A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until probate,
which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of the
purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the current
state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked for
a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is
a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of
the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-
paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when the
mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market for 5
months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the market (presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had no such authority and should have known that she hadn't.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being advised
to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now have to wait until she has it.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until probate,
which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of the
purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the current
state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked for
a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is
a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of
the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are
post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
I've replied separately, but just on one point: I would never, ever, use
the solicitors recommended by the estate agents.
It's a cosy relationship between the two businesses where they refer
their clients to each other, and it does not ensure that you have the
lowest price or the best service. In fact, the agents might have
established from past experience that the solicitors (or the junior paralegals who do the work) are less fussy about doing a thorough job
and can be leaned on to progress quickly to exchange of contracts.
It is more of an issue when buying new from one of the big builders with
the nasty doubling ground rent clause cunningly hidden in the small print.
On 19/05/2025 08:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is
a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of
the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are
post- paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the
market (presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had
no such authority and should have known that she hadn't.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being
advised to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now
have to wait until she has it.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting
themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went
pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
No, I don't think any of that is correct.
Putting the property on the market is not a problem at all, and it helps
to establish the value of the property as competing offers come in or,
if no offers come in, tells you that maybe you need to reduce the price
or improve the appearance of the property.
There is no "pear shaped" scenario.
It will not be possible to exchange contracts until proof of title has
been produced. The solicitors for both buyer and seller will be well
aware of this. Until exchange of contracts nobody has any contractual obligation.
A grant of probate or letters of administration could be
arranged fairly speedily but that depends on whether there are any
unusual difficulties.
It does seem unusual for the seller's solicitor to ask for a payment in advance, perhaps because they are having cashflow problems or else they always prefer not to wait until they can be paid out of the proceeds of
sale as most solicitors do.
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and >>estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until >>probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of
the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate >>solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid. >> My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly >>moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the market >(presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had no such >authority and should have known that she hadn't.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being advised
to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now have to
wait until she has it.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting >themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went >pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
I've replied separately, but just on one point: I would never, ever,
use the solicitors recommended by the estate agents.
How long until probate is likely to be granted?
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of
the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the market
(presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had no such
authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being advised
to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now have to
wait until she has it.
The due diligence for making a probate application has taken about six months, which is pretty much par for the course.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting
themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went
pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
The other daughter. But on behalf of the estate, shunning a reasonable
offer for the flat seems difficult, even pre-probate.
In message <m90bj5Fq847U2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:22:45 on Mon, 19
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I've replied separately, but just on one point: I would never, ever,
use the solicitors recommended by the estate agents.
Quite coincidentally the recommended solicitors are the ones who
mightily bungled my late mother's estate management, and I eventually
fired (although they helped themselves to their full fee).
As well as appointing replacement probate solicitors I asked around for anyone who would help me sue the first lot. But it's a closed shop and solicitors don't like suing one another however egregious the damage.
On 19 May 2025 at 14:39:47 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of >>>> the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are >>>>post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the market
(presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had no such
authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being advised
to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now have to
wait until she has it.
The due diligence for making a probate application has taken about six
months, which is pretty much par for the course.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting
themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went
pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
The other daughter. But on behalf of the estate, shunning a reasonable
offer for the flat seems difficult, even pre-probate.
Can there be any harm in "accepting" the offer on the basis she does not know >when, or even if, she will be able to go through with it? In England I assume, >that might not work so well in Scotland.
It's flying a kite, though, and may even be fraudulent if you don't
actually own what you're purporting to sell (cf Tower Bridge).
If it was put on the market by an estate agent, who is their principal
and responsible for their charges? It can hardly be the mother's estate because no-one yet has any authority to act for it.
Whenever fees are involved, anything can go pear-shaped.
On 19 May 2025 at 14:39:47 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of >>>> the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the market
(presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had no such
authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being advised
to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now have to
wait until she has it.
The due diligence for making a probate application has taken about six
months, which is pretty much par for the course.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting
themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went
pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
The other daughter. But on behalf of the estate, shunning a reasonable
offer for the flat seems difficult, even pre-probate.
Can there be any harm in "accepting" the offer on the basis she does not know when, or even if, she will be able to go through with it? In England I assume,
that might not work so well in Scotland.
In message <m90bj5Fq847U2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:22:45 on Mon, 19
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I've replied separately, but just on one point: I would never, ever,
use the solicitors recommended by the estate agents.
Quite coincidentally the recommended solicitors are the ones who
mightily bungled my late mother's estate management, and I eventually
fired (although they helped themselves to their full fee).
As well as appointing replacement probate solicitors I asked around for anyone who would help me sue the first lot. But it's a closed shop and solicitors don't like suing one another however egregious the damage.
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80%
of the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are
post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the
market (presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had
no such authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being
advised to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now
have to wait until she has it.
The due diligence for making a probate application has taken about six months, which is pretty much par for the course.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting
themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went
pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
The other daughter. But on behalf of the estate, shunning a reasonable
offer for the flat seems difficult, even pre-probate.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
It's flying a kite, though, and may even be fraudulent if you don't
actually own what you're purporting to sell (cf Tower Bridge).
If it was put on the market by an estate agent, who is their principal
and responsible for their charges? It can hardly be the mother's estate
because no-one yet has any authority to act for it.
You can presumably write a contract in which charges are due after probate
is granted, or if the deal falls through they fall on somebody else.
eg "I see you have a will that Tower Bridge will become yours after probate is granted. I will endeavour to market it, subject to the provisos:
1. Contracts cannot be exchanged until you have title
2. My fee will become due when the transaction has completed
3. Should I find a buyer but the transaction not complete after <time-period>, the fee will be payable by yourself, not the estate"
Whenever fees are involved, anything can go pear-shaped.
Who pays what in that circumstance is a matter of contract. Somebody is taking a risk, but set the terms of the deal appropriately and the risk will be worth it.
On 19/05/2025 14:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 May 2025 at 14:39:47 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, andProbate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably >>>>> below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example >>>>> a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this >>>>> is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of >>>>> the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly >>>>> moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate. >>>>
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the market >>>> (presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had no such >>>> authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
Frankly, in not applying for Probate sooner and maybe not being advised >>>> to do so, she has made a rod for her own back, and will now have to
wait until she has it.
The due diligence for making a probate application has taken about six
months, which is pretty much par for the course.
The solicitors who want an up-front payment seem to be just protecting >>>> themselves since, without Probate, it is not the estate which is
instructing them against which it would have a claim if things went
pear-shaped. It is just the daughter instructing them as regards the
sale of a flat that is not (yet) hers to sell.
The other daughter. But on behalf of the estate, shunning a reasonable
offer for the flat seems difficult, even pre-probate.
Can there be any harm in "accepting" the offer on the basis she does not know
when, or even if, she will be able to go through with it? In England I assume,
that might not work so well in Scotland.
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
It's very dodgy to enter into any contract if you don't have the means
to fulfil it. And if you don't actually own what you're purporting to
sell, especially if you won't either, that's the position you're in.
It's quite likely fraud.
'Wanna buy Tower Bridge, squire? I can let you have it for twenty big
ones.'
What's the difference?
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example
a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80%
of the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are
post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the
market (presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she had
no such authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the solicitor's prepayments.
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
It's flying a kite, though, and may even be fraudulent if you don't
actually own what you're purporting to sell (cf Tower Bridge).
If it was put on the market by an estate agent, who is their principal
and responsible for their charges? It can hardly be the mother's estate
because no-one yet has any authority to act for it.
You can presumably write a contract in which charges are due after probate
is granted, or if the deal falls through they fall on somebody else.
eg "I see you have a will that Tower Bridge will become yours after probate >is granted. I will endeavour to market it, subject to the provisos:
1. Contracts cannot be exchanged until you have title
2. My fee will become due when the transaction has completed
3. Should I find a buyer but the transaction not complete after ><time-period>, the fee will be payable by yourself, not the estate"
Whenever fees are involved, anything can go pear-shaped.
Who pays what in that circumstance is a matter of contract. Somebody is >taking a risk, but set the terms of the deal appropriately and the risk will >be worth it.
Theo
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people not >>authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the solicitor's >>prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress this
sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from the
executors once they have probate.
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be sold
and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a "probate >sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to contract".
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That just means that the buyer and seller have agreed a price (and
either can change their minds about the price and/or decision to buy/sell).
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people not
authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the solicitor's
prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress this
sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from the
executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to contract".
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people not
authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the solicitor's
prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress this
sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from the
executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to contract".
On 19/05/2025 14:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9065eFp0enU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:50:03 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for
example a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this
is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until
probate, which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80%
of the purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the
current state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked
for a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the
absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are
post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Probate is the court's authority to the executor to act to gather in
and distribute the estate according to the Will. You do not say when
the mother died, but it would seem from the flat being on the market
for 5 months or more that it was at least several months ago.
That raises the question of what authority whoever put it on the
market (presumably the daughter) had to do so. Until Probate, she
had no such authority and should have known that she hadn't.
That was a different daughter. She was told not to, but ignored it.
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be sold and
the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs. If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a "probate sale": it's authorised
by the executor(s).
On 19/05/2025 14:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m90bj5Fq847U2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:22:45 on Mon, 19
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I've replied separately, but just on one point: I would never, ever,
use the solicitors recommended by the estate agents.
Quite coincidentally the recommended solicitors are the ones who
mightily bungled my late mother's estate management, and I eventually
fired (although they helped themselves to their full fee).
As well as appointing replacement probate solicitors I asked around
for anyone who would help me sue the first lot. But it's a closed
shop and solicitors don't like suing one another however egregious
the damage.
You do seem to have extraordinary and repeated bad luck in choosing
your legal advisors.
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with
anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the estate
as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps, contrary to
the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they do not
wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be perfectly within their >rights not to.
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't >progress. That seems to be her call.
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example a retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is a hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until probate,
which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of the
purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the current
state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked for
a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the absence of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from >>>>> the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It might not be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work because of over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in
writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person
thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the
idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid
the verbal offer being legally binding.
I was aware of the 1989 act, but not its predecessor.
I use the subject to contract wording in emails and letters because
those are 'in writing', and I want to avoid any argument that the email
or letter does in fact incorporate "all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed".
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from >>>>>> the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't >>>> progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work because of
over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
In message <100fma5$1n006$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:29:58 on Mon, 19 May
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be sold
and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
I've not seen one which specifically mentions a property as one of the
assets to be liquidated and distributed.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a
"probate sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
They can't authorise the land registry transfer until after probate.
On 19/05/2025 17:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fma5$1n006$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:29:58 on Mon, 19 May
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be sold
and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
I've not seen one which specifically mentions a property as one of the
assets to be liquidated and distributed.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a
"probate sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
They can't authorise the land registry transfer until after probate.
Apparently that can take months, or even years. Doesn't stop the
purchaser from living in the property.
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to contract". >>
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. >>
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in
writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person
thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the
idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid
the verbal offer being legally binding.
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to contract". >>
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. >>
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in
writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person
thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the
idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid
the verbal offer being legally binding.
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in
writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person
thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the
idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid
the verbal offer being legally binding.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
On 2025-05-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the >>>> sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land >>>> can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out >>>> in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily >>>> the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon >>>> which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in >>>> writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person >>>> thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the
idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid
the verbal offer being legally binding.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
The first time I bought a flat, I was certainly told, by my elders and betters, that I must say "I offer £ X for the flat, subject to contract" when verbally making the offer.
On 20/05/2025 14:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the >>>>> sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land >>>>> can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out >>>>> in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily >>>>> the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon >>>>> which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in >>>>> writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person >>>>> thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the >>>> idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid >>>> the verbal offer being legally binding.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
The first time I bought a flat, I was certainly told, by my elders and
betters, that I must say "I offer £ X for the flat, subject to contract"
when verbally making the offer.
An old family friend, elder but not better, always used the phrase
"contracts have been signed" when announcing that the sale or purchase
was now secured. In vain I explained that the correct phrase is
"contracts have been exchanged" but she preferred her phrase.
On 20 May 2025 at 16:10:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the >>>>>> sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land >>>>>> can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms >>>>>> which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out >>>>>> in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily >>>>>> the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon >>>>>> which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in >>>>>> writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person >>>>>> thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the >>>>> idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid >>>>> the verbal offer being legally binding.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
The first time I bought a flat, I was certainly told, by my elders and
betters, that I must say "I offer £ X for the flat, subject to contract" >>> when verbally making the offer.
An old family friend, elder but not better, always used the phrase
"contracts have been signed" when announcing that the sale or purchase
was now secured. In vain I explained that the correct phrase is
"contracts have been exchanged" but she preferred her phrase.
That raises an interesting though-experiment. Which may or may not apply to all contracts, not just property sales. A signs a contract in his solicitor's office; then drops dead. Is the solicitor obliged to send the signed document to the other party or can he tear it up? Can he take advice from the presumed heirs?
On 20 May 2025 at 16:10:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the >>>>>> sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land >>>>>> can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms >>>>>> which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out >>>>>> in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily >>>>>> the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon >>>>>> which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in >>>>>> writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person >>>>>> thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the >>>>> idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid >>>>> the verbal offer being legally binding.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
The first time I bought a flat, I was certainly told, by my elders and
betters, that I must say "I offer £ X for the flat, subject to contract" >>> when verbally making the offer.
An old family friend, elder but not better, always used the phrase
"contracts have been signed" when announcing that the sale or purchase
was now secured. In vain I explained that the correct phrase is
"contracts have been exchanged" but she preferred her phrase.
That raises an interesting though-experiment. Which may or may not apply to all contracts, not just property sales. A signs a contract in his solicitor's office; then drops dead. Is the solicitor obliged to send the signed document to the other party or can he tear it up? Can he take advice from the presumed heirs?
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon, 19 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:not
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back
from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with
anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the
estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps,
contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they do
wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be perfectly within
their rights not to.
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not least
because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
On 20/05/2025 14:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the >>>>> sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land >>>>> can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out >>>>> in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily >>>>> the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon >>>>> which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in >>>>> writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person >>>>> thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
And that in turn replaced, I think, the Statute of Frauds 1677.
Given that that was nearly 350 years ago, it's impressive how long the >>>> idea has persisted that you have to say "subject to contract" to avoid >>>> the verbal offer being legally binding.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
The first time I bought a flat, I was certainly told, by my elders and
betters, that I must say "I offer £ X for the flat, subject to contract"
when verbally making the offer.
An old family friend, elder but not better, always used the phrase
"contracts have been signed" when announcing that the sale or purchase
was now secured. In vain I explained that the correct phrase is
"contracts have been exchanged" but she preferred her phrase.
On Mon, 19 May 2025 20:14:21 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:36, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:36, Norman Wells wrote:That form of words isn't even necessary, when you are dealing with the
Accepting an offer usually forms a legally binding contract.
To avoid that issue, it's normal to accept an offer "subject to
contract".
sale of land. Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
(1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land
can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms
which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where
contracts are exchanged, in each.
(2)The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out
in it or by reference to some other document.
(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are
exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily
the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the
contract.
unquote
The 1989 Act replaces the Law of Property Act 1925 which said:
No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other
disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the agreement upon
which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in
writing, and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person
thereunto by him lawfully authorised.
The law is somewhat ambiguous, but was clarified to an extent in the
England and Wales Court of Appeal case of Joanne Properties v Moneything Capital (2020 EWCA Civ 1541). It confirms accepted practice that the
phrase helps rebut a presumption of intention to create contractual relations. Negotiations that are stated as being 'subject to contract' do
not create a legally binding agreement, unless the parties either enter
into a formal contract, or on the facts show that they clearly intended to remove the qualification. However, it is not definitive in that a court
asked to consider whether an agreement is legally binding will assess all
the facts and ask whether a reasonable person would regard it as such.
Thus, if the phrase is *present*, then it is likely that no contract is formed. However, it is not clear what the situation is if it's absent.
And, of course, the position in Scotland is different.
See Farrer & Co https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/are-we-in-agreement-guidance- on-use-of-subject-to-contract-label/
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from >>>>> the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish?
It might not be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose
work because of over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19
May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from >>>>>> the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't >>>> progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It
might not be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose
work because of over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back
from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with
anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the
estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps, >>>contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they do
not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be perfectly
within their rights not to.
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say. Why
was she told that?
On 20 May 2025 at 12:12:35 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May >>>> 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back from >>>>>>> the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale won't >>>>> progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to >>>> be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It >>>might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work because of >>> over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
I see what you mean. It seems that if these two sisters are the only possible >beneficiaries
and they know the estate is solvent the very fact that they seem
incapable of making an agreement between themselves to share the risk of >payments in advance of probate/letters of administration must raise some red >flags for the solicitors.
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
On 20 May 2025 at 12:40:36 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 17:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fma5$1n006$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:29:58 on Mon, 19 May
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be sold
and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
I've not seen one which specifically mentions a property as one of the
assets to be liquidated and distributed.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a
"probate sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
They can't authorise the land registry transfer until after probate.
Apparently that can take months, or even years. Doesn't stop the
purchaser from living in the property.
Wouldn't it be a bit unacceptable for a mortgage provider though?
On 19/05/2025 17:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fma5$1n006$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:29:58 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be soldI've not seen one which specifically mentions a property as one of
and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
the assets to be liquidated and distributed.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a
"probate sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
They can't authorise the land registry transfer until after probate.
Apparently that can take months, or even years. Doesn't stop the
purchaser from living in the property.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example a
retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is a
hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until probate,
which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of the
purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the current
state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked for
a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the absence of
probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
I think you've answered your own question here:
- the solicitors are asking for money that nobody currently has access to,
so their demands are impossible to agree to
- the solicitors have previously bungled a case of yours in the past
- the solicitors have been recommended by the estate agent, a potential red
flag
Given there is no limit to the number of solicitors out there, it is hard to >find a reason why you would want to stick with them.
In message <4071023413.fd0ab00b@uninhabited.net>, at 11:31:50 on Tue, 20
May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 20 May 2025 at 12:12:35 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May >>>>> 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>>> from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale
won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor
- to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It
might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work
because of
over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
I see what you mean. It seems that if these two sisters are the only
possible beneficiaries
They aren't, but it doesn't matter because the other beneficiaries also
want the flat sold ASAP.
and they know the estate is solvent the very fact that they seem
incapable of making an agreement between themselves to share the risk of
payments in advance of probate/letters of administration must raise
some red flags for the solicitors.
I can see where you are coming from, but where does this end? What if
the management company of the flats sued (the *executors personally* and
not the estate) for the monthly maintenance fees, don't you think that
would be a poor public policy outcome because it would discourage people
from becoming (or not resigning from) executorship.
In message <m93e9rFarjpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:23 on Tue, 20
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the
solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back
from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with
anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the
estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps,
contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they do
not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be perfectly
within their rights not to.
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many buyers
they would simply think "there must be something wrong with the property
if it's been on the market that long".
