and they were already in short supply)
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank
that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss
Daughter). And if they don't show a deposit of £50k, ten years ago,
would need to make further enquiries - such as perhaps asking the bank
if Mrs Mum had any other undiscovered accounts with them.
I don't think the executors have any right to go back beyond what is
needed for confirming IHT liability and lifetime gift tax taper.
What if they discover prima facie evidence of fraud against or theft from the >deceased more than seven years ago? Would their only practical remedy be to >try to interest the police in the matter? Could they sue the alleged miscreant >on the grounds that the matter had not been possible to discover until now? >Would they as executors have standing to do so?
In message <vqpj7s$216qi$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:01:10 on Tue, 11 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts
records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than
that).
 Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
I don't know. That is just my recollection of what happens.
It's what's likely to happen for simple low value estates, without complicated financial affairs.
Once you start getting into five figure sums and already proven multiple accounts, then one must be more persistent I suspect.
On 11/03/2025 15:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vqpj7s$216qi$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:01:10 on Tue, 11 Mar >>2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
It's what's likely to happen for simple low value estates, without >>complicated financial affairs.I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts >>>>>records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than
Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
I don't know. That is just my recollection of what happens.
Once you start getting into five figure sums and already proven
multiple accounts, then one must be more persistent I suspect.
The job of the executors is to gather in the existing estate and
distribute it to the intended beneficiaries in accordance with the Will
and the law. It is not to nose around and investigate every
transaction the deceased made during her lifetime. That's completely >unnecessary unless fraud is seriously suspected, which you say it isn't.
Make sure you know what accounts she held using the link I provided,
then just get on with it. If she gave her money away several years ago
to the cats' home, that's her business and frankly none of yours.
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts
records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than >>>that).
Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
I don't know. That is just my recollection of what happens.
Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but
where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds
to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's household >(informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years ago gets
named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account into
the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because of >confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had
always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the executor's >business.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint >account.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank
that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss >Daughter).
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint account.
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong
exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a
joint account.
I might argue that an executor has a duty to check of the disposal of
assets to see if they are chargeable against death duties. The bank
doesn't have to know the estate might be below the IHT threshold.
Especially reasonable as there is evidence that £50k was put into this account some years before.
If they refuse to provide transaction details before Mr Mum's death then
I would suggest the bank must indemnify the executor in case the estate
is misrepresented to HMRC.
Also ask the bank to retain records from 7 years ago rather than
disappearing and hence effectively destroyed. Complaints via the various complaint procedures such as the FCA take their time. It might be worth asking what their own guidance is on this matter.
I am concerned that a joint account is all Mrs Mum's and all The
Daughter's and the executor has no right. An argument is that was Mr
Mum's sole current bank account and The Daughter's name was added for convenience.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:14:48 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Here's another estate management question:
Mrs Mum downsizes ten years ago, and has a cash surplus of £50k - but
where did it go? Executors want to know because it might be more funds
to distribute to beneficiaries, but no paper records remain.
Miss Daughter gradually takes over the management of Mrs Mum's household >>(informally, no power of attorney etc) and about five years ago gets
named jointly on Mrs Mum's current account.
When Mrs Mum passes away, the bank automatically puts the account into
the sole name of Miss Daughter, and starts clamming up "because of >>confidentiality". In effect, they are acting as if the account had
always been in Miss Daughter's sole name, and is none of the executor's >>business.
This would be normal under these circumstances. Miss Daughter is now the >legal owner of all of the money in the account,
as that is a simple consequence of the way that joint accounts work.
The question which needs to be answered is whether she is the only
beneficial owner, or whether another person or persons has a right to
benefit from some or all of those funds.
Where a joint account is held by a parent and child, there is a rebuttable >presumption that the parent intended the child to be the sole beneficial >owner as well as the sole legal owner after their death, unless explicitly >stated otherwise in the will.
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >>exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint >>account.
That would be the default position, yes.
