Dealing with requests for information 

When a loved one dies, bereaved people can find themselves overwhelmed by dealing with the potentially complex probate process at the same time as their own grief and, increasingly, beneficiary disputes (reported recently in the media as ‘will wars’). With over 11,000 attempts to block probate last year – up 56% since 2019 – this phenomenon has contributed to will and probate handling becoming one of the fastest-growing areas of complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. 

In particular, it is service providers’ communication (or perceived lack or poor quality of it) that drives complaints about probate services. Executors and beneficiaries often become frustrated in often fraught family circumstances. In this article, we share our insight into how law firms can better handle communication in a reasonable time frame to stop the relationship with their clients breaking down to the point at which we get involved.  

Context

Wills and probate was the second-most complained about area of law in the complaints we accepted in 2024/5, and those 1,128 complaints were a 28% increase on the previous year. Nearly half of the wills and probate cases with investigative outcomes last year had inadequate handling of the complaint at first tier. 

Communication complaints often reflect a problem in the relationship between the parties. We see this in disputes within a family dealing with their loved one’s affairs and in their trust in the service providers charged with handling the administration. With contested probate cases on the rise, including those reaching courts, the challenge for probate service providers to maintain good relationships with the family might never have been harder.
 
We see cases where the service provider is unfairly accused of taking sides; blamed when they have done nothing wrong. Those who get the balance right in sharing information will reduce their chances of being caught in the crossfire, and this Spotlight shares a way to do so: reasonable responses to reasonable requests in a reasonable time. In the rest of the article, we set out what we consider to be reasonable. 

We often find our staff explaining the roles and responsibilities of the service provider. An example of this is a decision we published earlier this year. A complaint can come from someone with legal responsibility for the estate (a personal representative) or from someone benefiting from the estate (whether a legatee or a residuary beneficiary). Whoever it comes from, the emotions are often complicated by grief and by frustrations with the time an estate takes to administer. 

Although we sometimes see service providers rejecting requests from beneficiaries on the basis that they are not the client, we accept complaints from personal representatives (executors and administrators) and from beneficiaries. The complaint about the service provider could be where the service provider is a personal representative or where they are acting on behalf of a personal representative.  

This Spotlight is from the position of how we assess the quality of a service. Our Scheme Rule 5.37 says that, in deciding what is fair and reasonable, we will take into account (but are not bound by) what court would decide, the regulator’s rules of conduct and what was considered good practice at the time. Our focus is always on whether what the service provider did was reasonable and that is the focus of this Spotlight.  id was reasonable and that is the focus of this Spotlight.

Be reasonable

No two cases are the same, but there are similarities and themes, and these will be familiar to service providers. What do we do when someone involved in an estate complains that the service provider handling the administration failed or refused to tell them something important?  

Our approach may be summarised as reasonable responses to reasonable requests in a reasonable time. The dynamics of each case are reflected in the three different ‘reasonables’. Here are some examples:  

i. The legal status of the parties

Executors step into the shoes of the deceased and service providers understand this: our experience is service providers don’t just regard executors as their clients but treat them as such. We consider that good practice, too.  

Communication with beneficiaries is often a critical feature of a reasonable service. Service providers who decline to answer questions from beneficiaries on the basis that “you are not my client” misunderstand the right beneficiaries have to raise a service complaint. Rather than legal, their motivation might be emotional, financial or both. We recognise the legal difference between executors and beneficiaries, but beneficiaries should have reasonable questions answered. 
 
Identifying the executors can help measure what is reasonable, too. Where the service provider is the sole executor, what is reasonable in requests from a beneficiary is likely to be wider than where there is a lay executor in place. After all, no service provider is going to complain about their own service.  

ii. The emotional connection of the parties to the estate

A widow contacts the service provider handling the administration of her late husband’s estate, asking for an update on progress. The service provider knows that she is the beneficiary only of a life interest in the house the deceased owned, so she has no real legal need to get the update.  

But her request is likely to be reasonable, if she has no other way of knowing what is happening. Her interest is personal and emotional, rather than legal, but that would be enough for us to say a reasonable request for an update had been made. 