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly correct.
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly correct.
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day of completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left, and
all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase.
"SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we
want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly correct. >>>
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day of
completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left, and
all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source of reliable legal advice.
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents'
phrase. "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold
because contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a
buyer so we want to take the credit for being good at selling
properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly
correct.
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day
of completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left,
and all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source of reliable legal advice.
On 21 May 2025 at 08:58:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase. >>>>> "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we >>>>> want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly correct. >>>>
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day of >>> completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left, and
all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source of
reliable legal advice.
If enough people (even estate agents) misuse the legal term "vacant possession" to mean "clean and tidy" then it is going to acquire that colloquial meaning even though it is legally incorrect.
It probably doesn't
matter as sellers probably do have an obligation to clear out the bulk of rubbish unless otherwise stated. Even though that obligation is nothing to do with vacant possession.
On 21/05/2025 08:58, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents'
phrase. "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold
because contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a
buyer so we want to take the credit for being good at selling
properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly
correct.
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
Which would be breach of contract and actionable.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day
of completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left,
and all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source of
reliable legal advice.
It's from a firm of solicitors, so should be good legal advice.
It also accords with all other sources, apart of course from imperfect memory.
If you want another, how about:
"When buying or selling a property with ‘vacant possession’ the property needs to be empty on the day of completion. This means the sellers or
tenants have moved out and removed all of their belongings, only leaving behind items that have been agreed with the buyer."
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/what-is-vacant-possession/
Or, if you're dismissive of that as well, how about:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing tenants
or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised), and all
goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that substantially
prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial part of the
property on or before completion."
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/vacant-possession
Is that not pretty authoritative?
If not, what will it take to convince you?
On 21 May 2025 at 08:58:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents' phrase. >>>>> "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold because
contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a buyer so we >>>>> want to take the credit for being good at selling properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly correct. >>>>
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day of >>> completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left, and
all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source of
reliable legal advice.
If enough people (even estate agents) misuse the legal term "vacant possession" to mean "clean and tidy" then it is going to acquire that colloquial meaning even though it is legally incorrect. It probably doesn't matter as sellers probably do have an obligation to clear out the bulk of rubbish unless otherwise stated. Even though that obligation is nothing to do with vacant possession.
On 21/05/2025 08:58, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue,
20 May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents'
phrase. "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold
because contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a
buyer so we want to take the credit for being good at selling
properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly
correct.
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
Which would be breach of contract and actionable.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day
of completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left,
and all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source
of reliable legal advice.
It's from a firm of solicitors, so should be good legal advice.
It also accords with all other sources, apart of course from imperfect memory.
If you want another, how about:
"When buying or selling a property with ‘vacant possession’ the property needs to be empty on the day of completion. This means the sellers or
tenants have moved out and removed all of their belongings, only leaving behind items that have been agreed with the buyer."
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/ what-is-vacant-possession/
Or, if you're dismissive of that as well, how about:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing tenants
or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised), and all
goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that substantially
prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial part of the
property on or before completion."
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/vacant-possession
Is that not pretty authoritative?
If not, what will it take to convince you?
On 21 May 2025 at 09:17:06 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:58, The Todal wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93djpFao2hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:15:37 on Tue, 20 >>>>> May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think the phrase "subject to contract" is an estate agents'
phrase. "SOLD - Subject to Contract" means actually it isn't sold
because contracts have not yet been exchanged, but we've found a
buyer so we want to take the credit for being good at selling
properties.
Estate Agents have their own jargon, which isn't always strictly
correct.
For example they often say "with Vacant possession" (which means no
sitting tenant) when actually they mean "the house won't have any
furniture in it when you view". Which they then hope people will
presume means 'quick sale available, no chain'.
It doesn't actually mean what you say.
Yes it does. It means the seller, his family and any tenants will have
moved out. It has nothing to do with whether there are odd bits of
furniture or bags of rubbish left behind - as quite often there will be.
Which would be breach of contract and actionable.
"Vacant possession essentially means the property is empty on the day
of completion. This means that the sellers or any tenants have left,
and all possessions removed except those agreed with the buyer."
https://tinyurl.com/dusm8t9
People who write the copy for websites are probably not a good source of >>> reliable legal advice.
It's from a firm of solicitors, so should be good legal advice.
It also accords with all other sources, apart of course from imperfect
memory.
If you want another, how about:
"When buying or selling a property with ‘vacant possession’ the property >> needs to be empty on the day of completion. This means the sellers or
tenants have moved out and removed all of their belongings, only leaving
behind items that have been agreed with the buyer."
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/what-is-vacant-possession/
Or, if you're dismissive of that as well, how about:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing tenants
or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised), and all
goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that substantially
prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial part of the
property on or before completion."
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/vacant-possession
Is that not pretty authoritative?
If not, what will it take to convince you?
It may clarify things for you if I explain how I sold a house at auction some years back. For reasons, the house was cluttered, especially an outhouse, with
tons (literally) of stuff acquired here and there. Some of it furniture but much of it of uncertain usefulness to anyone. I sold it with *vacant possession* but with contents *as seen at the time of the auction*.
The fact
that it was full of junk and that the contract said that it was not going to be removed did not change the fact that I guaranteed that it was free of my, or my co-owner's, or any tenant or other party's occupation or use.
On 21/05/2025 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m93e9rFarjpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:23 on Tue, 20
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by
people not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about >>>>>>>> the solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>> from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she
resolutely refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage >>>>>> stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with
anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the
estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps,
contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
do >>not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be perfectly >>>> >>>within their rights not to.It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with the
property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say she
won't even pay for a stamp.
In message <100ho33$271cj$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:12:35 on Tue, 20 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May >>>> 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>> from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale
won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to >>>> be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It
might not be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose
work because of over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
That policy makes no sense because they know the estate has no funds
(until probate). And unless the banks change their practices to allow pre-payments of fees to solicitors (as well as funeral directors and
HRMC) there's a bottleneck.
On 21/05/2025 08:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:I expect the estate agents paid.
In message <m93e9rFarjpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:23 on Tue, 20
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon,
19 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon,
19 May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by
people not authorised to do so. My question, however, was
about the solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>>> from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she
resolutely refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a
postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with
anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the
estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps,
contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
do >>not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would beIt may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they
perfectly >>>within their rights not to.
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for
that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say
she won't even pay for a stamp.
On 21/05/2025 18:55, GB wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:I expect the estate agents paid.
In message <m93e9rFarjpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:23 on Tue,
20 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon,
19 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, >>>>>>>> 19 May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by >>>>>>>>>> people not authorised to do so. My question, however, was >>>>>>>>>> about the solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to
progress this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then >>>>>>>>> claim it back from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she
resolutely refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a
postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with >>>>>>> anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the >>>>>>> estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps, >>>>>>> contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
perfectly >>>within their rights not to.It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they >>>>>> do >>not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, notWell, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges. >>>>>
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for
that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say
she won't even pay for a stamp.
As I understand it, estate agents are not noted philanthropists, and
require people to pay them for any services they provide.
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing tenants
or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised), and all
goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that substantially
prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial part of the
property on or before completion."
In message <m95gg3FkiglU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:17:06 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing
tenants or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised),
and all goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that
substantially prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial
part of the property on or before completion."
Almost all property is thus. But when agents put it on the
particulars they mean, yes they really do mean, "It'll have
no residents or furniture when you view".
On 21/05/2025 18:55, GB wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:I expect the estate agents paid.
In message <m93e9rFarjpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:23 on Tue, 20
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon,
19 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, >>>>>>>> 19 May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by >>>>>>>>>> people not authorised to do so. My question, however, was >>>>>>>>>> about the solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>>>> from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she
resolutely refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a
postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with >>>>>>> anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the >>>>>>> estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps, >>>>>>> contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
do >>not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would beIt may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they
perfectly >>>within their rights not to.
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, notWell, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges. >>>>>
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for
that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say
she won't even pay for a stamp.
As I understand it, estate agents are not noted philanthropists, and
require people to pay them for any services they provide.
On 21/05/2025 06:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100ho33$271cj$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:12:35 on Tue, 20 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May >>>>> 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>>> from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the sale
won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any solicitor - to >>>>> be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? It
might not be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose
work because of over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
That policy makes no sense because they know the estate has no funds
(until probate). And unless the banks change their practices to allow
pre-payments of fees to solicitors (as well as funeral directors and
HRMC) there's a bottleneck.
It certainly makes no sense that they bothered quoting for the job, if
they knew that one of their conditions would be impossible to fulfil.
So, maybe they didn't know that?
On 21 May 2025 at 19:00:36 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 21/05/2025 18:55, GB wrote:
On 21/05/2025 08:39, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/05/2025 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:I expect the estate agents paid.
In message <m93e9rFarjpU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:27:23 on Tue, 20 >>>>> May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 20/05/2025 10:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m91bg2Fe9hU3@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:14 on Mon, >>>>>>> 19 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, >>>>>>>>> 19 May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by >>>>>>>>>>> people not authorised to do so. My question, however, was >>>>>>>>>>> about the solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it back >>>>>>>>>> from the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she
resolutely refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a
postage stamp.
She is legally liable to pay for anything she has contracted with >>>>>>>> anyone else, for example estate agents. She has no claim on the >>>>>>>> estate as she was acting without its authority and even, perhaps, >>>>>>>> contrary to the wishes of the eventual executor(s).
Only with respect to the timeline.
perfectly >>>within their rights not to.It may be that they, when they are granted Probate, decide they >>>>>>> do >>not wish to sell the flat at all. And they would be
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not >>>>>>> least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges. >>>>>>Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say. >>>>>> Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for
that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say
she won't even pay for a stamp.
As I understand it, estate agents are not noted philanthropists, and
require people to pay them for any services they provide.
But often not until the property is sold. Or when the find a buyer ready, willing and able to buy the property.
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended the
buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned from being
the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they charge
about twice as much.
What they should be doing in my view is find a seller entitled and able
to sell the property. Which the person instructing them isn't as she doesn't actually own it.
Why is that not fraud by false representation contrary to Section 2 of
the Fraud Act 2006?
On 21/05/2025 07:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100hpnk$2764t$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:40:36 on Tue, 20 May
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fma5$1n006$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:29:58 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
It must be common for a will to say that the property should beI've not seen one which specifically mentions a property as one of
sold and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
the assets to be liquidated and distributed.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a
"probate sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
They can't authorise the land registry transfer until after probate.
Apparently that can take months, or even years. Doesn't stop the
purchaser from living in the property.
Squatting you mean. They can't sign a formal rental agreement pre-
probate, either.
Hmm. I don't think that's right. Quoting Chetty (1916):
“It is quite clear that an executor derives his title and authority from the will of his testator and not from any grant of probate. The personal property of the testator, including all rights of action, vests in him
upon the testator’s death, and the consequence is that he can institute
an action in the character of executor before he proves the will. He
cannot, it is true, obtain a decree before probate, but this is not
because his title depends on probate, but because the production of
probate is the only way in which, by the rules of the Court, he is
allowed to prove his title.”.
In message <100hpnk$2764t$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:40:36 on Tue, 20 May
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fma5$1n006$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:29:58 on Mon, 19
May 2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
It must be common for a will to say that the property should be soldI've not seen one which specifically mentions a property as one of
and the proceeds be distributed amongst the heirs.
the assets to be liquidated and distributed.
If probate hasn't been granted, which is likely, it's called a
"probate sale": it's authorised by the executor(s).
They can't authorise the land registry transfer until after probate.
Apparently that can take months, or even years. Doesn't stop the
purchaser from living in the property.
Squatting you mean. They can't sign a formal rental agreement pre-
probate, either.
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not >>>>least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for that >personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say she
won't even pay for a stamp.
On 21/05/2025 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended the >>buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned from
being the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they
charge about twice as much.
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm in >Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is
received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
On 21/05/2025 21:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m95gg3FkiglU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:17:06 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing
tenants or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is authorised),
and all goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis rule) that >>>substantially prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of a
substantial part of the property on or before completion."
Almost all property is thus. But when agents put it on the
particulars they mean, yes they really do mean, "It'll have
no residents or furniture when you view".
It doesn't have anything to do with when you view but only when you
complete if you buy. Possession, whether vacant or not, doesn't come
into it before then.
On 21/05/2025 06:50, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <4071023413.fd0ab00b@uninhabited.net>, at 11:31:50 on Tue,
20 May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 20 May 2025 at 12:12:35 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>wrote:They aren't, but it doesn't matter because the other beneficiaries
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, 19 May >>>>>> 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by people >>>>>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it >>>>>>>>>back from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she resolutely >>>>>>>> refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp.
Then, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the >>>>>>>sale won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any
solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish?
It might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work >>>>>because of
over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with >>>> you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances", >>>> I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
I see what you mean. It seems that if these two sisters are the only >>>possible beneficiaries
also want the flat sold ASAP.
All the more reason why the appointed executor(s) should have got a
wiggle on to get Probate sooner.
and they know the estate is solvent the very fact that they seemI can see where you are coming from, but where does this end? What
incapable of making an agreement between themselves to share the risk of >>> payments in advance of probate/letters of administration must raise
some red flags for the solicitors.
if the management company of the flats sued (the *executors
personally* and not the estate) for the monthly maintenance fees,
don't you think that would be a poor public policy outcome because it >>would discourage people from becoming (or not resigning from) executorship.
That is up to them. But the solicitors are not obliged to take any
risk as regards non-payment, and I don't see any reason why the
management company should effectively be subbing the estate by not
having their charges paid on time. The executors are responsible.
In message <m95dseFkiglU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:32:30 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 06:50, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <4071023413.fd0ab00b@uninhabited.net>, at 11:31:50 on Tue,
20 May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 20 May 2025 at 12:12:35 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>They aren't, but it doesn't matter because the other beneficiaries
wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon,
19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by >>>>>>>>>>> people
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it >>>>>>>>>> back from
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and sheThen, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the
resolutely
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp. >>>>>>>>
sale won't
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any
solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish?
It might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work
because of
over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with >>>>> you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances", >>>>> I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
I see what you mean. It seems that if these two sisters are the only
possible beneficiaries
also want the flat sold ASAP.
All the more reason why the appointed executor(s) should have got a
wiggle on to get Probate sooner.
and they know the estate is solvent the very fact that they seemI can see where you are coming from, but where does this end? What
incapable of making an agreement between themselves to share the
risk of
payments in advance of probate/letters of administration must raise
some red flags for the solicitors.
if the management company of the flats sued (the *executors
personally* and not the estate) for the monthly maintenance fees,
don't you think that would be a poor public policy outcome because
it would discourage people from becoming (or not resigning from)
executorship.
That is up to them. But the solicitors are not obliged to take any
risk as regards non-payment, and I don't see any reason why the
management company should effectively be subbing the estate by not
having their charges paid on time. The executors are responsible.
But *only* after probate has been obtained, because until then they
aren't officially the persons involved (other than for example imposters)
In message <m96s06FrkodU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:39:33 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 21:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m95gg3FkiglU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:17:06 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing
tenants or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is
authorised), and all goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis
rule) that substantially prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of
a substantial part of the property on or before completion."
Almost all property is thus. But when agents put it on the
particulars they mean, yes they really do mean, "It'll have
no residents or furniture when you view".
It doesn't have anything to do with when you view but only when you
complete if you buy. Possession, whether vacant or not, doesn't come
into it before then.
You are being typically perverse, and ignoring the proposition. This is about, and only about, the words used on the particulars.
In message <100mn6r$3ccbn$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:11 on Thu, 22 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended the
buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned from
being the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they
charge about twice as much.
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm in
Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is
received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
The local and fairly reputable solicitors I used for my last purchase
would accept information/instructions by email.
But only in the sense that the following morning the receptionist would
print them out and distribute them with that morning's snail mail.
In message <m95e95FkiglU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:39:16 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not
least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the
market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say.
Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house
sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many
buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for
that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say
she won't even pay for a stamp.
She hired an online-only estate agent, who did it speculatively because
it makes them look they have a viable business/portfolio.
On 22/05/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100mn6r$3ccbn$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:11 on Thu, 22 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended the
buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned from
being the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they
charge about twice as much.
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm in
Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is
received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
The local and fairly reputable solicitors I used for my last purchase
would accept information/instructions by email.
But only in the sense that the following morning the receptionist would
print them out and distribute them with that morning's snail mail.
How do you know that, and why do you care how they view your emails?
On 22 May 2025 at 17:38:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 22/05/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100mn6r$3ccbn$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:11 on Thu, 22 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended the >>>>> buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned from
being the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they
charge about twice as much.
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm in
Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is
received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
The local and fairly reputable solicitors I used for my last purchase
would accept information/instructions by email.
But only in the sense that the following morning the receptionist would
print them out and distribute them with that morning's snail mail.
How do you know that, and why do you care how they view your emails?
In the same way as one might doubt the professionalism of a firm that used only quill pens for correspondence and documents in 1980?
The local and fairly reputable solicitors I used for my last purchase
would accept information/instructions by email.
But only in the sense that the following morning the receptionist would >>>> print them out and distribute them with that morning's snail mail.
How do you know that, and why do you care how they view your emails?
In the same way as one might doubt the professionalism of a firm that used >> only quill pens for correspondence and documents in 1980?
And the obvious reason one might care is that the procedure described
means that the emails have no chance of being read until the next
working day after they are sent, rather than immediately, which is
usually at least a theoretical possibility with emails.
On 22 May 2025 at 17:38:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 22/05/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
The local and fairly reputable solicitors I used for my last purchase
would accept information/instructions by email.
But only in the sense that the following morning the receptionist would
print them out and distribute them with that morning's snail mail.
How do you know that, and why do you care how they view your emails?
In the same way as one might doubt the professionalism of a firm that used only quill pens for correspondence and documents in 1980?
On 22/05/2025 11:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m95e95FkiglU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:39:16 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
There is complete agreement the flat needs to be sold ASAP, not >>>>>>least because it continues to rack up monthly maintenance charges.
Well, you told us that earlier she was told not to put it on the >>>>>market, so the agreement doesn't seem quite as complete as you say. >>>>>Why was she told that?
For the simple reason that it would sit on the usual suspect house >>>>sale websites for a minimum of six months as "unsold", and for many >>>>buyers they would simply think "there must be something wrong with
the property if it's been on the market that long".
But she did apparently put it on such a platform. Did she pay for
that personally, or who did? Someone would have had to, yet you say
she won't even pay for a stamp.
She hired an online-only estate agent, who did it speculatively
because it makes them look they have a viable business/portfolio.
They have succeeded spectacularly well. These properties often hang
around the market for years.
Care to name the agent, so that others can benefit from their expertise?