I'm assuming, given that you're asking the question, that the will
doesn't say anything specific about the account. So the starting
position, as above, is that it's now all Miss Daughter's money, and Mrs
Mum intended it to become so.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank
that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss >>Daughter).
If the executors want to rebut the presumption that the account belongs >solely to Miss Daughter then they will probably need professional legal >advice.
It's impossible to tell, from what you've said here, whether there
are any realistic grounds for succeeding with such a rebuttal. And it would >probably be impossible for you to give sufficient detail without revealing >too much personal information. A quick chat with a solicitor who specialises >in this field (particularly if you can find one who offers a free initial >consultation) may well be enough to answer that question one way or the
other straight away, and then if there is a reasonable prospect of >challenging the presumption they will be best placed to advise on how to go >about it.
I am concerned that a joint account is all Mrs Mum's and all The >>Daughter's and the executor has no right. An argument is that was Mr
Mum's sole current bank account and The Daughter's name was added for >>convenience.
Adding it like that for convenience has the side effect of survivorship
rules coming into play by default (at least in English law).
It would be different if she was doing it through an LPoA which ceases
to have effect on the death of the donor.
On 11/03/2025 10:14, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >>exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a
joint account.
I might argue that an executor has a duty to check of the disposal of
assets to see if they are chargeable against death duties.
The bank doesn't have to know the estate might be below the IHT
threshold. Especially reasonable as there is evidence that £50k was put
into this account some years before.
If they refuse to provide transaction details before Mr Mum's death
then I would suggest the bank must indemnify the executor in case the
estate is misrepresented to HMRC.
Also ask the bank to retain records from 7 years ago rather than
disappearing and hence effectively destroyed.
Complaints via the various complaint procedures such as the FCA take
their time. It might be worth asking what their own guidance is on this >matter.
I am concerned that a joint account is all Mrs Mum's and all The
Daughter's and the executor has no right.
An argument is that was Mr Mum's sole current bank account and The
Daughter's name was added for convenience.
In message <bd13tjhio2hhra8v1mcd593mnu401cjnnp@4ax.com>, at 13:13:05 on
Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:14:48 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >>>exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint >>>account.
That would be the default position, yes.
Why, when the information in question refers to a period when Mrs Mum
was the *sole* accountholder?
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank >>>that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss >>>Daughter).
If the executors want to rebut the presumption that the account belongs >>solely to Miss Daughter then they will probably need professional legal >>advice.
This question isn't about that aspect.
It's impossible to tell, from what you've said here, whether there
are any realistic grounds for succeeding with such a rebuttal. And it would >>probably be impossible for you to give sufficient detail without revealing >>too much personal information. A quick chat with a solicitor who specialises >>in this field (particularly if you can find one who offers a free initial >>consultation) may well be enough to answer that question one way or the >>other straight away, and then if there is a reasonable prospect of >>challenging the presumption they will be best placed to advise on how to go >>about it.
This question isn't about that aspect (rebuttal of the ownership of the >balance today. It's about access to the statements from **BEFORE** it
was even a joint account.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:57:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <bd13tjhio2hhra8v1mcd593mnu401cjnnp@4ax.com>, at 13:13:05 on >>Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:14:48 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong >>>>exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a joint >>>>account.
That would be the default position, yes.
Why, when the information in question refers to a period when Mrs Mum
was the *sole* accountholder?
Miss Daughter now has access to all the historical data regarding the >account. She can, therefore, if she wishes, ask the questions that the >excutors want to ask, and pass on the information to them. There's nothing >preventing her from doing that. There's no need for the executors to contact >the bank directly when that information is already available to the existing >account holder.
What's the simplest way to unlock those records (aka convince the bank >>>>that the older historic information belongs to the executors, not Miss >>>>Daughter).
If the executors want to rebut the presumption that the account belongs >>>solely to Miss Daughter then they will probably need professional legal >>>advice.