What constitutes a reasonable response to the widow’s reasonable request is a separate consideration. A short update of what stage the administration is at might suffice. Perhaps answering some straightforward questions and setting some expectations on how long what remains might take.  

Compare this request with if she had sent a long list of involved questions about items in the estate and accounts. That would likely be more appropriate for executors or residuary beneficiaries to raise, and it could be enough for the service provider to deal with what’s reasonable, explain why and then refer anything outstanding to any lay executors. 

Understanding the emotional context of why the person is asking is, in our experience, an effective way to balance the assessment of what counts as a reasonable response to a reasonable request.  

iii. Managing costs 

A response to a beneficiary doesn’t always have to come from the service provider, and managing costs is a fundamental part of an executor’s role in the estate. Where there are lay executors, it might be reasonable for the service provider to arrange for the executors to provide the response. It’s likely prudent to notify the requesting beneficiary that this is what is happening, so as to avoid later criticism. If this can be anticipated from the start of the work and outlined early, all the better.

When the service provider is giving updates, the number of people involved in an estate is a relevant factor for costs: ten letters to different beneficiaries could be expensive and the people responsible for paying the bill (the executors) and the people who actually will pay it (the residuary beneficiaries) should be helped to understand the effect of large scale communication.  

A service provider who is aware of these challenges, seeks to manage them and communicates well on the subject is likely providing a reasonable service to the estate.  

How to deal with complaints

We sometimes see complaints that a service provider could or should have done either more or something different in their communication with the complainant. However, our function is to assess what was actually done, not what might have been done instead. If that was reasonable, the service was reasonable.  

To test this, we’re likely to ask the service provider why certain decisions were made, which will be an opportunity to explore the reasonableness of the request and the reasonableness of the response. It is sometimes also a chance to look at the reasonableness of the time it took for that response to come.  

When people make unreasonable requests, it’s fine for service providers to explain what they will and won’t do. Our advice is to consult with any executors, agree a way forward and record that this has been done. This can include declining to respond to repeated requests for information that has already been provided or which reasonably won’t be provided. 

Whilst the outcome of a complaint to us about an ongoing estate might include requiring the service provider to take action in the interests of the estate, it’s highly unlikely we’d require settlement of an estate, particularly if the estate remains in dispute. Complainants wanting that are likely to be encouraged by us to get independent legal advice.  

What service providers should do

  • Set clear expectations on your role at the outset. This should include expectations about the level of contact from you. The higher the likelihood of there being issues between family members, the more important the record is likely to be, if we receive a complaint about the level of communication.
     
  • Be prepared to revise those set expectations, if the circumstances change and warrant it. Sometimes, family members fall out and the service provider’s role might change in practice, if not in law. 

  • If things do go wrong, be alive to the human effects on people wanting a resolution to the estate. Our recent Guidance on Remedies gives further information on how to address the effects of any failings.  

Our Technical Advice desk is here to help with questions about complaints.  

Case studies

Considered decisions, communicated clearly are consistent with a reasonable service

Background 

Mr P was one of four residuary beneficiaries of his father’s estate. Two partners of the service provider were the executors. A deed of variation was agreed a year after Mr P’s father’s death. A complicating factor in the estate, resolved by the deed, was the right of one of the other beneficiaries to remain living in Mr P’s father’s house, while he looked for somewhere else to live.  

The relationship between Mr P and the beneficiary living in his father’s house was poor, and the service provider was required to manage that relationship in its administration of the estate.  

Complaint  

The issues Mr P raised with us fell into two broad categories:  

Communication (not providing information about charges when requested, not telling him about the house being cleared and not seeking his permission before taking actions in the estate) 

Acting improperly in the administration of the estate (not including some things in the estate accounts that Mr P believed should have been included, and allowing the beneficiary to live in the house without them paying rent)  

Mr P believed he had suffered financial losses because of some of the decisions made in the administration and expressed frustration at the level of communication from the service provider. The service provider responded to his complaint in full, denied any fault and offered no remedy.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach 

With a detailed complaint and no offer from the service provider, the complaint was unsuitable for our Early Resolution process, so passed for an in-depth investigation. When there, the complaint could not be resolved by agreement, and the result of this was the matter went to an ombudsman for a Final Decision.  