On 22/05/2025 11:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m95dseFkiglU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:32:30 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 06:50, Roland Perry wrote:But *only* after probate has been obtained, because until then they >>aren't officially the persons involved (other than for example
In message <4071023413.fd0ab00b@uninhabited.net>, at 11:31:50 on
Tue, 20 May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 20 May 2025 at 12:12:35 BST, "GB"They aren't, but it doesn't matter because the other beneficiaries >>>>also want the flat sold ASAP.
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, >>>>>>>>19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on Mon, 19 >>>>>>>>>> May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by >>>>>>>>>>>>
not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to progress >>>>>>>>>>> this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it >>>>>>>>>>>
the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she >>>>>>>>>>resolutelyThen, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the >>>>>>>>>sale won't
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp. >>>>>>>>>
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any >>>>>>>>solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? >>>>>>>It might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work >>>>>>>because of
over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree with >>>>>> you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the circumstances", >>>>>> I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
I see what you mean. It seems that if these two sisters are the
only possible beneficiaries
All the more reason why the appointed executor(s) should have got a >>>wiggle on to get Probate sooner.
and they know the estate is solvent the very fact that they seemI can see where you are coming from, but where does this end? What >>>>if the management company of the flats sued (the *executors >>>>personally* and not the estate) for the monthly maintenance fees, >>>>don't you think that would be a poor public policy outcome because
incapable of making an agreement between themselves to share the >>>>>risk of
payments in advance of probate/letters of administration must
raise some red flags for the solicitors.
it would discourage people from becoming (or not resigning from) executorship.
That is up to them. But the solicitors are not obliged to take any
risk as regards non-payment, and I don't see any reason why the >>>management company should effectively be subbing the estate by not
having their charges paid on time. The executors are responsible.
imposters)
I think that is wrong. Executors have duties and responsibilities even >before Probate, including securing the assets of the deceased
and paying any debts and bills due to the estate.
If it were not so, creditors would be unfairly are at the mercy of any >dilatory executor. They are entitled to what they are owed in normal
time.
On 22/05/2025 11:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m96s06FrkodU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:39:33 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 21:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m95gg3FkiglU4@mid.individual.net>, at 09:17:06 on Wed,
21 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
"Property sold with vacant possession must be empty of existing >>>>>tenants or other occupiers (whether or not occupation is
authorised), and all goods and rubbish (subject to the de minimis >>>>>rule) that substantially prevent or interfere with the enjoyment of
a substantial part of the property on or before completion."
Almost all property is thus. But when agents put it on the
particulars they mean, yes they really do mean, "It'll have
no residents or furniture when you view".
It doesn't have anything to do with when you view but only when you >>>complete if you buy. Possession, whether vacant or not, doesn't come >>>into it before then.
You are being typically perverse, and ignoring the proposition. This
is about, and only about, the words used on the particulars.
Not so. You will not be able to find any reference whatsoever that
does not include the removal of all goods and possessions from a
property that is sold 'with vacant possession'. And that is only
relevant on the completion date.
I note that you haven't yet come up with any link at all, despite
having been requested to do so, and that you just rely on what I think
is a very faulty misunderstanding of what the expression means in law.
On 22/05/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100mn6r$3ccbn$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:28:11 on Thu, 22
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended
the buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned
from being the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they >>>>charge about twice as much.
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm
in Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is >>>received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
The local and fairly reputable solicitors I used for my last
purchase would accept information/instructions by email.
But only in the sense that the following morning the receptionist
would print them out and distribute them with that morning's snail
mail.
How do you know that,
and why do you care how they view your emails?
In message <m98eo0F4ln6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:05:35 on Thu, 22
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 22/05/2025 11:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m95dseFkiglU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:32:30 on Wed, 21
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 21/05/2025 06:50, Roland Perry wrote:But *only* after probate has been obtained, because until then they
In message <4071023413.fd0ab00b@uninhabited.net>, at 11:31:50 on
Tue, 20 May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 20 May 2025 at 12:12:35 BST, "GB"They aren't, but it doesn't matter because the other beneficiaries >>>>> also want the flat sold ASAP.
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 May 2025 at 10:38:34 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
In message <100fomn$1nm9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:10:47 on Mon, >>>>>>>>> 19 May
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 19/05/2025 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <100fmij$1na26$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:34:26 on >>>>>>>>>>> Mon, 19
May 2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/05/2025 15:23, Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, England. And the offer has been "accepted", albeit by >>>>>>>>>>>>> not authorised to do so. My question, however, was about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> solicitor's prepayments.
One practical course is for the daughter who is keen to >>>>>>>>>>>> progress
this sale should pay the solicitors. She can then claim it >>>>>>>>>>>> the executors once they have probate.
We've been down that route for other outgoings, and she >>>>>>>>>>> resolutelyThen, either you need to choose different solicitors, or the >>>>>>>>>> sale won't
refuses to pay *anything*, literally not even a postage stamp. >>>>>>>>>>
progress. That seems to be her call.
My question, however, was "is it right for them - or any
solicitor - to
be asking for a prepayment, given the circumstances"
Surely they have a right to take on work on any terms they wish? >>>>>>>> It might not
be helpful but it is entirely their choice. If they lose work
because of
over-caution that is no-one's business but their own.
I think it's inherent in my previous answer that I entirely agree >>>>>>> with
you. But, in answer to Roland's point about "given the
circumstances",
I'd say particularly given these circumstances.
I see what you mean. It seems that if these two sisters are the
only possible beneficiaries
All the more reason why the appointed executor(s) should have got a
wiggle on to get Probate sooner.
and they know the estate is solvent the very fact that they seemI can see where you are coming from, but where does this end? What >>>>> if the management company of the flats sued (the *executors
incapable of making an agreement between themselves to share the
risk of
payments in advance of probate/letters of administration must
raise some red flags for the solicitors.
personally* and not the estate) for the monthly maintenance fees,
don't you think that would be a poor public policy outcome because >>>>> it would discourage people from becoming (or not resigning from)
executorship.
That is up to them. But the solicitors are not obliged to take any
risk as regards non-payment, and I don't see any reason why the
management company should effectively be subbing the estate by not
having their charges paid on time. The executors are responsible.
aren't officially the persons involved (other than for example
imposters)
I think that is wrong. Executors have duties and responsibilities
even before Probate, including securing the assets of the deceased
Yes.
and paying any debts and bills due to the estate.
No. They don't have access to the funds.
If it were not so, creditors would be unfairly are at the mercy of any
dilatory executor. They are entitled to what they are owed in normal
time.
Sadly (for them) they aren't.
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal
professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging
statements.
In message <m9gtn4Fgu3oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:12 on Sun, 25
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal
professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging
statements.
Let's keep this civil, and agree to disagree on the points being discussed.
On 26/05/2025 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9gtn4Fgu3oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:12 on Sun, 25
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal >>>professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging >>>statements.
Let's keep this civil, and agree to disagree on the points being >>discussed.
Suggesting getting proper professional advice is civil. It may even be >helpful. But that of course means you have to be open to the
possibility that you may be wrong. If you're absolutely certain you're >right, so be it. It's not a problem to me.
In message <m9jldaFu7fcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:06:50 on Mon, 26
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/05/2025 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9gtn4Fgu3oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:12 on Sun, 25
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal
professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging
statements.
Let's keep this civil, and agree to disagree on the points being
discussed.
Suggesting getting proper professional advice is civil. It may even
be helpful. But that of course means you have to be open to the
possibility that you may be wrong. If you're absolutely certain
you're right, so be it. It's not a problem to me.
I don't need professional advice to understand how the probate system
works - I've been through it four times the last few years.
On the other hand, getting professional advice to fill in the forms is a
good idea - then if the wheels fall off you have someone else to blame.
On 22/05/2025 09:28, GB wrote:
On 21/05/2025 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
Things have moved on, and the agents apparently also recommended the
buyers use those same solicitors, who them promptly resigned from
being the sellers' solicitors.
I have recommended alternative and trusted solicitors, but they
charge about twice as much.
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm in
Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is
received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
Myersons by any chance?
Regards
S.P.
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars.
But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
They all imply much the same thing: Motivated sellers, who aren't going
to change their minds at the last minute, but may not be able to answer
all questions fully.
On 27/05/2025 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9jldaFu7fcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:06:50 on Mon, 26
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/05/2025 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9gtn4Fgu3oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:12 on Sun,
25 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal >>>>>professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging >>>>>statements.
Let's keep this civil, and agree to disagree on the points being >>>>discussed.
Suggesting getting proper professional advice is civil. It may
even be helpful. But that of course means you have to be open to
the possibility that you may be wrong. If you're absolutely certain >>>you're right, so be it. It's not a problem to me.
I don't need professional advice to understand how the probate
system works - I've been through it four times the last few years.
Though it has to be said you have still thought it necessary to seek
advice and information here on several different estate matters so
perhaps it's not quite as simple as you think.
Specifically, here, we were talking about the monthly maintenance fees >charged by the management company of the flats and whether they need to
be paid on time even before Probate is granted, or whether they are >automatically suspended until the executors get round in their own good
time to obtaining Probate.
It may be true that the executors cannot be sued personally for those >payments (unless Probate is delayed for so long that it amounts to >maladministration), but there may be consequences to the estate if they
are not maintained, which means they need to consider carefully whether
they should arrange to pay them themselves and get reimbursed later. In
the case of a mortgage for example:
"Typically after the death of a mortgage holder, the monthly payment
still needs to be paid" because ...
"Lenders are legally allowed to demand the full sum of the mortgage be
repaid and hold the right to ‘force’ the sale of a property to
reclaim any outstanding balance".
https://www.landc.co.uk/insight/who-is-responsible-for-a-mortgage-after-death
I would think monthly maintenance fees may be regarded rather like a >mortgage,
and would guess any consequences of non-payment depend on the terms of
the lease or whatever agreement the management company had with the
deceased. Has anyone even looked? If so, what does it say?
On the other hand, getting professional advice to fill in the forms
is a good idea - then if the wheels fall off you have someone else to >>blame.
I think getting professional advice where there is uncertainty is
always good. It's why professionals exist.
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars.
But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
They all imply much the same thing: Motivated sellers, who aren't going
to change their minds at the last minute, but may not be able to answer
all questions fully.
On 27 May 2025 at 17:16:13 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars.
But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
They all imply much the same thing: Motivated sellers, who aren't going
to change their minds at the last minute, but may not be able to answer
all questions fully.
Indeed. "Vacant possession" is absolutely zero to do with whether anyone is >living in the house at the time of viewing.
In message <6285829980.a7dd5be1@uninhabited.net>, at 16:20:58 on Tue, 27
May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 27 May 2025 at 17:16:13 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars.
But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
They all imply much the same thing: Motivated sellers, who aren't going
to change their minds at the last minute, but may not be able to answer
all questions fully.
Indeed. "Vacant possession" is absolutely zero to do with whether anyone is >> living in the house at the time of viewing.
That's right, but it's the words frequently used by agents to attempt to entice more viewings.
On 27 May 2025 at 18:30:21 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6285829980.a7dd5be1@uninhabited.net>, at 16:20:58 on Tue, 27
May 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 27 May 2025 at 17:16:13 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars. >>>> But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
They all imply much the same thing: Motivated sellers, who aren't going >>>> to change their minds at the last minute, but may not be able to answer >>>> all questions fully.
Indeed. "Vacant possession" is absolutely zero to do with whether anyone is >>> living in the house at the time of viewing.
That's right, but it's the words frequently used by agents to attempt to
entice more viewings.
Salesmen are more noted for confidence in the value of their words than for >accurately describing what they are selling. The rest of us may be satisfied >to describe what they are doing as lying.
In message <m9lnqfF9sukU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:00:13 on Tue, 27
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/05/2025 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9jldaFu7fcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:06:50 on Mon, 26
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/05/2025 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9gtn4Fgu3oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:12 on Sun,
25 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal
professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging
statements.
Let's keep this civil, and agree to disagree on the points being
discussed.
Suggesting getting proper professional advice is civil. It may even
be helpful. But that of course means you have to be open to the
possibility that you may be wrong. If you're absolutely certain
you're right, so be it. It's not a problem to me.
I don't need professional advice to understand how the probate
system works - I've been through it four times the last few years.
Though it has to be said you have still thought it necessary to seek
advice and information here on several different estate matters so
perhaps it's not quite as simple as you think.
I was asking for opinions on the conduct of one of the executors, and
ways to avoid them getting themselves into more trouble.
Specifically, here, we were talking about the monthly maintenance fees
charged by the management company of the flats and whether they need
to be paid on time even before Probate is granted, or whether they are
automatically suspended until the executors get round in their own
good time to obtaining Probate.
The fees aren't "automatically" suspended, but they'll rack up and need
to be paid once probate is obtained, and after that every month until
the flat is sold.
The management companies go to extraordinary lengths to try to persuade executors that the fees should be paid anyway
but don't actually say
they MUST be paid. Which they would if that were the case, rather than
crying crocodile tears about it being unfair on them that you
temporarily aren't contributing to the gardener's salary.
Or the resident manager, although in this case that post has been vacant about a year. [So why is everyone still being charged for the services
of someone who doesn't exist?]
It may be true that the executors cannot be sued personally for those
payments (unless Probate is delayed for so long that it amounts to
maladministration), but there may be consequences to the estate if
they are not maintained, which means they need to consider carefully
whether they should arrange to pay them themselves and get reimbursed
later. In the case of a mortgage for example:
"Typically after the death of a mortgage holder, the monthly payment
still needs to be paid" because ...
"Lenders are legally allowed to demand the full sum of the mortgage be
repaid and hold the right to ‘force’ the sale of a property to reclaim >> any outstanding balance".
Has that ever happened in practice.
Make good story for a consumer program.
https://www.landc.co.uk/insight/who-is-responsible-for-a-mortgage-
after-death
I would think monthly maintenance fees may be regarded rather like a
mortgage,
Of course not, they are entirely different animals.
and would guess any consequences of non-payment depend on the terms of
the lease or whatever agreement the management company had with the
deceased. Has anyone even looked? If so, what does it say?
The management company could sue the deceased, but they are in enough
trouble already with their public image, and everyone would laugh at them.
On the other hand, getting professional advice to fill in the forms
is a good idea - then if the wheels fall off you have someone else
to blame.
I think getting professional advice where there is uncertainty is
always good. It's why professionals exist.
The problem is finding professionals who give *correct* advice.
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars.
But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
On Tue, 27 May 2025 17:16:13 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 15:38, Roland Perry wrote:
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly
describe a house that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars. >>But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
"Vacant possession" is a phrase associated with tenanted or commercial >property. It basically means that there will be no sitting tenant on >completion day, leaving the new owner free to do what they want (refurbish, >occupy personally, find a new tenant) with an empty property rather than >inheriting a tenant from the previous owner. It's not a phrase typically >associated with a sale from one owner-ocupier to another.
It doesn't mean that the property is already unoccupied at the time of >viewing.
Typically, tenanted residential properties will still be occupied
during the marketing phase. Once the sale is agreed, the tenant will be >issued with a Section 21 notice terminating the tenancy on a date prior to >the completion date of the sale, thus ensuring vacant possession. But vacant >possession (ie, the tenant will be gone by then) is typically also a >condition of the sale, meaning that if, for any reason, the tenant has not >moved out by completion day, the transaction fails and the buyer is not >obliged to complete.
https://www.propertyinvestmentsuk.co.uk/vacant-possession/
Mark
That raises an interesting though-experiment. Which may or may not apply to all contracts, not just property sales. A signs a contract in his solicitor's office; then drops dead. Is the solicitor obliged to send the signed document to the other party or can he tear it up? Can he take advice from the presumed heirs?
In message <m9me2aFd3hnU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:19:55 on Tue, 27
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/05/2025 18:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9lnqfF9sukU1@mid.individual.net>, at 13:00:13 on Tue, 27
May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/05/2025 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:I was asking for opinions on the conduct of one of the executors,
In message <m9jldaFu7fcU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:06:50 on Mon,
26 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 26/05/2025 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9gtn4Fgu3oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:10:12 on
Sun, 25 May 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
I think you need to clarify the position with a proper legal
professional before making such definitive and possibly damaging
Let's keep this civil, and agree to disagree on the points being >>>>>>> discussed.
Suggesting getting proper professional advice is civil. It may
even be helpful. But that of course means you have to be open to >>>>>> the possibility that you may be wrong. If you're absolutely
certain you're right, so be it. It's not a problem to me.
I don't need professional advice to understand how the probate
system works - I've been through it four times the last few years.
Though it has to be said you have still thought it necessary to seek
advice and information here on several different estate matters so
perhaps it's not quite as simple as you think.
and ways to avoid them getting themselves into more trouble.
Well, now you're getting an opinion on the conduct of the named
executor in the case we're considering, including the time taken and
her responsibilities before Probate is granted.
Specifically, here, we were talking about the monthly maintenance fees >>>> charged by the management company of the flats and whether they needThe fees aren't "automatically" suspended, but they'll rack up and
to be paid on time even before Probate is granted, or whether they
are automatically suspended until the executors get round in their
own good time to obtaining Probate.
need to be paid once probate is obtained, and after that every month
until the flat is sold.
I'm saying that, like a mortgage, they may need to be paid each month
when due even before Probate, in order to avoid any consequences for
the estate, which it is her duty to secure and protect. I don't think
she can decide unilaterally to suspend payment and rack up the charges
for as long as she likes.
The management companies go to extraordinary lengths to try to
persuade executors that the fees should be paid anyway
That's perfectly understandable. They are owed the fees. They are
entitled to receive them on time, and should not have to wait for
perhaps several months while others do their own thing in their own
sweet time, before they do. It may be out of compassion they will
agree to a temporary suspension, but that is a matter for them and is
not, I think, for the executor to demand.
but don't actually say they MUST be paid. Which they would if that
were the case, rather than crying crocodile tears about it being
unfair on them that you temporarily aren't contributing to the
gardener's salary.
Maybe the consequence of non-payment is termination of the lease and a
forced auction sale of the flat? I don't know what any agreement
says, but I guess that sort of thing would not be in the estate's best
interests.
Or the resident manager, although in this case that post has been
vacant about a year. [So why is everyone still being charged for the
services of someone who doesn't exist?]
That's a different question entirely.
It may be true that the executors cannot be sued personally forHas that ever happened in practice.
those payments (unless Probate is delayed for so long that it
amounts to maladministration), but there may be consequences to the
estate if they are not maintained, which means they need to
consider carefully whether they should arrange to pay them
themselves and get reimbursed later. In the case of a mortgage for
example:
"Typically after the death of a mortgage holder, the monthly payment
still needs to be paid" because ...
"Lenders are legally allowed to demand the full sum of the mortgage
be repaid and hold the right to ‘force’ the sale of a property to >>>> reclaim any outstanding balance".
I'm sure it has, many, many times. It's even got a name, foreclosure.
Make good story for a consumer program.
https://www.landc.co.uk/insight/who-is-responsible-for-a-mortgage-Of course not, they are entirely different animals.
after-death
I would think monthly maintenance fees may be regarded rather like a
mortgage,
They are both ongoing monthly charges to do with and probably secured
on a residential property. Non-payment has consequences.
and would guess any consequences of non-payment depend on the termsThe management company could sue the deceased, but they are in
of the lease or whatever agreement the management company had with
the deceased. Has anyone even looked? If so, what does it say?
enough trouble already with their public image, and everyone would
laugh at them.