This question isn't about that aspect.
It's essentially the same thing.
It's impossible to tell, from what you've said here, whether there
are any realistic grounds for succeeding with such a rebuttal. And it would >>>probably be impossible for you to give sufficient detail without revealing >>>too much personal information. A quick chat with a solicitor who specialises >>>in this field (particularly if you can find one who offers a free initial >>>consultation) may well be enough to answer that question one way or the >>>other straight away, and then if there is a reasonable prospect of >>>challenging the presumption they will be best placed to advise on how to go >>>about it.
This question isn't about that aspect (rebuttal of the ownership of the >>balance today. It's about access to the statements from **BEFORE** it
was even a joint account.
Why can't Miss Daughter obtain those from the bank and provide them to the >executors?
If the answer is that she doesn't want to, the bank won't disregard her >wishes.
The bank has a contractual and legal obligation of confidentiality to an >existing, living account holder.
The bank will not override that without
good reason. And arguing about that here won't change that.
The executors either need to ask Miss Daughter to get the information
they want, or get professional legal advice.
On the other hand, Miss Daughter might say to the executors "it's none
of your business, go away".
If the executors want to rebut the presumption that the account belongs >>>>solely to Miss Daughter then they will probably need professional legal >>>>advice.
This question isn't about that aspect.
It's essentially the same thing.
Nothing of the sort, the rightful home for the funds, vs access to the >historic information, are two completely different concepts.
Why can't Miss Daughter obtain those from the bank and provide them to the >>executors?
Because she doesn't want to.
The executors either need to ask Miss Daughter to get the information
they want, or get professional legal advice.
Rather destroys the concept of "asking on ulm first, for people with >experience of the issue", don't you think?
In message <l204tjp84r9mjh8uj2l3o6cf0vdqii5fsc@4ax.com>, at 21:55:27 on
Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:57:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <bd13tjhio2hhra8v1mcd593mnu401cjnnp@4ax.com>, at 13:13:05 on
Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:14:48 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
According to the bank, the account (and all its history) now belong
exclusively to Miss Daughter. Even for the period before it was a
joint
account.
That would be the default position, yes.
Why, when the information in question refers to a period when Mrs Mum
was the *sole* accountholder?
Miss Daughter now has access to all the historical data regarding the
account. She can, therefore, if she wishes, ask the questions that the
excutors want to ask, and pass on the information to them. There's
nothing
preventing her from doing that. There's no need for the executors to
contact
the bank directly when that information is already available to the
existing
account holder.
On one hand I think it's a loophole that banking law allows a hand-me-
down account access to information from before they were involved (is
that the same if o take over a company - does the new owner have direct access to all their acquisition's financial information back as far as
it still exists?
On the other hand, Miss Daughter might say to the executors "it's none
of your business, go away".
On one hand I think it's a loophole that banking law allows a
hand-me- down account access to information from before they were
involved (is that the same if o take over a company - does the new
owner have direct access to all their acquisition's financial
information back as far as it still exists?
On the other hand, Miss Daughter might say to the executors "it's
none of your business, go away".
Then, as that nice Mr Trump might say, the ball is firmly in your court
to escalate this under the law to force discovery if you think it
worthwhile.
But I can see that she might be regarding all this as unnecessary, >nit-picking and intrusive prying and is therefore reluctant to agree to
your demands.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 06:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
On the other hand, Miss Daughter might say to the executors "it's none
of your business, go away".
Indeed. If she does, the bank will side with her, because she is a living, >existing customer.
If the executors want to rebut the presumption that the account belongs >>>>>solely to Miss Daughter then they will probably need professional legal >>>>>advice.
This question isn't about that aspect.
It's essentially the same thing.
Nothing of the sort, the rightful home for the funds, vs access to the >>historic information, are two completely different concepts.
Ownership of the information is the same as ownership of the account.
Why can't Miss Daughter obtain those from the bank and provide them to the >>>executors?