No-one can sue a deceased person. That seems to be a misapprehension
on your part.
But there's nothing shameful in suing anyone for what is owed to you.
The problem is finding professionals who give *correct* advice.On the other hand, getting professional advice to fill in the forms
is a good idea - then if the wheels fall off you have someone else >>>>> to blame.
I think getting professional advice where there is uncertainty is
always good. It's why professionals exist.
Part of the problem may lie in your interpretation of 'correct'.
We are simply going round in circles (and you keep introducing new red herrings). Are you not capable of agreeing to disagree, like I asked
several postings ago?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
That raises an interesting though-experiment. Which may or may not apply to >> all contracts, not just property sales. A signs a contract in his solicitor's
office; then drops dead. Is the solicitor obliged to send the signed document
to the other party or can he tear it up? Can he take advice from the presumed
heirs?
Could that contract be deemed frustrated since A is now dead? Even if contracts are exchanged A cannot complete on it (for example, move all their stuff out of the house they're selling). Their heirs may wish to do so, but can only act once probate has completed.
I suppose if the transaction required no action on A's part (sell a field, receive money) then it could be argued there is no frustration and the transaction can proceed.
Things like this must happen all the time on a small scale: A orders something, item is shipped, A drops dead, item is then delivered. Could A's executors attempt to reverse the transaction and send the item back?
Theo
In message <9q6c3kls84fhtc0rj7i4lob663m8h9trnc@4ax.com>, at 21:17:26 on
Tue, 27 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 17:16:13 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars. >>>But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in >>>possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
"Vacant possession" is a phrase associated with tenanted or commercial >>property. It basically means that there will be no sitting tenant on >>completion day, leaving the new owner free to do what they want (refurbish, >>occupy personally, find a new tenant) with an empty property rather than >>inheriting a tenant from the previous owner. It's not a phrase typically >>associated with a sale from one owner-ocupier to another.
It doesn't mean that the property is already unoccupied at the time of >>viewing.
When (mis)used in estate agent particulars for UNTENANTED OWNER OCCUPIER >properties, that's exactly what it means.
On 28/05/2025 10:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/05/2025 06:12, Roland Perry wrote:
We are simply going round in circles (and you keep introducing new
red herrings). Are you not capable of agreeing to disagree, like I
asked several postings ago?
Believe it or not, all my comments have been made in good faith. To
avoid what I see as potential difficulties, she needs better advice,
from a professional, than she seems to have had so far.
Claiming that "all my comments have been made in good faith" is
nonsensical in a legal newsgroup as there is no contractual relationship between parties here making the claim utterly meaningless.
That aside, it can be argued that bringing "good faith" to the
discussion suggests that there is empathy to a counterparty's position
which anyone with any experience of your posts will know most certainly
does not apply meaning it can be argued whether or not your posts here
are, in fact, "made in good faith".
In this thread, you have stated that maintenance fees due to a
management company are "like a mortgage".
You have also said, "It may be out of compassion they [the managing
agent] will agree to a temporary suspension [of the fees due], but that
is a matter for them and is not, I think, for the executor to demand."
And furthermore that you "would guess any consequences of non-payment
depend on the terms of the lease or whatever agreement the management
company had with the deceased."
In short, you're providing nothing but guesses based on what you think
the law is whilst expecting they are treated as gospel if no-one weighs
in to contradict them.
On that basis, allow me to weigh in on the matter.
The key overarching principle in such matters is to ensure that the
landlord does not do anything that waives their right of forfeiture,
either expressly or (more likely) involuntarily as once that right has
been waived, forfeiture is simply no longer available in respect of the breach, in most cases.
Should waiver happen, whilst enforcement options are not lost
completely, they are limited to less effective remedies.
Perhaps more importantly for a landlord keeping an eye on the bottom
line, as you suggest they ought to do, is that where the right to
recover enforcement costs is tied to the right of forfeiture they may
risk being unable to recover some of all of the costs incurred in any
action for remedy of the breach.
Any landlord must therefore be vigilant about what waiver is and ensure
it does not occur, accidentally or otherwise, and yet I see no mention
of the term, much less a reference to it, even tangentially, with some
of your "good faith" advice likely to lead waiver occurring.
For the record, waiver occurs when, after knowledge of a specific once
and for all breach, the landlord (or their "representative") acts in
such a way as to recognise the continuance of the lease despite the breach.
A couple of simple (and likely accidental) methods by which waiver could occur would include demanding / accepting rent or other charges, and answering an LPE1 request when marketing a property for sale.
In the case of most breaches of a lease, an act of waiver is fatal to
the right of forfeiture.
In light of the foregoing, do you 'guess' that "agree[ing] to a
temporary suspension [of the fees due]" is sound advice?
Do you still 'think' that maintenance fees are "like a mortgage"?
The typical advice for personal representative(s) (PR) is to contact the landlord as soon as practicable following the death and advise that they
are applying for Grant of Probate / Letters of Administration.
It is customary for the landlord to allow a grace period of three months following notification of the death at which point they should apply to
the Probate Registry for a copy of the application.
From that point forward, the landlord should address all correspondence
to "[name] as personal representative of the Estate of [name of deceased leaseholder]" typically allowing a further three months for the PR to
begin organising the estate.
During this six month period, the landlord may wish to enquire of the PR
how matters are progressing but it would be unusual to issue a demand
for payment until at least the expiration of six months after the date
of death.
After the six months has elapsed,
the landlord may wish to commence
their usual debt recovery process but must have regard for any act of
waiver in so doing. For that reason, it may be prudent to serve notices pursuant to section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) in
respect of those sums so as to protect the landlord's right to recover
those charges later rather than issuing the withheld demands for
accruing service charges but that would require specific legal advice.
Note that, for the unwary, a "deadly embrace" can occur here if care is
not exercised as the PR may be relying upon the proceeds from the sale
of the property to satisfy the management fees due whilst the landlord
should be reluctant to provide answers to LPE1 pre-sale enquiries
required for the sale to proceed as this may prejudice their position.
(See "Waiver" above.)
In short, the matter is not nearly so clear-cut as you "think" or
"guess" but rather can be extremely complicated for the unwary (from
both sides) with financial implications all round regardless of your
"good faith" advice.
In this specific case, the personal representatives would be well
advised to contact the landlord at the earliest possible opportunity and explain the situation in detail.
If the landlord believes the PR is delaying unduly, they may wish to
serve notices pursuant to section 20B of the LTA but should seek
specific legal advice before doing so.
"Vacant possession" for the umpteenth time, is what they commonly describe a house
that's empty when you view. Nothing whatsoever to
do with happens after the completion of the sale.
On 27/05/2025 14:40, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 09:56, Simon Parker wrote:
On 22/05/2025 09:28, GB wrote:
For a recent transaction, where speed was important, I used a firm
in Altrincham who aim to answer all correspondence on the day it is
received. I thought they were very efficient. Not cheap, though!
Myersons by any chance?
Haworth Holt Bell.
£225 per hour, when the person likely to be doing most of the work is
not a solicitor is indeed in the "not cheap" category, in my book.
Then again, you get what you pay for. You said speed was important and
were willing (note that I've said "willing" and have avoided saying
"happy" :-)) to pay a premium for that speed so everybody seems to have
got what they wanted from the transaction.
Thanks for answering.
Regards
S.P.
Except that the one thing that "does" happen after the completion of the
sale is the actual "possession" of the vacant property, by the purchaser.
Whereas, whatever it is that viewers of a property are doing prior to
sale, it certainly isn't "possessing" it.
On 28/05/2025 15:08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/05/2025 13:30, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/05/2025 10:53, Norman Wells wrote:
Believe it or not, all my comments have been made in good faith. To
avoid what I see as potential difficulties, she needs better advice,
from a professional, than she seems to have had so far.
Claiming that "all my comments have been made in good faith" is
nonsensical in a legal newsgroup as there is no contractual
relationship between parties here making the claim utterly meaningless.
That aside, it can be argued that bringing "good faith" to the
discussion suggests that there is empathy to a counterparty's
position which anyone with any experience of your posts will know
most certainly does not apply meaning it can be argued whether or not
your posts here are, in fact, "made in good faith".
Sorry, but it's not actually necessary to be in a contractual
relationship to comment in good faith. It applies in real life too.
It can,
but not to the majority of what you post for the reason given -
your posts to this thread being a perfect example that you are incapable
of displaying empathy to a counterparty's position and therefore cannot
be posting in good faith, despite claiming to be so doing.
In this thread, you have stated that maintenance fees due to a
management company are "like a mortgage".
What I actually said was 'monthly maintenance fees may be regarded
rather like a mortgage' which is somewhat different. I then went on
to say why. Which you've ignored.
I have ignored nothing.
In addition to the statement above, you said:
"I'm saying that, like a mortgage, they may need to be paid each month
when due even before Probate, in order to avoid any consequences for the estate, which it is her duty to secure and protect."
Having spent much of the thread arguing that an executor is powerless to
do anything much prior to having obtained probate, you're now claiming
that the executor *may* need to pay the monthly management fees each
month "*even before Probate*" because they are "like a mortgage" and "it
is her *duty*" to pay them. (Emphasis mine.)
Your advice is unclear, littered as it is with the use of words and
phrases like "may", "I guess" and "I think", and contradictory thereby
making it meaningless and ultimately useless.
You have also said, "It may be out of compassion they [the managing
agent] will agree to a temporary suspension [of the fees due], but
that is a matter for them and is not, I think, for the executor to
demand."
And furthermore that you "would guess any consequences of non-payment
depend on the terms of the lease or whatever agreement the management
company had with the deceased."
In short, you're providing nothing but guesses based on what you
think the law is whilst expecting they are treated as gospel if no-
one weighs in to contradict them.
Not so. We haven't seen the terms of the lease, so the best we can do
is guess at what they are.
That is far from "the best we can do". We can, for example, use our knowledge and experience of the contents of typical leases and make recommendations based on what is likely to be present in this lease,
pointing out general principles common to the majority of leases
highlighting matters of which the executor needs to be aware.
But it's exactly what your suggestion is below, ie a 'grace period'.
As far as I'm aware, that amounts to a temporary suspension with any
accrued amount to be paid later.
And would such a "temporary suspension" give rise to waiver with the attendant problems attached thereto, or not?
Should the executor be worried about waiver or is that an issue of
concern for the landlord only?
So, other than being absolute nonsense and completely wrong, there is no other issue whatsoever with your claim that 'monthly maintenance fees
may be regarded rather like a mortgage'. I am glad that is cleared up now.
The typical advice for personal representative(s) (PR) is to contact
the landlord as soon as practicable following the death and advise
that they are applying for Grant of Probate / Letters of Administration. >>>
It is customary for the landlord to allow a grace period of three
months following notification of the death at which point they should
apply to the Probate Registry for a copy of the application.
So, 'customary', not 'necessary'. It is, as I said, not for the
deceased's executor to suspend payments unilaterally as if it's her
right, but only to do so with the landlord's agreement, which it
appears they don't have.
If the executor does not yet have grant of probate and is unable or
unwilling to use their own funds to make payments on behalf of the
estate in the short-term, how do you propose they pay these fees?
What if the PR asks for the landlord's permission to "temporarily
suspend" payment and he refuses because he is worried about waiver occurring? What is the executor to do then?
Anyway, we were told originally that the flat has been marketed since
the New Year, which would indicate that the death occurred at least 6
months ago, and the 'typical and 'customary' periods you indicate have
been exceeded.
Meaning...?
And still Probate has not been granted.
So how is the executor going to make payments? What can the landlord do about the lack of payments? As above, how should the executor respond
to whatever the landlord does? Does the executor know if any work
requiring a section 20 notice is likely to arise shortly? Would that
change the position at all? If so, how?
Again, these are the legal "nuts and bolts" of the issue which you have comprehensively failed to mention, never mind address, in your numerous so-called 'erudite' posts to the thread.
During this six month period, the landlord may wish to enquire of the
PR how matters are progressing but it would be unusual to issue a
demand for payment until at least the expiration of six months after
the date of death.
After the six months has elapsed,
... which it will have done by now ...
...meaning...
the landlord may wish to commence their usual debt recovery process
but must have regard for any act of waiver in so doing. For that
reason, it may be prudent to serve notices pursuant to section 20B of
the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) in respect of those sums so as
to protect the landlord's right to recover those charges later rather
than issuing the withheld demands for accruing service charges but
that would require specific legal advice.
It's *his* choice how to proceed. He is perfectly within his rights
to sue for debt recovery, and to take whatever other action *he* is
entitled to under the terms of the lease.
What is his likely course of action? What are the likely alternatives?
How should the executor respond to each of these potential courses with
what likely outcomes?
More "nuts and bolts" missing from your posts.
In this specific case, the personal representatives would be well
advised to contact the landlord at the earliest possible opportunity
and explain the situation in detail.
Yes, because of the consequences to the estate about which I've been
concerned and have expressed here. The assumption from others has
been that the executor can delay paying the management fees
essentially for as long as she likes because she doesn't yet have
access to the estate's funds as Probate hasn't yet been granted. Even
on your analysis, that's wrong and it's a dangerous game to play.
Please do not attempt to piggyback on my posts as if to suggest I in any
way support or corroborate what you've been saying.
For the avoidance of doubt: I consider that your posts to this thread
have been vague and often incorrect. The above paragraph continues that theme.
As an example, I am aware of a situation where the mortgage on a
property went unpaid for approximately 7 years during which time I would
say that communication between the executor and mortgage company "could
have been better". Eventually, the property was sold and the mortgage satisfied with no real consequences for either the executor or the estate.
Would the same likely be true for monthly management fees as the example mortgage given about because, to quote you, "They [monthly management
fees] may be regarded rather like one [a mortgage], yes".
Do you want to revise your position yet or are you holding fast?
In this specific case, the personal representatives would be well
advised to contact the landlord at the earliest possible opportunity
and explain the situation in detail.
Things like this must happen all the time on a small scale: A orders >something, item is shipped, A drops dead, item is then delivered. Could A's >executors attempt to reverse the transaction and send the item back?
Haworth Holt Bell.
225 per hour, when the person likely to be doing most of the work is
not a solicitor is indeed in the "not cheap" category, in my book.
In message <m9odkcFp7i5U9@mid.individual.net>, at 13:24:43 on Wed, 28
May 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Haworth Holt Bell.
£225 per hour, when the person likely to be doing most of the work is
not a solicitor is indeed in the "not cheap" category, in my book.
My friend (who you've met, but shortly before her mother died,
one reason for our trip was to check in with her) is being charged
£150+VAT per hour for an apprentice solicitor to do the probate
application. He seems a bit wet behind the ears, to be honest.
Anyway, five months in, the application has been filed.
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
On 5/30/25 11:22, The Todal wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9odkcFp7i5U9@mid.individual.net>, at 13:24:43 on Wed,I doubt if anyone is satisfied with their probate solicitor.
28 May 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Haworth Holt Bell.
225 per hour, when the person likely to be doing most of the work
is not a solicitor is indeed in the "not cheap" category, in my book.
My friend (who you've met, but shortly before her mother died,
one reason for our trip was to check in with her) is being charged >>>150+VAT per hour for an apprentice solicitor to do the probate >>>application. He seems a bit wet behind the ears, to be honest.
Anyway, five months in, the application has been filed.
I recently did a grant of probate D-I-Y, including IHT400 forms. It was >relatively easy.
Given I learnt how to do it from scratch, I really don't know what
lawyers are charging high rates for. Certainly not for simple estates. >Caveat: I do have a professional background designing software for
financial systems.
On 30/05/2025 11:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9odkcFp7i5U9@mid.individual.net>, at 13:24:43 on Wed, 28
May 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Haworth Holt Bell.
£225 per hour, when the person likely to be doing most of the work is
not a solicitor is indeed in the "not cheap" category, in my book.
My friend (who you've met, but shortly before her mother died,
one reason for our trip was to check in with her) is being charged
£150+VAT per hour for an apprentice solicitor to do the probate
application. He seems a bit wet behind the ears, to be honest.
Anyway, five months in, the application has been filed.
I doubt if anyone is satisfied with their probate solicitor.
In the name of openness, I do not currently work for Myersons, nor have
I ever worked for them and I have no plans to work for them in the
future. However, I know that they look after their staff and their
corporate events are excellent. (Read into that what you will.)
Myersons offer a fixed fee service (starting at £1,750 for property
values up to £400,000) for usual residential property transactions (no complicating factors such as lack of certification for alterations /
building works, no title defects, not an apartment in a building over 5 storeys / a height of 11 metres, etc.) which will almost certainly have
been much cheaper, I would hope.
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice
from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online
says it's the property of the estate.
One of the things they can help with is understanding the rollover of
un-used exemptions from pre-deceased partners. And also the way that downsizing allowances can be applied.
For reasons I still don't understand, my late mother sold her property
to downsize (to move to assisted living), the day before the downsizing allowances kicked in. I don't know if that was just a co-incidence, or
the result of poor advice from a "professional".
On Wed, 28 May 2025 06:12:27 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9q6c3kls84fhtc0rj7i4lob663m8h9trnc@4ax.com>, at 21:17:26 on >>Tue, 27 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 17:16:13 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars. >>>>But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in >>>>possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
"Vacant possession" is a phrase associated with tenanted or commercial >>>property. It basically means that there will be no sitting tenant on >>>completion day, leaving the new owner free to do what they want (refurbish, >>>occupy personally, find a new tenant) with an empty property rather than >>>inheriting a tenant from the previous owner. It's not a phrase typically >>>associated with a sale from one owner-ocupier to another.
It doesn't mean that the property is already unoccupied at the time of >>>viewing.
When (mis)used in estate agent particulars for UNTENANTED OWNER OCCUPIER >>properties, that's exactly what it means.
I've never seen it used in that scenario.
But this thread isn't about an
owner-ocupier to owner-ocupier sale. It's about an executor sale.
In that
context, the term "vacant possession" is relevant because it's a guarantee
to potential purchasers that the inheritors of the property have no plans to >occupy it. In which case, it will be vacant at the time of viewing. But >that's immaterial, because the phrase doesn't refer to viewing, it refers to >possession.
If you don't believe me, here are extracts from the top five results of a >DuckDuckGo search for "what does vacant possession mean":
Vacant possession means the property must be clear of all residents (or
tenants) when the sale is completed and contain only the physical items
that have been pre-agreed to stay where they are.
https://www.propertyinvestmentsuk.co.uk/vacant-possession/
When buying or selling a house, the term vacant possession simply means
that the house you’re buying or selling must be empty on the day of
completion.
https://myhomemoveconveyancing.co.uk/buyers/finding-a-home/what-does-vac >ant-possession-mean/
Vacant possession means a buyer and a seller have agreed a property will
be empty of tenants or occupiers by the date of completion.
https://lawhive.co.uk/knowledge-hub/property/what-does-vacant-possession-mean/
When buying or selling a property with ‘vacant possession’ the property
needs to be empty on the day of completion. This means the sellers or
tenants have moved out and removed all of their belongings, only leaving
behind items that have been agreed with the buyer.