Because she doesn't want to.
Right. That's the executors' problem. Not the bank.
The executors either need to ask Miss Daughter to get the information >>>they want, or get professional legal advice.
Rather destroys the concept of "asking on ulm first, for people with >>experience of the issue", don't you think?
Nothing wrong with asking here first. But sometimes, the best answer is "get >professonal advice".
In message <m285tj5vlhllj5tumfit8ld24gr77pdroi@4ax.com>, at 09:12:40 on
Thu, 13 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 06:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
On the other hand, Miss Daughter might say to the executors "it's none
of your business, go away".
Indeed. If she does, the bank will side with her, because she is a living, >>existing customer.
But the data being requested is not in any way shape or form hers.
The executor's problem at the moment is persuading the bank (and people
like you) that the information belongs to the executors, not Miss >Jenny-come-recently.
The executors either need to ask Miss Daughter to get the information >>>>they want, or get professional legal advice.
Rather destroys the concept of "asking on ulm first, for people with >>>experience of the issue", don't you think?
Nothing wrong with asking here first. But sometimes, the best answer is "get >>professonal advice".
Eventually I suppose they will, but asking here first is one way to know
how to brief those professionals.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:09:03 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m285tj5vlhllj5tumfit8ld24gr77pdroi@4ax.com>, at 09:12:40 on >>Thu, 13 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 06:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
On the other hand, Miss Daughter might say to the executors "it's none >>>>of your business, go away".
Indeed. If she does, the bank will side with her, because she is a living, >>>existing customer.
But the data being requested is not in any way shape or form hers.
In the bank's opinion it is.
The executor's problem at the moment is persuading the bank (and people >>like you) that the information belongs to the executors, not Miss >>Jenny-come-recently.
My opinion is irrelevant here. The opinion that matters is that of the bank. >And the bank is not going to change that opinion without good legal grounds.
The executors either need to ask Miss Daughter to get the information >>>>>they want, or get professional legal advice.
Rather destroys the concept of "asking on ulm first, for people with >>>>experience of the issue", don't you think?
Nothing wrong with asking here first. But sometimes, the best answer is "get >>>professonal advice".
Eventually I suppose they will, but asking here first is one way to know >>how to brief those professionals.
I would suggest that their starting point when talking to the professionals >is to give all the relevant background and ask them for advice on the way >forward. In particular, the professionals will want to know why the
executors need to have the information. That is, they will want to know what >relevance it has to administering the estate.
In message <d249tjl2kpb85al3500f7ngks62mqk4eut@4ax.com>, at 20:27:23 on
Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:09:03 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
But the data being requested is not in any way shape or form hers.
In the bank's opinion it is.
And I say they are wrong in that opinion, therefore seek ways to get
them to change their tune.
Eventually I suppose they will, but asking here first is one way to know >>>how to brief those professionals.
I would suggest that their starting point when talking to the professionals >>is to give all the relevant background and ask them for advice on the way >>forward. In particular, the professionals will want to know why the >>executors need to have the information. That is, they will want to know what >>relevance it has to administering the estate.
I already explained that: they have a duty to identify assets which will >later be distributed to beneficiaries. Based on what information they do >have, there's a substantial cash sum unaccounted for between 12 and 7yrs
ago, and they'd like to see if it's in a bank account that hasn't yet
come to light.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:31:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <d249tjl2kpb85al3500f7ngks62mqk4eut@4ax.com>, at 20:27:23 on >>Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:09:03 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
But the data being requested is not in any way shape or form hers.
In the bank's opinion it is.
And I say they are wrong in that opinion, therefore seek ways to get
them to change their tune.
But your opinion isn't going to change their opinion.
Eventually I suppose they will, but asking here first is one way to know >>>>how to brief those professionals.
I would suggest that their starting point when talking to the professionals >>>is to give all the relevant background and ask them for advice on the way >>>forward. In particular, the professionals will want to know why the >>>executors need to have the information. That is, they will want to know what >>>relevance it has to administering the estate.