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/ >what-is-vacant-possession/
If a property is sold with ‘vacant possession’, it means that the property
must be empty of dwellers and possessions on the date of completion. The
completion date is when the property officially changes hands from the
seller to the buyer.
https://assetsforlife.co.uk/vacant-possession/
Just for teh lolz, I also asked ChatGPT, and it told me:
Vacant possession is a legal term commonly used in property transactions.
It means that the property being sold, leased, or transferred must be
empty of people, possessions, and any legal interests not agreed upon by
the buyer or new tenant at the time of handover.
And an artificial second opinion was obtained from Gemini, which told me:
In real estate, vacant possession means that a property will be free of
occupants (including the seller or any tenants) and their belongings on
the date of completion of the sale or the end of a lease agreement.
None of those refer to the property being empty at the time of viewing.
Obviously, a property which is empty at the time of viewing will almost >certainly be offered with vacant possession,
and an executor sale with vacant possession
will usually (but not always) be empty at the time of viewing.
But viewing and possession are different things, so the fact that a
property is empty when viewed does not necessarily imply vacant possession >while a property sold with vacant possession might nonetheless be occupied
at the time of viewing.
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice
from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online
says it's the property of the estate.
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice
from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online
says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
In message <nc2e3k9t4p56lqu612r1opdo9j4eepn4ot@4ax.com>, at 14:21:12 on
Wed, 28 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 06:12:27 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9q6c3kls84fhtc0rj7i4lob663m8h9trnc@4ax.com>, at 21:17:26 on
Tue, 27 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 17:16:13 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I haven't seen that particular phrase used by EAs on their particulars. >>>>> But, I have seen 'chain free'. 'Executor sale'. 'Mortgagees in
possession'. ('We have keys' is a more subtle version.)
"Vacant possession" is a phrase associated with tenanted or commercial >>>> property. It basically means that there will be no sitting tenant on
completion day, leaving the new owner free to do what they want (refurbish,
occupy personally, find a new tenant) with an empty property rather than >>>> inheriting a tenant from the previous owner. It's not a phrase typically >>>> associated with a sale from one owner-ocupier to another.
It doesn't mean that the property is already unoccupied at the time of >>>> viewing.
When (mis)used in estate agent particulars for UNTENANTED OWNER OCCUPIER >>> properties, that's exactly what it means.
I've never seen it used in that scenario.
Then perhaps you need to be more observant. I see it all the time, and
cited an example in this thread.
But this thread isn't about an
owner-ocupier to owner-ocupier sale. It's about an executor sale.
No it isn't, you seem to confused.
In that
context, the term "vacant possession" is relevant because it's a guarantee >> to potential purchasers that the inheritors of the property have no plans to >> occupy it. In which case, it will be vacant at the time of viewing. But
that's immaterial, because the phrase doesn't refer to viewing, it refers to >> possession.
But estate agents use it to mean "will be empty when you view".
The three D's of most house sales: Death, Debt and Divorce.
If you don't believe me, here are extracts from the top five results of a
DuckDuckGo search for "what does vacant possession mean":
Vacant possession means the property must be clear of all residents (or
tenants) when the sale is completed and contain only the physical items
that have been pre-agreed to stay where they are.
https://www.propertyinvestmentsuk.co.uk/vacant-possession/
When buying or selling a house, the term vacant possession simply means
that the house you’re buying or selling must be empty on the day of
completion.
https://myhomemoveconveyancing.co.uk/buyers/finding-a-home/what-does-vac
ant-possession-mean/
Vacant possession means a buyer and a seller have agreed a property will
be empty of tenants or occupiers by the date of completion.
https://lawhive.co.uk/knowledge-hub/property/what-does-vacant-possession-mean/
When buying or selling a property with ‘vacant possession’ the property >> needs to be empty on the day of completion. This means the sellers or
tenants have moved out and removed all of their belongings, only leaving
behind items that have been agreed with the buyer.
https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2017/
what-is-vacant-possession/
If a property is sold with ‘vacant possession’, it means that the property
must be empty of dwellers and possessions on the date of completion. The
completion date is when the property officially changes hands from the
seller to the buyer.
https://assetsforlife.co.uk/vacant-possession/
Just for teh lolz, I also asked ChatGPT, and it told me:
Vacant possession is a legal term commonly used in property transactions. >> It means that the property being sold, leased, or transferred must be
empty of people, possessions, and any legal interests not agreed upon by
the buyer or new tenant at the time of handover.
And an artificial second opinion was obtained from Gemini, which told me:
In real estate, vacant possession means that a property will be free of
occupants (including the seller or any tenants) and their belongings on
the date of completion of the sale or the end of a lease agreement.
All completely irrelevant.
None of those refer to the property being empty at the time of viewing.
So how do you explain the term being used by estate agents to mean that?
Obviously, a property which is empty at the time of viewing will almost
certainly be offered with vacant possession,
Almost any property being viewed will be offered with vacant possession. Having viewed several hundred houses over the years, not a single one
had a sitting tenant. Just one (which I ended up buying) was a postgrad student rental and they were all virtually certain to have departed by completion. Had they not, the University, if tipped off, would probably withhold their degrees.
Imagine my surprise when only a few months ago my daughter told me one
of her friends was buying an HMO from a landlord exiting that business,
for use as a family home. And when viewed the one remaining tenant had padlocked their room. They bought it anyway, and when they took
possession (to renovate rather than live, in the short term) the tenant
had in fact departed. If they hadn't, then they'd probably change their
mind when the water and electricity was turned off.
and an executor sale with vacant possession
As opposed to an executor sale with a siting tenant? Such things do
exist, if for example someone dies who has buy-to-lets, and the
executors want to liquidate that asset.
will usually (but not always) be empty at the time of viewing.
Again, from hundreds of viewings, many of which were estate sales, a substantial minority will still have the furniture in them.
But viewing and possession are different things, so the fact that a
property is empty when viewed does not necessarily imply vacant possession >> while a property sold with vacant possession might nonetheless be occupied >> at the time of viewing.
Again, you are completely missing the point!
In message <nc2e3k9t4p56lqu612r1opdo9j4eepn4ot@4ax.com>, at 14:21:12 on
Wed, 28 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 06:12:27 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9q6c3kls84fhtc0rj7i4lob663m8h9trnc@4ax.com>, at 21:17:26 on >>>Tue, 27 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
It doesn't mean that the property is already unoccupied at the time of >>>>viewing.
When (mis)used in estate agent particulars for UNTENANTED OWNER OCCUPIER >>>properties, that's exactly what it means.
I've never seen it used in that scenario.
Then perhaps you need to be more observant. I see it all the time, and
cited an example in this thread.
But this thread isn't about an
owner-ocupier to owner-ocupier sale. It's about an executor sale.
No it isn't, you seem to confused.
In that
context, the term "vacant possession" is relevant because it's a guarantee >>to potential purchasers that the inheritors of the property have no plans to >>occupy it. In which case, it will be vacant at the time of viewing. But >>that's immaterial, because the phrase doesn't refer to viewing, it refers to >>possession.
But estate agents use it to mean "will be empty when you view".
The three D's of most house sales: Death, Debt and Divorce.
If you don't believe me, here are extracts from the top five results of a >>DuckDuckGo search for "what does vacant possession mean":
All completely irrelevant.
None of those refer to the property being empty at the time of viewing.
So how do you explain the term being used by estate agents to mean that?
Obviously, a property which is empty at the time of viewing will almost >>certainly be offered with vacant possession,
Almost any property being viewed will be offered with vacant possession.
and an executor sale with vacant possession
As opposed to an executor sale with a siting tenant? Such things do
exist, if for example someone dies who has buy-to-lets, and the
executors want to liquidate that asset.
will usually (but not always) be empty at the time of viewing.
Again, from hundreds of viewings, many of which were estate sales, a >substantial minority will still have the furniture in them.
But viewing and possession are different things, so the fact that a >>property is empty when viewed does not necessarily imply vacant possession >>while a property sold with vacant possession might nonetheless be occupied >>at the time of viewing.
Again, you are completely missing the point!
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this item, but my husband
has recently passed away, can I return it for a refund".
And we always agreed.
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping with is >>> the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice
from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was mother's >>> (to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online
says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in
considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax'
thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account
rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account holder. I think
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to keep it.
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>>> could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice
from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online
says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in
considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax'
thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account >>> rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account holder.
I think
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to keep
it.
But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
Show me I'm wrong.
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30 >>>>> May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>>>> incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>>>> could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice >>>>> from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online >>>>> says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in
considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' >>>> thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account >>>> rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account holder.
I think
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to keep
it.
But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
Show me I'm wrong.
The probate lawyer we ended up using advised us that the money in the
joint account becomes the property of the spouse (as the joint account
holder with the deceased) and cannot form part of the estate for
distribution to beneficiaries. Obviously I hope that is not contentious otherwise I'd have to sue her for negligence.
On 30 May 2025 at 15:20:01 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account holder. >>>> I think
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30 >>>>>> May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>>>>> incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>>>>> could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice >>>>>> from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online >>>>>> says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in >>>>> considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' >>>>> thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account >>>>> rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened >>>>> since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago. >>>>
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to keep >>>> it.
But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
Show me I'm wrong.
The probate lawyer we ended up using advised us that the money in the
joint account becomes the property of the spouse (as the joint account
holder with the deceased) and cannot form part of the estate for
distribution to beneficiaries. Obviously I hope that is not contentious
otherwise I'd have to sue her for negligence.
The same applies to property held as joint tenants. But both need (or half of each) to be declared to HMRC for IHT purposes.
The type of joint account (among others) where this might not apply is one where a child of an elderly person has a joint acccount with them, containing only the elderly person's money, in order to help with administering their affairs. The estate may be the beneficial owner of this money even if the bank
pays it to the child by survivorship.
But we did have this discussion quite recently and Norman is correct in claiming that he said the same then, though less correct in assuming that everyone agreed with him merely because he had the last word.
On 30/05/2025 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:20:01 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account holder. >>>>> I think
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30 >>>>>>> May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>>>>>> incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>>>>>> could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping >>>>>>> with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice >>>>>>> from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online >>>>>>> says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in >>>>>> considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' >>>>>> thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account >>>>>> rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened >>>>>> since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago. >>>>>
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to keep >>>>> it.
But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
Show me I'm wrong.
The probate lawyer we ended up using advised us that the money in the
joint account becomes the property of the spouse (as the joint account
holder with the deceased) and cannot form part of the estate for
distribution to beneficiaries. Obviously I hope that is not contentious >>> otherwise I'd have to sue her for negligence.
The same applies to property held as joint tenants. But both need (or half of
each) to be declared to HMRC for IHT purposes.
The type of joint account (among others) where this might not apply is one >> where a child of an elderly person has a joint acccount with them, containing
only the elderly person's money, in order to help with administering their >> affairs. The estate may be the beneficial owner of this money even if the bank
pays it to the child by survivorship.
But we did have this discussion quite recently and Norman is correct in
claiming that he said the same then, though less correct in assuming that
everyone agreed with him merely because he had the last word.
It's not a matter of having the last word or of securing a majority in a backwater of the internet like this, but of the law.
And the law is perfectly clear. If you think I'm wrong, do please prove it.
In message <lKm*7wBdA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:27:11 on Wed,
28 May 2025, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
Things like this must happen all the time on a small scale: A orders
something, item is shipped, A drops dead, item is then delivered.
Could A's
executors attempt to reverse the transaction and send the item back?
Back in the day (mid 70's, long before the Distance Selling Directive) I
was running a mail order company, many of whose customers were older
men. We shipped every order the day it was received, as long as the item
was in stock. But sometimes it was out of stock so we flagged that on
the same-day dispatch, and then shipped it as soon as it came back in
stock.
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this item,
but my husband has recently passed away, can I return it for a refund".
And we always agreed.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:+1dUpCklnXOoFAOY@perry.uk...
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this item, but my husband
has recently passed away, can I return it for a refund".
And we always agreed.
https://hobgoblin.com/bowed-strings/violins
https://www.kleenex.co.uk/
On 30/05/2025 10:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lKm*7wBdA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:27:11 on Wed, 28 May 2025,
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
Things like this must happen all the time on a small scale: A orders
something, item is shipped, A drops dead, item is then delivered. Could A's
executors attempt to reverse the transaction and send the item back?
Back in the day (mid 70's, long before the Distance Selling Directive) I was running a
mail order company, many of whose customers were older men. We shipped every order the
day it was received, as long as the item was in stock. But sometimes it was out of
stock so we flagged that on the same-day dispatch, and then shipped it as soon as it
came back in stock.
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this item, but my
husband has recently passed away, can I return it for a refund". And we always agreed.
How do you know they were widows?
On 30/05/2025 14:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:+1dUpCklnXOoFAOY@perry.uk...
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this item, but my
husband
has recently passed away, can I return it for a refund".
And we always agreed.
https://hobgoblin.com/bowed-strings/violins
https://www.kleenex.co.uk/
I think you mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TCIKfWiUSQ
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:101d52u$lqjj$2@dont-email.me...
On 30/05/2025 14:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:+1dUpCklnXOoFAOY@perry.uk...
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this item, but my
husband
has recently passed away, can I return it for a refund".
And we always agreed.
https://hobgoblin.com/bowed-strings/violins
https://www.kleenex.co.uk/
I think you mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TCIKfWiUSQ
I don't think I do, as I've never previously heard of "Hearts and Flowers" .
And so fail to see what possible relevance it might have
But apart from that....
On 30/05/2025 10:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lKm*7wBdA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:27:11 on
Wed, 28 May 2025, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
Things like this must happen all the time on a small scale: A orders
something, item is shipped, A drops dead, item is then delivered.
Could A's
executors attempt to reverse the transaction and send the item back?
Back in the day (mid 70's, long before the Distance Selling
Directive) I was running a mail order company, many of whose
customers were older men. We shipped every order the day it was
received, as long as the item was in stock. But sometimes it was out
of stock so we flagged that on the same-day dispatch, and then
shipped it as soon as it came back in stock.
Occasionally, widows would write to us and say "I've received this
item, but my husband has recently passed away, can I return it for a >>refund". And we always agreed.
How do you know they were widows?
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on >>advice from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's (to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk
advice online says it's the property of the estate.
Practise as I've experienced it is that on the receipt of a Death
Certificate (Coroner's or Registry's), the name of the deceased is
removed from the account.
And then "it's now all hers."
In addition to this is NS&I, who also offer to repay the now-singled
account immediately, - even if it is a term account.
"Immediately" meaning up to 50 weeks later, IME.
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping with is >>> the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice
from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was mother's >>> (to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online
says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in
considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax'
thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account
rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account holder. I think >you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to keep it.
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on >>advice from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's (to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk
advice online says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this?
We dealt with it in considerable depth back in December last year in
the 'Inheritance Tax' thread, when it was abundantly clear that the
money in the joint account rightly belonged by survivorship to the
daughter. What has happened since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30 >>>>> May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>>>> incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>>>> could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping >>>>>with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice >>>>> from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was >>>>>mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online >>>>> says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in
considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' >>>> thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account >>>> rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account
holder. I think
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to
keep it.
Show me I'm wrong.
The probate lawyer we ended up using advised us that the money in the
joint account becomes the property of the spouse (as the joint account
holder with the deceased) and cannot form part of the estate for
distribution to beneficiaries. Obviously I hope that is not
contentious otherwise I'd have to sue her for negligence.
Imagine my surprise when only a few months ago my daughter told me one
of her friends was buying an HMO from a landlord exiting that business,
for use as a family home. And when viewed the one remaining tenant had
padlocked their room. They bought it anyway, and when they took
possession (to renovate rather than live, in the short term) the tenant
had in fact departed. If they hadn't, then they'd probably change their
mind when the water and electricity was turned off.
Of course had they chosen to stay and had the friend done that they might have >been disappointed to receive a criminal conviction for doing so.
and an executor sale with vacant possession
As opposed to an executor sale with a siting tenant? Such things do
exist, if for example someone dies who has buy-to-lets, and the
executors want to liquidate that asset.
will usually (but not always) be empty at the time of viewing.
Again, from hundreds of viewings, many of which were estate sales, a
substantial minority will still have the furniture in them.
But viewing and possession are different things, so the fact that a
property is empty when viewed does not necessarily imply vacant possession >>> while a property sold with vacant possession might nonetheless be occupied >>> at the time of viewing.
Again, you are completely missing the point!
I am not sure that there is any point to telling us that some estate agents >use terms totally incorrectly,
especially as no one around here but you seems ever to have seen them
do it.
Lots of people misunderstand or misuse technical words, what does this >demonstrate?
The probate lawyer we ended up using advised us that the money in the
joint account becomes the property of the spouse (as the joint account
holder with the deceased) and cannot form part of the estate for
distribution to beneficiaries. Obviously I hope that is not contentious
otherwise I'd have to sue her for negligence.
The same applies to property held as joint tenants. But both need (or half of >each) to be declared to HMRC for IHT purposes.
The type of joint account (among others) where this might not apply is one >where a child of an elderly person has a joint acccount with them, containing >only the elderly person's money, in order to help with administering their >affairs. The estate may be the beneficial owner of this money even if the bank >pays it to the child by survivorship.
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in >>>> considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' >>>> thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint
account
rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened
since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account
holder. I think
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to
keep it.
But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
Show me I'm wrong.
Why? So you can ignore the cited case law again, not reply to the
message again, not acknowledge you were wrong again and then repeat your wholly mistaken views at some further time insisting, again, that the position is "100%" clear when you are "100%" wrong on the matter?
In addition to Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net> in which
I've cited the relevant case law previously, I've just cited an article
by Professor Lesley King in a parallel post to the thread. Personally,
I would be incredibly wary of disagreeing with anything she has to say
on the matter of wills and probate being, as she is, one of the foremost experts on the subjects. YMMV.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:50:03 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <nc2e3k9t4p56lqu612r1opdo9j4eepn4ot@4ax.com>, at 14:21:12 on >>Wed, 28 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 06:12:27 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <9q6c3kls84fhtc0rj7i4lob663m8h9trnc@4ax.com>, at 21:17:26 on >>>>Tue, 27 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>remarked:
It doesn't mean that the property is already unoccupied at the time of >>>>>viewing.
When (mis)used in estate agent particulars for UNTENANTED OWNER OCCUPIER >>>>properties, that's exactly what it means.
I've never seen it used in that scenario.
Then perhaps you need to be more observant. I see it all the time, and >>cited an example in this thread.
This thread has gone many layers deep. Can you re-post the link to that, or >at least give the Message-ID of the post where you originally provided it.
But this thread isn't about an
owner-ocupier to owner-ocupier sale. It's about an executor sale.
No it isn't, you seem to confused.
Right at the very start of this thread, your post was about probate and a >retirement flat that the executor wanted to sell. If it's moved on from
there to a completely different scenario, then obviously I've missed that.
But my main point stands: "vacant possession" means vacant at the time of >possession, not at the time of viewing. There's a clue in the name.
In that context, the term "vacant possession" is relevant because
it's a guarantee to potential purchasers that the inheritors of the >>>property have no plans to occupy it. In which case, it will be vacant
at the time of viewing. But that's immaterial, because the phrase
doesn't refer to viewing, it refers to possession.
But estate agents use it to mean "will be empty when you view".
I have spent some time looking through property listings on RightMove, and I >can't find it used there to mean that at all.
The three D's of most house sales: Death, Debt and Divorce.
I'd be surprised if that was most house sales. Downsizing, relocation and >climbing the property ladder are all common reasons for a sale as well.
Of the properties that I have bought, over the course of my life so far, all >but one were occupied when I viewed them.
But I bought them all with vacant possession.
If you don't believe me, here are extracts from the top five results of a >>>DuckDuckGo search for "what does vacant possession mean":
[snip]
All completely irrelevant.
Then maybe you can provide a link to sources which concur with your >definition.
None of those refer to the property being empty at the time of viewing.
So how do you explain the term being used by estate agents to mean that?
I remain to be convinced that they do.
Obviously, a property which is empty at the time of viewing will almost >>>certainly be offered with vacant possession,
Almost any property being viewed will be offered with vacant possession.
Commercial properties often aren't. They're often sold to a new investment >landlord with a sitting tenant. A clue to that scenario is often the words >"Business not affected" on the For Sale sign. And buy-to-let residential >premises may also be sold with a sitting tenant.
Owner-occupied properties will almost always be sold with vacant possession, >because the owner intends to move out when the sale completes (because >they're moving into something else instead). But they won't usually have >already moved out when the property is viewed.
and an executor sale with vacant possession
As opposed to an executor sale with a siting tenant? Such things do
exist, if for example someone dies who has buy-to-lets, and the
executors want to liquidate that asset.
Yes; a BtL landlord who dies will leave a tenanted property to their estate. >The heirs may not necessarily want to terminate the tenancy.
will usually (but not always) be empty at the time of viewing.
Again, from hundreds of viewings, many of which were estate sales, a >>substantial minority will still have the furniture in them.
That, indeed, is a good illustration of the phrase "usually (but not
always)" :-)
It's not uncommon for the property of a recently deceased occupant to still >contain at least some of their personal effects at the time of viewing. But, >if the property is being offered with vacant possession (at it would be >surprising if it were not), then those items will have been removed before >the buyer takes possession.
But viewing and possession are different things, so the fact that a >>>property is empty when viewed does not necessarily imply vacant possession >>>while a property sold with vacant possession might nonetheless be occupied >>>at the time of viewing.
Again, you are completely missing the point!
So what is your point, other than possibly to complain that you have >encountered an estate agent which seemingly didn't understand what vacant >possession was?
On 30/05/2025 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:
when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account
rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter.
"Abundantly clear" only in the mind of posters that do not understand
case law on these matters. And yes, the case law is clear and has been quoted.
What has happened since to alter that?
Perhaps in researching the matter further Roland read an article by
Professor Lesley King [^1] in The Law Society Gazette which covered the matter in detail? [^3]
Since then, he has been faced with the task of choosing between the
opinion of a Solicitor of the Senior Courts that has contributed to Halsbury's Laws - a view support, incidentally, by established case law
- and the opinion of the self-titled "erudite" poster, Norman Wells
esquire, who has no legal training and whose legal writings amount to
little more than frequent, but often incorrect, squeaks on a tiny little
all but forgotten corner of the Internet who has, nevertheless,
expressed "100%" confidence in his in his incorrectly adopted position despite it having been demonstrated to be at odds with established case
law on the matter.
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
Personally, I have no doubt, given Lesley King's bona fides, that she is "100%" correct in her understanding and summary of the matter. YMMV.
[^1] Professor Lesley King, LL.B, Dip. Crim., who has a formal entry in
the LexisNexis list of experts [^2], is a Solicitor of the Senior Courts
of England and Wales. She was previously the Private Client Practice
Head at The College of Law in Bloomsbury and is currently a Professor
and Professional Development Consultant with The University of Law (incorporating The College of Law) who specialises in wills and related matters.
She is a contributor to the Halsbury's Laws title, Wills and Intestacy,
and to Volumes 17(2) Gifts, 40(1)-(3) Trusts and Settlements and 42(1)-
(3) Wills and Administration of the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents.
Owing to this, she is the wills and probate columnist for The Law
Society Gazette. A wise person pays heed to her thoughts on matters relating to wills and probate as she writes and lectures extensively on wills, taxation and related matters.
[^2] https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/experts/2487
[^3] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/probate-resulting-trust-and-joint- bank-accounts-/56341.article
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us
incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account
could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping with
is the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on
advice from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's (to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk
advice online says it's the property of the estate.
I covered this, in what I thought was considerable detail, in Message-
ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net>.
If you missed it, or cannot remember that message, I recommend re-
reading it as the relevant case law is cited and linked.
In summary:
<quote>
Assuming you have given all relevant information concerning the account
in question, I would suggest that the circumstances surrounding the
opening, funding and managing of that account were intended to create a resulting trust meaning the balance of the account at D's death forms
part of their estate and does not pass to the joint account holder (J)
under survivorship per Re Northall (deceased) [2010] EWHC 1448 (Ch).
<end quote>
In message <m9tt4hFjg0eU3@mid.individual.net>, at 15:20:01 on Fri, 30
May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 12:22:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:I automatically comes into the possession of the joint account
In message <m9tf6iFha2bU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:22:10 on Fri, 30 >>>>>> May 2025, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
The first probate solicitor whom we approached for a quote gave us >>>>>>> incorrect advice, saying that none of the money in the joint account >>>>>>> could be touched until probate had been obtained.
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is
the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who on advice >>>>>> from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's
(to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk advice online >>>>>> says it's the property of the estate.
Are you *still* confused and arguing about this? We dealt with it in >>>>> considerable depth back in December last year in the 'Inheritance Tax' >>>>> thread, when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint
account
rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter. What has happened >>>>> since to alter that?
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago. >>>>
holder. I think
you were in a minority in supposing that they always had right to
keep it.
Show me I'm wrong.
The probate lawyer we ended up using advised us that the money in the
joint account becomes the property of the spouse (as the joint account
holder with the deceased) and cannot form part of the estate for
distribution to beneficiaries. Obviously I hope that is not
contentious otherwise I'd have to sue her for negligence.
Irrelevant in this thread as the joint account holder was NOT a spouse. (Unless mother and daughter had created an illegal civil partnership).
On 02/06/2025 08:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/06/2025 07:44, Roland Perry wrote:
Irrelevant in this thread as the joint account holder was NOT a
spouse. (Unless mother and daughter had created an illegal civil
partnership).
The important part of the above is not 'spouse' but 'as the joint
account holder' It applies to all joint account holders.
No it doesn't. And no, I'm not interested in discussing it further here based on your incorrect understanding of the law.
Please go back to
Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net> where the precise legal position was explained in some detail and respond there if you do not
agree with anything stated therein.
On 01/06/2025 23:34, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/06/2025 20:50, Simon Parker wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
But they *do* have a right to keep it. It's theirs. 100%.
Show me I'm wrong.
Why? So you can ignore the cited case law again, not reply to the
message again, not acknowledge you were wrong again and then repeat
your wholly mistaken views at some further time insisting, again,
that the position is "100%" clear when you are "100%" wrong on the
matter?
In addition to Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net> in
which I've cited the relevant case law previously, I've just cited an
article by Professor Lesley King in a parallel post to the thread.
Personally, I would be incredibly wary of disagreeing with anything
she has to say on the matter of wills and probate being, as she is,
one of the foremost experts on the subjects. YMMV.
Well, the Supreme Court, in the guise of the Privy Council, has
disagreed with her, so she's obliged to change her mind, I think.
I refer you, for the umpteenth time, to Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net> wherein the matter was discussed in
some detail.
I ask that you pay heed to the section entitled: "WARNING: Big caveat
ahead!"
Once again, it is my sad duty to inform you that Google / Gemini has
failed you, again, I am afraid to say.
On 01/06/2025 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/06/2025 20:44, Simon Parker wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:38, Roland Perry wrote:
Joint with whom? One of this issues with the probate I'm helping
with is the account joint between mother and (another) sister. Who
on advice from the bank seems to think it's now all hers.
But because the only source of funds into the joint account was
mother's (to pay for mother's housekeeping) my reading of gov.uk
advice online says it's the property of the estate.
I covered this, in what I thought was considerable detail, in
Message- ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net>.
If you missed it, or cannot remember that message, I recommend re-
reading it as the relevant case law is cited and linked.
In summary:
<quote>
Assuming you have given all relevant information concerning the
account in question, I would suggest that the circumstances
surrounding the opening, funding and managing of that account were
intended to create a resulting trust meaning the balance of the
account at D's death forms part of their estate and does not pass to
the joint account holder (J) under survivorship per Re Northall
(deceased) [2010] EWHC 1448 (Ch).
<end quote>
You are, however, rather behind the times:
"However, a more recent decision by the Supreme Court in the guise of
the “Privy Council” has considerably watered this down – see Whitlock >> and another v Moree (2017)(UKPC 44). Here, the court looked more
closely at the bank’s own terms and conditions governing the operation
of the bank account. It found that by these terms and conditions, each
joint account holder (and, significantly, the provider of the money
into the joint account) had agreed that it was the survivor on the
death of one of the joint account holders who was entitled to the
remaining balance in the joint account. This was regardless of who had
put it there. Further, there was no need for the Court to look beyond
these terms and conditions.
It would appear, then, that for the time being at least, the Courts
have successfully closed the fruitful line of attack for disappointed
beneficiaries in Will dispute cases opened up by the decision in Re
Northall."
https://www.willclaim.com/joint-bank-accounts-in-will-contest-cases/
I said last December that it depended on the terms signed up to when
opening the account, and that they should therefore be checked, but I
doubted if there was even a remote possibility of my position being
incorrect.
And yet incorrect it was and incorrect it remains.
For the record, I advocate (again!), reading judgments in their entirety before relying upon them as they often do not say what you think they
say, (or what others may claim they say in an overly-simplistic summary thereof).
Are you able to proffer an 'opinion' on what the current edition of Ziff Principles of Property Law has to say on the matter? Do you find that persuasive or otherwise given what Rothstein J said on "Bank Documents"
in Pecore v Pecore [2007] SCC 17; [2007] 1 SCR 795 specifically [60-61] thereof?
On 01/06/2025 23:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/06/2025 20:48, Simon Parker wrote:
On 30/05/2025 12:22, Norman Wells wrote:Except that ... her article dates from 2010, since when there has been
when it was abundantly clear that the money in the joint account
rightly belonged by survivorship to the daughter.
"Abundantly clear" only in the mind of posters that do not understand
case law on these matters. And yes, the case law is clear and has
been quoted.
What has happened since to alter that?
Perhaps in researching the matter further Roland read an article by
Professor Lesley King [^1] in The Law Society Gazette which covered
the matter in detail? [^3]
Since then, he has been faced with the task of choosing between the
opinion of a Solicitor of the Senior Courts that has contributed to
Halsbury's Laws - a view support, incidentally, by established case
law - and the opinion of the self-titled "erudite" poster, Norman
Wells esquire, who has no legal training and whose legal writings
amount to little more than frequent, but often incorrect, squeaks on
a tiny little all but forgotten corner of the Internet who has,
nevertheless, expressed "100%" confidence in his in his incorrectly
adopted position despite it having been demonstrated to be at odds
with established case law on the matter.
Proper professional advice would surely have sorted this out long ago.
Personally, I have no doubt, given Lesley King's bona fides, that she
is "100%" correct in her understanding and summary of the matter. YMMV. >>
a more recent decision by the Supreme Court in the guise of the “Privy
Council” – see Whitlock and another v Moree (2017)(UKPC 44) - which
I've referred to elsewhere, and which essentially says she is wrong.
The approach now is to look just at the terms agreed to on opening the
account in question, which I have no doubt will have been absolutely
standard and mean that the survivor gets the lot.
As you've been told several times previously, (and not by me, I might add):
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
It would have been of great benefit to all considering the matter if
only someone had addressed the problem with Whitlock being a decision of
the Privy Council in a previous post...
...bear with...
...hang on...
...nearly done...
Ah, yes, there it is:
In Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net> the Whitlock judgment
is considered in some detail.
You would be well advised to actually read that post before responding further and then, having done so, to point Google AI in the general
direction of Willers v Joyce [2016] UKSC 44 [^1] and the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council's Practice Directions.
You're welcome.
[^1] Professor Lesley King, LL.B, Dip. Crim., who has a formal entry
in the LexisNexis list of experts [^2], is a Solicitor of the Senior
Courts of England and Wales. She was previously the Private Client
Practice Head at The College of Law in Bloomsbury and is currently a
Professor and Professional Development Consultant with The University
of Law (incorporating The College of Law) who specialises in wills
and related matters.
She is a contributor to the Halsbury's Laws title, Wills and
Intestacy, and to Volumes 17(2) Gifts, 40(1)-(3) Trusts and
Settlements and 42(1)- (3) Wills and Administration of the
Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents.
Owing to this, she is the wills and probate columnist for The Law
Society Gazette. A wise person pays heed to her thoughts on matters
relating to wills and probate as she writes and lectures extensively
on wills, taxation and related matters.
The law is what it is, which may not actually be how she thought it
should be.
Yes, about that... I have some bad news for you.
In message <3saj3klc579hd98smse9atde8c7e9td8vs@4ax.com>, at 14:26:53 on
Fri, 30 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
This thread has gone many layers deep. Can you re-post the link to that, or >>at least give the Message-ID of the post where you originally provided it.
I didn't provide a url, you can trivially get your own via a search
engine of your choice. DuckDuckQuack, isn't it?
But my main point stands: "vacant possession" means vacant at the time of >>possession, not at the time of viewing. There's a clue in the name.
And my main point stands too: Estate agents commonly misuse the phrase.
In that context, the term "vacant possession" is relevant because
it's a guarantee to potential purchasers that the inheritors of the >>>>property have no plans to occupy it. In which case, it will be vacant >>>>at the time of viewing. But that's immaterial, because the phrase >>>>doesn't refer to viewing, it refers to possession.
But estate agents use it to mean "will be empty when you view".
I have spent some time looking through property listings on RightMove, and I >>can't find it used there to mean that at all.
Oh dear, your DuckDuck-foo seems to be lacking.
My definition is "What estate agents mistakenly call a house that's
empty when you view it". I don't understand why you are being so obtuse
about this.
Owner-occupied properties will almost always be sold with vacant possession, >>because the owner intends to move out when the sale completes (because >>they're moving into something else instead). But they won't usually have >>already moved out when the property is viewed.
Actually, quite a few have. To the cemetery.
On 29/05/2025 17:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/05/2025 12:40, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/05/2025 15:08, Norman Wells wrote:
Sorry, but it's not actually necessary to be in a contractual
relationship to comment in good faith. It applies in real life too.
It can,
Thank you. Then you agree with me.
but not to the majority of what you post for the reason given - your
posts to this thread being a perfect example that you are incapable
of displaying empathy to a counterparty's position and therefore
cannot be posting in good faith, despite claiming to be so doing.
I shall ignore the ad homs which have no place in any legal discussion.
You placed the subject of your "good faith" on the table. In doing so,
you opened the door for comments upon your claimed good faith. Comments
on a subject you had chosen to place on the table are not ad hom attacks.
The proposition before the house is that "All posts by Norman Wells
esquire have been made in good faith".
As might be expected, you have
proffered no evidence to support this motion relying instead on proof by assertion.
My response to your proposition is that you have demonstrated onnumerous occasions, including on several instances during this very
thread, that you are incapable of displaying empathy to a counterparty's position and therefore cannot be posting in 'good faith', despite your
claim to the contrary.
That is not an ad hom attack but is rather highlighting an inconsistency
in your argument.
At this point, you can either concede the point or produce evidence of
posts in which you have displayed empathy to a counterparty's position.
Are you going to go with option (1) concede the point; or option (2)
produce evidence of displaying empathy to a counterparty's position?
(Or option (3) Keep repeating the point claiming you're right without adducing any evidence.)
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets...
In addition to the statement above, you said:
"I'm saying that, like a mortgage, they may need to be paid each
month when due even before Probate, in order to avoid any
consequences for the estate, which it is her duty to secure and
protect."
Having spent much of the thread arguing that an executor is powerless
to do anything much prior to having obtained probate, you're now
claiming that the executor *may* need to pay the monthly management
fees each month "*even before Probate*" because they are "like a
mortgage" and "it is her *duty*" to pay them. (Emphasis mine.)
Subject to your inaccurate quote of what I said, which is covered
above, indeed. An executor obviously can't pay out of the estate's
assets until Probate is granted. But the fees can be paid out of the
executor's own pocket, which she will be able to get back from the
estate when it is. Whether she should or would be wise to do that is
the matter on which I said she needs proper professional advice which
she has not received here.
Is a PR legally compelled to pay fees out of their own pocket? Yes or no?
If yes, please cite the relevant law.
If no, your proposed solution fails if the PR is unable or unwilling to
pay the fees out of their own pocket.
Your advice is unclear, littered as it is with the use of words and
phrases like "may", "I guess" and "I think", and contradictory
thereby making it meaningless and ultimately useless.
Yes, they're called 'opinions', which are the bread and butter of
proper lawyers when dealing with any unknowns they can't simply look
up in a book or get AI to generate.
<SFX: Buzzer>
I'm sorry, Norman, that is not the answer I have on the card.
As this is a legal newsgroup, the word "opinion" has a precise meaning
above and beyond that one might find when consulting a dictionary. (Ed: Quelle surprise!)
A legal opinion expresses a conclusion about a specific matter,
providing an analysis of the facts and applicable law, proffering an assessment of the associated legal implications and potential risks.
A legal opinion might look something like this: "Per the judgment in
<Case Name#1><Neutral Citation#1>, situation <1> may apply. The
associated implications and risks are... . However, in <Case
Name#2><Neutral Citation#2>, situation <2> resulted. (Rinse and repeat
for numerous cases.) Given the foregoing, the circumstances of this
issue relate most closely to situation <x> therefore it is my suggestion
that we proceed on that basis whilst bearing in mind that... ."
Variants of "I guess <x>", "I think <y>" or "Maybe <z>" without further
proof and discussion is most certainly NOT a legal opinion.
Even if we take your use of the word "opinion" in the general rather
than the specific, these are bold words from a poster that relies so
heavily on Google for his "opinions". However, I conclude it would be
wise to "stick a pin" in this thought for now, as I have a feeling we'll
be returning to it shortly...
In the meantime, your main "opinion" seems to be "seek proper
professional advice" which makes the newsgroup somewhat redundant as we
could have a bot reply to all new threads with that as an automated reply.