I already explained that: they have a duty to identify assets which will >>later be distributed to beneficiaries. Based on what information they do >>have, there's a substantial cash sum unaccounted for between 12 and 7yrs >>ago, and they'd like to see if it's in a bank account that hasn't yet
come to light.
Right. This is where professional assistance comes into it. The Law Society >has a protocol agreed between themselves, the banks and solicitors >specialising in estate administration. As well as creating a framework for >solicitor/bank communication, it also allows solicitors participating in the >scheme access to bank customer information and funds when acting on behalf
of a client (eg, an executor).
So I would suggest that the executors in this case avail themselves of the >services of a solicitor participating in the scheme. What they are looking >for is a law firm that is a member of The Society of Trust and Estate >Practitioners (STEP).
In message <vqpj7s$216qi$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:01:10 on Tue, 11 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts >>>>records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than >>>>that).
Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
I don't know. That is just my recollection of what happens.
I'm now told the executors have found some online guidance of the "how
to do probate properly" kind, and it says 12yrs. But still not clear if that's a statutory limit or simply far enough back to demonstrate
they've shown sufficient diligence.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:14:59 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vqpj7s$216qi$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:01:10 on Tue, 11 Mar
2025, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
I think the executors are entitled to see the deceased accounts >>>>>records going back 7 years from the date of death (but no more than >>>>>that).
Why that restriction, and who legally stipulates it?
I don't know. That is just my recollection of what happens.
I'm now told the executors have found some online guidance of the "how
to do probate properly" kind, and it says 12yrs. But still not clear if
that's a statutory limit or simply far enough back to demonstrate
they've shown sufficient diligence.
ISTR that on 1 of the IHT forms it says list all gifts since some date
in 1986. A solicitor could certainly use that to force the bank to give
up accounts if not from 1986 at least longer than 7 years, and back to
the period you are interested in. I dunno if HMRC are ok with 7 years or >really demand all the way back to 1986.
I can think if so, there might be more than 1 bank involved and many
accounts some long closed, and if so, a lot of work involved,
presumably how solicitors make so much money.
I already explained that: they have a duty to identify assets which will later be distributed to beneficiaries. Based on what information they do have, there's a substantial cash sum unaccounted for between 12 and 7yrs
ago, and they'd like to see if it's in a bank account that hasn't yet
come to light.
On 15/03/2025 10:31, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
I already explained that: they have a duty to identify assets which
will later be distributed to beneficiaries. Based on what information
they do have, there's a substantial cash sum unaccounted for between
12 and 7yrs ago, and they'd like to see if it's in a bank account
that hasn't yet come to light.
While I agree with the sentiment, isn't there another overriding >consideration that banks are not obliged to keep records for more than
7 years?
In message <kfuatj5155v2sb3pu8gckge6rbsmh4vku3@4ax.com>, at 13:13:27 on
Sat, 15 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:31:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <d249tjl2kpb85al3500f7ngks62mqk4eut@4ax.com>, at 20:27:23 on >>>Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:09:03 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
But the data being requested is not in any way shape or form hers.
In the bank's opinion it is.
And I say they are wrong in that opinion, therefore seek ways to get
them to change their tune.
But your opinion isn't going to change their opinion.
Eventually it will. Because right is on my side. Once this has been
escalated sufficiently within the organisation, they'll have to cave in.
Right. This is where professional assistance comes into it. The Law Society >>has a protocol agreed between themselves, the banks and solicitors >>specialising in estate administration. As well as creating a framework for >>solicitor/bank communication, it also allows solicitors participating in the >>scheme access to bank customer information and funds when acting on behalf >>of a client (eg, an executor).
So I would suggest that the executors in this case avail themselves of the >>services of a solicitor participating in the scheme. What they are looking >>for is a law firm that is a member of The Society of Trust and Estate >>Practitioners (STEP).