Tangentially, if you want to see what a professional opinion on a
subject might look like in the context of this question, I invite you to re-read Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net>.
You're welcome.
Not so. We haven't seen the terms of the lease, so the best we can
do is guess at what they are.
The matter under discussion was the merit of using our knowledge and experience of the contents of typical leases to make recommendations
based on what is likely to be present in this lease whereupon we could
point out the general principles common to the majority of leases and
then highlight matters of which the executor needs to be aware versus
your proposal that "the best we can do is guess at what" may be in the
lease.
At this point we ought to return to the pin previously placed where a
poster claimed that "'opinions'... are the bread and butter of proper
lawyers when dealing with any unknowns they can't simply look up in a
book or get AI to generate." making it logical to conclude said poster
ought to have no difficulty whatsoever in proffering an 'opinion' on the above question without 'simply look[ing it] up in a book' (or on
Google!) 'or get[ting] AI to generate [it]'.
If a PR is *unable* to advance the necessary funds, what legal
remedy(ies) is (are) available to the landlord? If the PR is
*unwilling* to advance the necessary funds, what legal remedy(ies) is
(are) available to the landlord?
If the answer to both questions is the same, (Ed: it is), it matters not whether the PR is *unable* or *unwilling*.
If the proper professional advice I've advocated is that the estate
could be seriously adversely affected if the fees are not paid, then
the executor has to choose between somehow finding the money to pay
the fees or possible maladministration of the estate because she
hasn't secured it sufficiently.
Please detail the precise steps involved in the estate becoming
"seriously adversely affected" including any legal notices mandated, how
the PR ought to respond upon receipt of said notices, the likely
timescale involved and what the PR can do to extend this timescale.
If fairness comes into it at all,
It doesn't! This is a legal newsgroup. alt.fairness and uk.morality
are that-a-way ========>
she is the one who has dallied over obtaining Probate, and she is the
one who should pay the fees until she can get them back from the
estate. It's not fair on the landlord to go without what he is
entitled to at her pleasure.
Please cite the legislation or case law upon which you are relying for
this "opinion".
The obvious answer is that the executor pays the necessary fees out of
her own pocket until she can get them back from the estate once
Probate has been granted. Problem solved.
If the PR does not have the funds available to advance in payment of the fees, what then?
So, do *you* think an executor can delay paying management fees for as
long as she likes, with no consequences for the estate whatsoever?
For some values of "no" and "whatsoever", yes. See the following
paragraph for an example with which I am personally acquainted.
As an example, I am aware of a situation where the mortgage on a
property went unpaid for approximately 7 years during which time I
would say that communication between the executor and mortgage
company "could have been better". Eventually, the property was sold
and the mortgage satisfied with no real consequences for either the
executor or the estate.
A mortgage provider typically starts foreclosure proceedings when a
homeowner fails to make payments as agreed in the mortgage contract,
specifically after a period of missed payments, often around three
months.
No they don't. I have experience, (i.e. I have been personally
involved), in mid-double digit repossession cases. Not a single one of
them involved proceedings being started 'around three months'. Yes, I
know you've quoted what Google AI told you, but that's the difference
between practical experience and theoretical knowledge.
Taking Lloyds as an example, their standard mortgage terms and
conditions typically allow for up to 18 months following the death of
the mortgagee before they even think about escalating matters, (which is still some way short of repossession). During that 18 months, they
will, of course, check on the progress of Grant of Probate / Letters of Administration, and enquire as to the plans for the sale of the
property / satisfying the charge, but in my experience, they are
typically happy to wait knowing they will receive their money,
(including a larger than expected chunk of interest), once the property
is sold / the charge is satisfied.
On 29/05/2025 17:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/05/2025 12:40, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/05/2025 15:08, Norman Wells wrote:
Thank you. Then you agree with me.Sorry, but it's not actually necessary to be in a contractual >>>>relationship to comment in good faith. It applies in real life too.
It can,
but not to the majority of what you post for the reason given - your >>>posts to this thread being a perfect example that you are incapableI shall ignore the ad homs which have no place in any legal
of displaying empathy to a counterparty's position and therefore
cannot be posting in good faith, despite claiming to be so doing.
discussion.
You placed the subject of your "good faith" on the table. In doing so,
you opened the door for comments upon your claimed good faith. Comments
on a subject you had chosen to place on the table are not ad hom
attacks.
The proposition before the house is that "All posts by Norman Wells
esquire have been made in good faith". As might be expected, you have >proffered no evidence to support this motion relying instead on proof
by assertion.
My response to your proposition is that you have demonstrated on
numerous occasions, including on several instances during this very
thread, that you are incapable of displaying empathy to a
counterparty's position and therefore cannot be posting in 'good
faith', despite your claim to the contrary.
That is not an ad hom attack but is rather highlighting an
inconsistency in your argument.
At this point, you can either concede the point or produce evidence of
posts in which you have displayed empathy to a counterparty's position.
Are you going to go with option (1) concede the point; or option (2)
produce evidence of displaying empathy to a counterparty's position?
(Or option (3) Keep repeating the point claiming you're right without >adducing any evidence.)
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, place your bets...
You have. And you still are.What I actually said was 'monthly maintenance fees may be regarded >>>>rather like a mortgage' which is somewhat different. I then went on
to say why. Which you've ignored.
I have ignored nothing.
We must agree to differ.
In addition to the statement above, you said:Subject to your inaccurate quote of what I said, which is covered
"I'm saying that, like a mortgage, they may need to be paid each
month when due even before Probate, in order to avoid any
consequences for the estate, which it is her duty to secure and protect." >>>
Having spent much of the thread arguing that an executor is
powerless to do anything much prior to having obtained probate,
you're now claiming that the executor *may* need to pay the monthly >>>management fees each month "*even before Probate*" because they are >>>"like a mortgage" and "it is her *duty*" to pay them. (Emphasis mine.)
above, indeed. An executor obviously can't pay out of the estate's
assets until Probate is granted. But the fees can be paid out of the >>executor's own pocket, which she will be able to get back from the
estate when it is. Whether she should or would be wise to do that is
the matter on which I said she needs proper professional advice which
she has not received here.
Is a PR legally compelled to pay fees out of their own pocket? Yes or no?
If yes, please cite the relevant law.
If no, your proposed solution fails if the PR is unable or unwilling to
pay the fees out of their own pocket.
Your advice is unclear, littered as it is with the use of words and >>>phrases like "may", "I guess" and "I think", and contradictoryYes, they're called 'opinions', which are the bread and butter of
thereby making it meaningless and ultimately useless.
proper lawyers when dealing with any unknowns they can't simply look
up in a book or get AI to generate.
<SFX: Buzzer>
I'm sorry, Norman, that is not the answer I have on the card.
As this is a legal newsgroup, the word "opinion" has a precise meaning
above and beyond that one might find when consulting a dictionary. (Ed: >Quelle surprise!)
A legal opinion expresses a conclusion about a specific matter,
providing an analysis of the facts and applicable law, proffering an >assessment of the associated legal implications and potential risks.
A legal opinion might look something like this: "Per the judgment in
<Case Name#1><Neutral Citation#1>, situation <1> may apply. The
associated implications and risks are... . However, in <Case
Name#2><Neutral Citation#2>, situation <2> resulted. (Rinse and repeat
for numerous cases.) Given the foregoing, the circumstances of this
issue relate most closely to situation <x> therefore it is my
suggestion that we proceed on that basis whilst bearing in mind that... ."
Variants of "I guess <x>", "I think <y>" or "Maybe <z>" without further
proof and discussion is most certainly NOT a legal opinion.
Even if we take your use of the word "opinion" in the general rather
than the specific, these are bold words from a poster that relies so
heavily on Google for his "opinions". However, I conclude it would be
wise to "stick a pin" in this thought for now, as I have a feeling
we'll be returning to it shortly...
In the meantime, your main "opinion" seems to be "seek proper
professional advice" which makes the newsgroup somewhat redundant as we
could have a bot reply to all new threads with that as an automated
reply.
From the first line of the Charter:
"The purpose of the group is to enable contributors who have genuine
legal problems to ask for practical advice from other people (lawyers
or laymen) who have had to deal with similar problems in the past."
Have you had to deal with similar problems to Roland in the past,
Norman? On how many estates have you acted as PR? How many of those
estates involved leasehold or commonhold properties with monthly
management fees? How did *you* "deal with similar problems in the past"?
Tangentially, if you want to see what a professional opinion on a
subject might look like in the context of this question, I invite you
to re-read Message-ID: <lu4th0F46b0U15@mid.individual.net>.
You're welcome.
Not paying maintenance charges as agreed will be a breach of anyNot so. We haven't seen the terms of the lease, so the best we can
do is guess at what they are.
That is far from "the best we can do". We can, for example, use our >>>knowledge and experience of the contents of typical leases and make >>>recommendations based on what is likely to be present in this lease, >>>pointing out general principles common to the majority of leases >>>highlighting matters of which the executor needs to be aware.
lease agreement that prescribes them unless the landlord has agreed >>otherwise. Defaulting on paying them risks legal action by the
landlord, which could include repossession of the property.
Because such consequences would be rather serious for the estate,
that's why I've said the executor needs proper professional advice
before Probate is granted in order to avoid them.
I note you have not actually addressed the point I raised so this was a
nice attempt at an avoidance, but it is my sad duty to inform you that
it failed.
The matter under discussion was the merit of using our knowledge and >experience of the contents of typical leases to make recommendations
based on what is likely to be present in this lease whereupon we could
point out the general principles common to the majority of leases and
then highlight matters of which the executor needs to be aware versus
your proposal that "the best we can do is guess at what" may be in the
lease.
What "knowledge and experience of the contents of typical leases" do
you have? How many leases have you dealt with previously? What areas
have you found to be common to those leases?
"Forfeiture" may come be part of that, but you have not detailed the
likely steps prior to this or the timescale involved making the
information somewhat useless.
Taking a question previously asked in the group as an example
(Message-ID: <67900868.374792843@news.eternal-september.org> which
asked): "Who can authorise the cancellation of a DD?" your response
would therefore be along the lines of: "You need to take proper
professional legal advice before cancelling a direct debit as
cancellation could lead to forfeiture / repossession of the property if
the direct debit is a rent, mortgage or property maintenance fee" which
may technically be correct but is of no use whatsoever to the poster
raising the question.
I am only concerned with the executor. What the landlord does isBut it's exactly what your suggestion is below, ie a 'grace
period'. As far as I'm aware, that amounts to a temporary
suspension with any accrued amount to be paid later.
And would such a "temporary suspension" give rise to waiver with the >>>attendant problems attached thereto, or not?
Should the executor be worried about waiver or is that an issue of >>>concern for the landlord only?
his concern.
Hence the question: "Should the executor be worried about waiver or is
that an issue of concern for the landlord only?" which you clearly
missed. Perhaps you would like to address it at the second time of
asking?
At this point we ought to return to the pin previously placed where a
poster claimed that "'opinions'... are the bread and butter of proper
lawyers when dealing with any unknowns they can't simply look up in a
book or get AI to generate." making it logical to conclude said poster
ought to have no difficulty whatsoever in proffering an 'opinion' on
the above question without 'simply look[ing it] up in a book' (or on
Google!) 'or get[ting] AI to generate [it]'.
So, Norman, without either looking it up or asking AI, what is your
answer to the question as posed?
So, other than being absolute nonsense and completely wrong, thereFailure to pay either has rather similar contractual consequences,
is no other issue whatsoever with your claim that 'monthly
maintenance fees may be regarded rather like a mortgage'. I am glad >>>that is cleared up now.
which may be unwelcome and unpleasant as regards the property to
which they relate, eg foreclosure or repossession.
That is the similarity.
As I said, absolute nonsense and completely wrong. But please do not
let that hinder you from presenting yourself as an authority of the
matter. It has never done so in the past and I do not expect this to
be the first instance of it.
There are always ways.So, 'customary', not 'necessary'. It is, as I said, not for the >>>>deceased's executor to suspend payments unilaterally as if it's her >>>>right, but only to do so with the landlord's agreement, which it >>>>appears they don't have.
If the executor does not yet have grant of probate and is unable or >>>unwilling to use their own funds to make payments on behalf of the
estate in the short-term, how do you propose they pay these fees?
Please detail them, including the legal framework for each "way" so
detailed.
'Unwilling' doesn't really cut it though, because it doesn't mean >>'unable'.
If a PR is *unable* to advance the necessary funds, what legal
remedy(ies) is (are) available to the landlord? If the PR is
*unwilling* to advance the necessary funds, what legal remedy(ies) is
(are) available to the landlord?
If the answer to both questions is the same, (Ed: it is), it matters
not whether the PR is *unable* or *unwilling*.
If the proper professional advice I've advocated is that the estate
could be seriously adversely affected if the fees are not paid, then
the executor has to choose between somehow finding the money to pay
the fees or possible maladministration of the estate because she
hasn't secured it sufficiently.
Please detail the precise steps involved in the estate becoming
"seriously adversely affected" including any legal notices mandated,
how the PR ought to respond upon receipt of said notices, the likely >timescale involved and what the PR can do to extend this timescale.
If fairness comes into it at all,
It doesn't! This is a legal newsgroup. alt.fairness and uk.morality
are that-a-way ========>
she is the one who has dallied over obtaining Probate, and she is
the one who should pay the fees until she can get them back from the >>estate. It's not fair on the landlord to go without what he is
entitled to at her pleasure.
Please cite the legislation or case law upon which you are relying for
this "opinion".
What if the PR asks for the landlord's permission to "temporarily >>>suspend" payment and he refuses because he is worried about waiver >>>occurring? What is the executor to do then?But that is exactly what a 'grace period' which you've been
advocating is.
Please answer the question as asked bearing in mind that, as you've
noted above, this is 'customary' rather than 'necessary'.
The obvious answer is that the executor pays the necessary fees out
of her own pocket until she can get them back from the estate once
Probate has been granted. Problem solved.
If the PR does not have the funds available to advance in payment of
the fees, what then?
The landlord may decide to follow his usual debt recoveryAnyway, we were told originally that the flat has been marketed
since the New Year, which would indicate that the death occurred at >>>>least 6 months ago, and the 'typical and 'customary' periods you >>>>indicate have been exceeded.
Meaning...?
procedures, or may act to terminate the lease and repossess the
property as would be usual in the case of breach of contract.
His "usual debt recovery procedures" may trigger waiver as previously
advised which would mean forfeiture is no longer available in respect
of the breach. Please do try and keep up, Norman!
You tell me. I'm not going to deal with all your myriadAnd still Probate has not been granted.
So how is the executor going to make payments? What can the
landlord do about the lack of payments? As above, how should the >>>executor respond to whatever the landlord does? Does the executor
know if any work requiring a section 20 notice is likely to arise >>>shortly? Would that change the position at all? If so, how?
hypotheticals.
Thank you for confirming that you do not know and have no 'opinion' to >proffer on the matters key matters upon which you have been
pontificating.
Again, these are the legal "nuts and bolts" of the issue which youI shall once again ignore the ad homs.
have comprehensively failed to mention, never mind address, in your >>>numerous so-called 'erudite' posts to the thread.
Just as you ignore everything to which you cannot Google a response.
After the six months has elapsed,
... which it will have done by now ...
...meaning...
You seem to have failed to proffer an 'opinion' here too.
Once again, what he does is up to him. I am only concerned with the >>executor and what she should do.It's *his* choice how to proceed. He is perfectly within his
rights to sue for debt recovery, and to take whatever other action >>>>*he* is entitled to under the terms of the lease.
What is his likely course of action? What are the likely
alternatives? How should the executor respond to each of these
potential courses with what likely outcomes?
More "nuts and bolts" missing from your posts.
Hence the question, "How should the executor respond to each of these >potential courses with what likely outcomes?", which you appear to have >missed.
Without detailing the landlord's possible actions, it is impossible to >proffer an 'opinion' on the best way for the executor to respond.
So, do *you* think an executor can delay paying management fees forYes, because of the consequences to the estate about which I've
been concerned and have expressed here. The assumption from others >>>>has been that the executor can delay paying the management fees >>>>essentially for as long as she likes because she doesn't yet have >>>>access to the estate's funds as Probate hasn't yet been granted.
Even on your analysis, that's wrong and it's a dangerous game to play.
Please do not attempt to piggyback on my posts as if to suggest I in
any way support or corroborate what you've been saying.
For the avoidance of doubt: I consider that your posts to this
thread have been vague and often incorrect. The above paragraph >>>continues that theme.
as long as she likes, with no consequences for the estate whatsoever?
For some values of "no" and "whatsoever", yes. See the following
paragraph for an example with which I am personally acquainted.
As an example, I am aware of a situation where the mortgage on a >>>property went unpaid for approximately 7 years during which time IA mortgage provider typically starts foreclosure proceedings when a >>homeowner fails to make payments as agreed in the mortgage contract, >>specifically after a period of missed payments, often around three months.
would say that communication between the executor and mortgage
company "could have been better". Eventually, the property was sold
and the mortgage satisfied with no real consequences for either the >>>executor or the estate.
No they don't. I have experience, (i.e. I have been personally
involved), in mid-double digit repossession cases. Not a single one of
them involved proceedings being started 'around three months'. Yes, I
know you've quoted what Google AI told you, but that's the difference
between practical experience and theoretical knowledge.
Taking Lloyds as an example, their standard mortgage terms and
conditions typically allow for up to 18 months following the death of
the mortgagee before they even think about escalating matters, (which
is still some way short of repossession). During that 18 months, they
will, of course, check on the progress of Grant of Probate / Letters of >Administration, and enquire as to the plans for the sale of the
property / satisfying the charge, but in my experience, they are
typically happy to wait knowing they will receive their money,
(including a larger than expected chunk of interest), once the property
is sold / the charge is satisfied.
What experience do you have of repossession cases? How many cases?
Which banks / building societies? In your experience, do you find
private lenders more or less aggressive than the high street banks, or
about the same? What was the longest time-frame between a missed
payment and repossession? And the shortest?
Would the same likely be true for monthly management fees as theIt's likely to be much the same as foreclosure, ie if there is no >>agreement to the contrary, after about 3 months non-payment. That is
example mortgage given about because, to quote you, "They [monthly >>>management fees] may be regarded rather like one [a mortgage], yes".
Do you want to revise your position yet or are you holding fast?
why proper professional advice is required.
It is my sad duty to inform you that Google AI has led you astray most >egregiously.
Regards
S.P.
In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on Mon, 2 Jun >2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the
screen.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:36:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3saj3klc579hd98smse9atde8c7e9td8vs@4ax.com>, at 14:26:53 on >>Fri, 30 May 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
This thread has gone many layers deep. Can you re-post the link to that, or >>>at least give the Message-ID of the post where you originally provided it. >>I didn't provide a url, you can trivially get your own via a search
engine of your choice. DuckDuckQuack, isn't it?
I have, but I can't find any.
But my main point stands: "vacant possession" means vacant at the time of >>>possession, not at the time of viewing. There's a clue in the name.
And my main point stands too: Estate agents commonly misuse the phrase.
Then supply an example. If there are that many, it can't be that hard.
In that context, the term "vacant possession" is relevant because >>>>>it's a guarantee to potential purchasers that the inheritors of the >>>>>property have no plans to occupy it. In which case, it will be vacant >>>>>at the time of viewing. But that's immaterial, because the phrase >>>>>doesn't refer to viewing, it refers to possession.
But estate agents use it to mean "will be empty when you view".
I have spent some time looking through property listings on RightMove, and I >>>can't find it used there to mean that at all.
Oh dear, your DuckDuck-foo seems to be lacking.
You could easily prove me wrong by supplying an example.
My definition is "What estate agents mistakenly call a house that's
empty when you view it". I don't understand why you are being so obtuse >>about this.
Then why won't you supply an example?
Owner-occupied properties will almost always be sold with vacant possession, >>>because the owner intends to move out when the sale completes (because >>>they're moving into something else instead). But they won't usually have >>>already moved out when the property is viewed.
Actually, quite a few have. To the cemetery.
It's not owner-occupied, in that case. Unless they die in between putting
the house up for sale and the house being viewed.
In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on Mon, 2 Jun
2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the screen.
This is the most wonderful Usenet posting I have ever seen, and
after ~25yrs finally trumps (if we can use that word any more) the Feather/McRae/Demon
"suppository" one. I will print it out and hang
it on the wall!
R.
On 29/05/2025 17:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/05/2025 12:40, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/05/2025 15:08, Norman Wells wrote:
Sorry, but it's not actually necessary to be in a contractual relationship to
comment in good faith. It applies in real life too.
In message <gr2s3ktbc1v8od4edqvn485cug1hm5g5sq@4ax.com>, at 21:41:13 on
Mon, 2 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Then supply an example. If there are that many, it can't be that hard.
I posted a quote from the first hit I had on Google; a few days ago.
It's not owner-occupied, in that case. Unless they die in between putting >>the house up for sale and the house being viewed.
If you want to be uber-pedantic, the owner of the house is the estate,
and as a legal entity rather than flesh and blood, probably don't need
to physically occupy the house. But it's still to all intents and
purposes "empty" of human occupation.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on Mon, 2 Jun >>2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the >>screen.
That's what snipping is for.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:45:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gr2s3ktbc1v8od4edqvn485cug1hm5g5sq@4ax.com>, at 21:41:13 on >>Mon, 2 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Then supply an example. If there are that many, it can't be that hard.
I posted a quote from the first hit I had on Google; a few days ago.
Then why can't you post it again?
It's not owner-occupied, in that case. Unless they die in between putting >>>the house up for sale and the house being viewed.
If you want to be uber-pedantic, the owner of the house is the estate,
and as a legal entity rather than flesh and blood, probably don't need
to physically occupy the house. But it's still to all intents and
purposes "empty" of human occupation.
To be uber-pedantic, if they're not actually using it then they're not >occupying it. That's why there's a legal distinction between the "occupant" >and the "owner".
In message <84c04k51i1u6ptpiucjlau7bsftr27lgef@4ax.com>, at 12:40:27 on
Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on Mon, 2 Jun >>> 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the
screen.
That's what snipping is for.
How could I possibly snip that excellent posting?
On 05/06/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <84c04k51i1u6ptpiucjlau7bsftr27lgef@4ax.com>, at 12:40:27
on Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>> In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on Mon, 2 Jun >>>> 2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the
screen.
That's what snipping is for.
How could I possibly snip that excellent posting?
Now that the dust has settled a bit on this thread, Roland, just a
quick question for you.
What next? Are you going to advise the executor in accordance with
Whitlock v Moree that the money in the joint account belongs
exclusively to the survivor and that the estate accounts need to
reflect that, or what?
In message <1hb14k5tmunr0tnqf0ecmg2q73tcu0s7m7@4ax.com>, at 21:37:40 on
Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:45:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gr2s3ktbc1v8od4edqvn485cug1hm5g5sq@4ax.com>, at 21:41:13 on
Mon, 2 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Then supply an example. If there are that many, it can't be that hard.
I posted a quote from the first hit I had on Google; a few days ago.
Then why can't you post it again?
<sigh> Your usenet reader can't do a search?
Luckily mine can:
<quote>
Just did a search of a random estate agent's site, and the first page
has these as the clickbait headlines for each property in turn...
What a location
Vacant Possession! (Their emphasis)
Detached family home
Two bedroom Terrace house
etc.
</quote>
So apparently, despite them all inevitably being sold with vacant
possession, that second one is being advertised as if vacant possession EXCLAMATION MARK was its most important feature.
Of course, what they mean is: "it'll be empty when you view".
In message <1hb14k5tmunr0tnqf0ecmg2q73tcu0s7m7@4ax.com>, at 21:37:40 on Wed, 4 Jun
2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:45:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gr2s3ktbc1v8od4edqvn485cug1hm5g5sq@4ax.com>, at 21:41:13 on >>>Mon, 2 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Then supply an example. If there are that many, it can't be that hard.
I posted a quote from the first hit I had on Google; a few days ago.
Then why can't you post it again?
<sigh> Your usenet reader can't do a search?
Luckily mine can:
<quote>
Just did a search of a random estate agent's site, and the first page has these as the
clickbait headlines for each property in turn...
What a location
Vacant Possession! (Their emphasis)
Detached family home
Two bedroom Terrace house
etc.
</quote>
So apparently, despite them all inevitably being sold with vacant possession, that
second one is being advertised as if vacant possession EXCLAMATION MARK was its most
important feature.
Of course, what they mean is: "it'll be empty when you view".
In message <mad1kmFac5hU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:08:53 on Thu, 5 Jun 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/06/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <84c04k51i1u6ptpiucjlau7bsftr27lgef@4ax.com>, at 12:40:27
on Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on Mon,
2 Jun
2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the >>>>> screen.
That's what snipping is for.
How could I possibly snip that excellent posting?
Now that the dust has settled a bit on this thread, Roland, just a
quick question for you.
What next? Are you going to advise the executor in accordance with
Whitlock v Moree that the money in the joint account belongs
exclusively to the survivor and that the estate accounts need to
reflect that, or what?
I can't advise them like that, because it's not what the law says. And
the solicitor handling the estate/probate agrees with me.
I did, however, advise the survivor (indirectly) six months ago that
they shouldn't spend the funds in question, because they'd inevitably
end up being clawed back.
However, I think they are still paying the management fees for
deceased's flat from that account, which I describe as "irregular", but
it's not a huge sum of money in the grand scheme of things (~£1800 so
far) and will need paying eventually anyway. It just makes the estate's
final accounts read a bit messier.
On 05/06/2025 09:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mad1kmFac5hU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:08:53 on Thu, 5
Jun 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/06/2025 08:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <84c04k51i1u6ptpiucjlau7bsftr27lgef@4ax.com>, at
12:40:27 on Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge >>>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:40:28 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>wrote:
In message <ma5scnFnptfU7@mid.individual.net>, at 15:56:22 on
Mon, 2 Jun
2025, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
Apologies for top-posting, but the bottom is a very long way down the >>>>>> screen.
That's what snipping is for.
How could I possibly snip that excellent posting?
Now that the dust has settled a bit on this thread, Roland, just a
quick question for you.
What next? Are you going to advise the executor in accordance with >>>Whitlock v Moree that the money in the joint account belongs
exclusively to the survivor and that the estate accounts need to
reflect that, or what?
I can't advise them like that, because it's not what the law says.
And the solicitor handling the estate/probate agrees with me.
But the law *is* now Whitlock v Moree.
And if the solicitor thinks otherwise, or is unaware of it, as seems to
be the case, he really needs to pointed in its direction to advise you >properly.
I did, however, advise the survivor (indirectly) six months ago that
they shouldn't spend the funds in question, because they'd inevitably
end up being clawed back.
But they won't be. In accordance with the above case, they're hers as
of right to spend as she chooses, and you had no right to make the
demands or advise her as you did.
However, I think they are still paying the management fees for
deceased's flat from that account, which I describe as "irregular",
but it's not a huge sum of money in the grand scheme of things
(~1800 so far) and will need paying eventually anyway. It just makes
the estate's final accounts read a bit messier.
Strange that you never mentioned that when we were discussing those
fees here, but never mind.
It solves a potential problem. However, the estate will be liable to
refund her for all of the expenses she has incurred out of her own
pocket on its behalf.
A 'thank you' for keeping the executor out of potential trouble
wouldn't go amiss either.
If the management fees were actually being paid by someone, why did you
post earlier that:
"The management companies go to extraordinary lengths to try to
persuade executors that the fees should be paid anyway but don't
actually say they MUST be paid. Which they would if that were the case, >rather than crying crocodile tears about it being unfair on them that
you temporarily aren't contributing to the gardener's salary."?
If the fees were being paid, the management company wouldn't have said
any such things, would it? So, how do you account for that?
On 05/06/2025 08:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1hb14k5tmunr0tnqf0ecmg2q73tcu0s7m7@4ax.com>, at 21:37:40
on Wed, 4 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 09:45:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>><sigh> Your usenet reader can't do a search?
In message <gr2s3ktbc1v8od4edqvn485cug1hm5g5sq@4ax.com>, at 21:41:13 on >>>> Mon, 2 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Then supply an example. If there are that many, it can't be that hard. >>>>I posted a quote from the first hit I had on Google; a few days ago.
Then why can't you post it again?
Luckily mine can:
<quote>
Just did a search of a random estate agent's site, and the first
page has these as the clickbait headlines for each property in turn...
What a location
Vacant Possession! (Their emphasis)
Detached family home
Two bedroom Terrace house
etc.
</quote>
So apparently, despite them all inevitably being sold with vacant >>possession, that second one is being advertised as if vacant
possession EXCLAMATION MARK was its most important feature.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the estate agent ad, please.
I've seen a few blocks of flats being sold for redevelopment where
vacant possession of all the flats is obviously crucial.
Apart from that sort of possibility, if the best thing that can be said
about the property is that it's vacant, it must be pretty dire! :)
--Of course, what they mean is: "it'll be empty when you view".
<quote>
Just did a search of a random estate agent's site, and the first page has these as the
clickbait headlines for each property in turn...
What a location
Vacant Possession! (Their emphasis)
Detached family home
Two bedroom Terrace house
etc.
</quote>
So apparently, despite them all inevitably being sold with vacant possession, that
second one is being advertised as if vacant possession EXCLAMATION MARK was its most
important feature.
Of course, what they mean is: "it'll be empty when you view".
While the squatters who will have been temporarily removed, might
well have returned before completion.
In message <mad53oFaksvU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:08:07 on Thu, 5 Jun 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 05/06/2025 09:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mad1kmFac5hU2@mid.individual.net>, at 09:08:53 on Thu, 5
Jun 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
Now that the dust has settled a bit on this thread, Roland, just a
quick question for you.
What next? Are you going to advise the executor in accordance with
Whitlock v Moree that the money in the joint account belongs
exclusively to the survivor and that the estate accounts need to
reflect that, or what?
I can't advise them like that, because it's not what the law says.
And the solicitor handling the estate/probate agrees with me.
But the law *is* now Whitlock v Moree.
Sorry, it's not. To quote one random blogger: "The decision made by the
Privy Council is only persuasive, and not binding authority for English courts".
And if the solicitor thinks otherwise, or is unaware of it, as seems
to be the case, he really needs to pointed in its direction to advise
you properly.
I did, however, advise the survivor (indirectly) six months ago that
they shouldn't spend the funds in question, because they'd inevitably
end up being clawed back.
But they won't be. In accordance with the above case, they're hers as
of right to spend as she chooses, and you had no right to make the
demands or advise her as you did.
I have the right to express my opinions.
However, I think they are still paying the management fees for
deceased's flat from that account, which I describe as "irregular",
but it's not a huge sum of money in the grand scheme of things
(~£1800 so far) and will need paying eventually anyway. It just
makes the estate's final accounts read a bit messier.
Strange that you never mentioned that when we were discussing those
fees here, but never mind.
I don't remember if I mentioned that aspect or not, it probably wasn't pertinent at the time.
It solves a potential problem. However, the estate will be liable to
refund her for all of the expenses she has incurred out of her own
pocket on its behalf.
It's not *her* pocket, dear Liza.
In message <101rm17$1eelk$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:03 on Thu, 5 Jun
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
Perhaps you could provide a link to the estate agent ad, please.
Links are really difficult to get off sites like that where results
appear as the result of a search.
But I've quoted the situation, and I
hope you aren't accusing me og making it up.
"Where two or more holders of a joint account all sign an account
opening document (or separately sign identical documents) which, on
their true construction, declare or set out their respective beneficial >interests in the property constituted by the account (loosely, the
money in the account), then those are the beneficial interests of the
account holders, pending any subsequent variation of them by agreement
or otherwise."
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 06:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <101rm17$1eelk$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:03 on Thu, 5 Jun
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
Perhaps you could provide a link to the estate agent ad, please.
Links are really difficult to get off sites like that where results
appear as the result of a search.
Well, you could at least provide a link to the agent's website. And possibly >let us know the search terms you were using.
But I've quoted the situation, and I hope you aren't accusing me og
making it up.
I don't think you're making it up. I suspect you may have misinterpreted it.
In message <maia9mF8gakU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:07:16 on Sat, 7 Jun 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
"Where two or more holders of a joint account all sign an account
opening document (or separately sign identical documents) which, on
their true construction, declare or set out their respective
beneficial interests in the property constituted by the account
(loosely, the money in the account), then those are the beneficial
interests of the account holders, pending any subsequent variation of
them by agreement or otherwise."
And how do you know that applies in the case under discussion here?
In message <v2q84khjia1e21r187poil99la0raeunt3@4ax.com>, at 17:28:44 on
Sat, 7 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 06:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <101rm17$1eelk$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:03 on Thu, 5 Jun
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
Perhaps you could provide a link to the estate agent ad, please.
Links are really difficult to get off sites like that where results
appear as the result of a search.
Well, you could at least provide a link to the agent's website. And
possibly
let us know the search terms you were using.
I simply searched "Haart, Vacant Possession".
You don't want accept that estate agents aren't the brightest people in
the world, and in this case are over-excited about the fact that the
house is currently empty, that they'd heard from someone in the pub that people are much more inclined to buy houses with vacant possession (or
put another way, don't want to buy with a sitting tenant) then put two
and two together to make five.
On 07/06/2025 18:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <v2q84khjia1e21r187poil99la0raeunt3@4ax.com>, at 17:28:44
on Sat, 7 Jun 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 06:07:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <101rm17$1eelk$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:03 on Thu, 5 Jun
2025, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
Perhaps you could provide a link to the estate agent ad, please.
Links are really difficult to get off sites like that where results
appear as the result of a search.
Well, you could at least provide a link to the agent's website. And
possibly
let us know the search terms you were using.
I simply searched "Haart, Vacant Possession".
I found an example:
https://www.haart.co.uk/buying/5-bedroom-house-for-sale/maidenhead- fifield-sl6/hrt027809586/
On 07/06/2025 18:22, GB wrote:
On 07/06/2025 18:08, Roland Perry wrote:
I simply searched "Haart, Vacant Possession".
I found an example:
https://www.haart.co.uk/buying/5-bedroom-house-for-sale/maidenhead-
fifield-sl6/hrt027809586/
There's a chat box in the corner of the web page.
Hello, my name is Abbie. How may I help you today?
What is vacant possession?
You have been transferred to: Rebecca
You have been transferred to: Dean
You have been transferred to: Jeremy
No onward chain. [is their answer]
Jeremy has closed the chat.
On 07/06/2025 18:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <maia9mF8gakU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:07:16 on Sat, 7
Jun 2025, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
"Where two or more holders of a joint account all sign an account >>>opening document (or separately sign identical documents) which, on
their true construction, declare or set out their respective
beneficial interests in the property constituted by the account
(loosely, the money in the account), then those are the beneficial >>>interests of the account holders, pending any subsequent variation of >>>them by agreement or otherwise."
And how do you know that applies in the case under discussion here?
Because (a) it's absolutely standard practice, and (b) I suggested you
look at the account opening terms 6 months ago, and you have said
nothing at all to the contrary since.
A friend has applied for probate regarding her mother's estate, and
estimates vary a lot as to how long this will take. It's comfortably
below the IHT threshold, but nevertheless includes assets for example a >retirement flat.
The flat was marketed since the New Year, despite many saying this is a >hostage to fortune, because the sale can't be completed until probate,
which puts off many buyers. However an offer of about 80% of the
purchase price a decade ago has been received, which in the current
state of that market is as good as it gets.
The agents have recommended a conveyancing solicitor (the probate
solicitors don't want the business) but those solicitors have asked for
a prepayment**, which they ought to know can't be made in the absence
of probate, even if in my experience such solicitors are post-paid.
My question: is it worth haggling with these solicitors, or rapidly
moving on and finding new ones?
** Possibly because the executors don't have any status pre-probate.
Update: Probate has been granted. Now on third set of prospective conveyancing solicitors. New roadblock - their outsourced ID checking
service requires married ladies to produce a copy of their certificate,
but doesn't allow for divorced ladies, who apparently were instructed to
hand their certificate into the divorce court.
Yes, a copy can be ordered, but that takes about a month.
Update: Probate has been granted. Now on third set of prospective conveyancing solicitors. New roadblock - their outsourced ID checking
service requires married ladies to produce a copy of their certificate,
but doesn't allow for divorced ladies, who apparently were instructed to
hand their certificate into the divorce court.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 10:59:52 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Update: Probate has been granted. Now on third set of prospective
conveyancing solicitors. New roadblock - their outsourced ID checking
service requires married ladies to produce a copy of their certificate,
but doesn't allow for divorced ladies, who apparently were instructed to
hand their certificate into the divorce court.
She will have been given a certified copy of the decree absolute, which >states the date, parties and location of the original marriage.
This used to be sufficient to enable a divorcee to remarry, so one
would think it would be enough to satisfy any sane ID checking service.
However, the ID checking business does seem to have gone way over the top. >The other week I had to supply official identity papers in order to book a >seaside boarding-house in Margate, though fortunately not my marriage >certificate. O tempores o mores.
In message <1038nu3$e9f2$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:03:31 on Sun, 22 Jun
2025, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 10:59:52 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Update: Probate has been granted. Now on third set of prospective
conveyancing solicitors. New roadblock - their outsourced ID checking
service requires married ladies to produce a copy of their certificate,
but doesn't allow for divorced ladies, who apparently were instructed to >>> hand their certificate into the divorce court.
She will have been given a certified copy of the decree absolute, which
states the date, parties and location of the original marriage.
Thankyou, I'll mention that to her.
This used to be sufficient to enable a divorcee to remarry, so one
would think it would be enough to satisfy any sane ID checking service.
I get the impression the ID service is very inflexible. It gets a comprehensive thumbs-down at ratings sites, with some people going as
far as to say "Do not use a solicitor who employs this service".
Anyway the latest solicitor only wants a £75 prepayment (maybe for the
ID check?)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:54:50 |
| Calls: | 9,833 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,193,628 |