They have, but again trying to save costs for the beneficiaries, getting
the information direct, rather than via £250/hr, solicitor must be
attempted.
In message <vr73o6$291qm$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:02:47 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 15/03/2025 10:31, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
I already explained that: they have a duty to identify assets which
will later be distributed to beneficiaries. Based on what
information they do have, there's a substantial cash sum unaccounted
for between 12 and 7yrs ago, and they'd like to see if it's in a
bank account that hasn't yet come to light.
While I agree with the sentiment, isn't there another overriding >>consideration that banks are not obliged to keep records for more than
7 years?
I'm not up to date on the regulations in that area. But if they don't
have the records, it would be simpler to say that, rather than come up
with arcane excuses about the confidentiality.
Anyway, the bank in question says it keeps records for ten years after
all the person's accounts have been closed. Which doesn't address the
issue of accounts being "renamed", but even if they are of the view
that dying as the holder of a joint account 'closes' for such purposes, >that's plenty of time for the current exercise (ie all the data from
the year dot will be preserved until 2034).
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 15:56:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <kfuatj5155v2sb3pu8gckge6rbsmh4vku3@4ax.com>, at 13:13:27 on >>Sat, 15 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:31:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <d249tjl2kpb85al3500f7ngks62mqk4eut@4ax.com>, at 20:27:23 on >>>>Fri, 14 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>remarked:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:09:03 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
But the data being requested is not in any way shape or form hers.
In the bank's opinion it is.
And I say they are wrong in that opinion, therefore seek ways to get >>>>them to change their tune.
But your opinion isn't going to change their opinion.
Eventually it will. Because right is on my side. Once this has been >>escalated sufficiently within the organisation, they'll have to cave in.
Then why ask here for advice at all, if you're so certain you're correct?
If the only advice you want is "yes, you are right, keep going", then than's >not actually asking at all.
Right. This is where professional assistance comes into it. The Law Society >>>has a protocol agreed between themselves, the banks and solicitors >>>specialising in estate administration. As well as creating a framework for >>>solicitor/bank communication, it also allows solicitors participating in the >>>scheme access to bank customer information and funds when acting on behalf >>>of a client (eg, an executor).
So I would suggest that the executors in this case avail themselves of the >>>services of a solicitor participating in the scheme. What they are looking >>>for is a law firm that is a member of The Society of Trust and Estate >>>Practitioners (STEP).
They have, but again trying to save costs for the beneficiaries, getting >>the information direct, rather than via £250/hr, solicitor must be >>attempted.
You've said there's a "substantial" sum of money possibly unaccounted for.
If so, then a couple of solicitors' letters are almost certainly worth it.
In message <Qj2$cAXm591nFAPP@perry.uk>, at 08:33:42 on Mon, 17 Mar 2025, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
In message <vr73o6$291qm$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:02:47 on Sun, 16 Mar
2025, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> remarked:
On 15/03/2025 10:31, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
I already explained that: they have a duty to identify assets which
will later be distributed to beneficiaries. Based on what
information they do have, there's a substantial cash sum
unaccounted for between 12 and 7yrs ago, and they'd like to see if
it's in a bank account that hasn't yet come to light.
While I agree with the sentiment, isn't there another overriding
consideration that banks are not obliged to keep records for more
than 7 years?
I'm not up to date on the regulations in that area. But if they don't
have the records, it would be simpler to say that, rather than come up
with arcane excuses about the confidentiality.
Anyway, the bank in question says it keeps records for ten years after
all the person's accounts have been closed. Which doesn't address the
issue of accounts being "renamed", but even if they are of the view
that dying as the holder of a joint account 'closes' for such
purposes, that's plenty of time for the current exercise (ie all the
data from the year dot will be preserved until 2034).
Apparently they've now agreed to release some information going back
10yrs from today, which is clearly a policy decision (or IT issue)
rather than related to how far back they actually have the information.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:58:08 |
| Calls: | 9,799 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,575 |