Whilst Mr P wanted a detailed breakdown of the charges incurred, we considered that the service provider’s approach of sharing details of the charges of each stage of the administration work with all four beneficiaries had been reasonable, on the facts of this case.  

The clearing of the house was, as the service provider argued, a fair exercise of the executors’ duties, once the beneficiary had moved out, and service provider did not need to tell Mr P about this before doing it. Similarly, it was for the executors to decide on the reasonableness of the beneficiary living in the house, in line with the deed of variation, and it was not a failing for Mr P not to be consulted about that.  

As to the administration issues, we asked the service provider for the reasons for the contested decisions it took. Having considered those reasons, the ombudsman found the decisions to be reasonable. 

Whilst noting that both the loss of his father and the subsequent belief that his late father’s wishes were not being fulfilled were profoundly distressing to Mr P, we considered that the service provider had acted throughout with the best interests of the estate at heart.  

As the service was found to be reasonable, no remedy was directed and, as the service provider’s handling of the complaint had been satisfactory, no case fee was payable. 

LeO’s insights 

  • When a service provider can evidence clear communication and reasonable explanations for the decisions it has taken, it is likely we will find that element of the service to be satisfactory. 
  • Although no poor service was found, consideration of the emotional investment of parties during probate work can help avoid complaints coming to us, reducing cost and time to all parties. 
Our Guidance on Remedies is a useful reference tool in resolving complaints

Background 

Mr F’s father’s will appointed the directors of the service provider to be the executors of the estate. Mr F, a residuary beneficiary, complained, around six months after his father’s death, about delays in the ongoing estate administration.  

He felt that the service provider had failed to keep him informed or to reply to his requests for updates, leaving him feeling stressed at what was already a difficult time. 

Complaint 

The complaints Mr F raised to us fell into two categories: 

The first complaint was regarding a lack of progress in the estate, with concern stemming from the service provider having already warned him about delays in obtaining probate, and this seemingly not yet having been done.  

He also had concerns about a lack of updates and responses to his requests for information on the work the executors were doing.  

The service provider responded to the complaint, accepting that there had been poor communication from an individual who had since left the firm. Beyond that explanation and an assurance that communication would improve, the service provided did not offer a remedy.

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach 

The complaint was reviewed on receipt and was passed to the early resolution team to attempt a guided negotiation. This was because we could see that the service provider had accepted there had been some delays and poor communication, when the first person handling the administration work had been involved.  

The service provider recognised a failing in its service, and we shared Mr F’s view that the action proposed wasn’t sufficient to resolve the complaint. Our Early Resolution Team discussed with the service provider that the impact described by Mr F in his complaint would warrant compensation at the top of our Modest category for emotional effects, which would be £250. Both parties accepted our advice. 

As the complaint was resolved by the Early Resolution Team through our guided negotiation procedure, no case fee was payable.   

LeO’s insights 

  • Recognising any poor service at the earliest opportunity and compensating for any impact offers the best chance of resolving a complaint internally. 
  • Referring to our remedies guidance for direction on what level of remedy to award for emotional impact can lead to successfully resolving complaints earlier. 
  • As the service provider agreed with our recommended higher remedy and their complaint handling was reasonable, they avoided the extra time and cost of a full investigation, as well as a case fee. 
Reflecting the emotional practicalities in service decisions helps establish what is reasonable

Background 

Following the passing of Mr L’s father, his two siblings were named as executors. Mr L was left £1,000 by his father, making him a beneficiary of the estate. The executors instructed the service provider to handle the estate administration.  

The relationship between Mr L and his siblings was not good and matters became more difficult when he was told to communicate directly with them, rather than the executors, to avoid unnecessary costs to the estate.  

Mr L soon had concerns about the decisions being made in the administration and was worried that his late father’s wishes were not being followed. Mr L also found some of the service provider’s actions distressing. 

Complaint  

The complaint Mr L raised with the service provider was about excluding him from the process of the administration, which he considered cruel. He was not invited to a meeting with his siblings and believed his father’s will was shared with them at that time.  

Mr L said the executors weren’t sharing any information with him. When he reached out to the service provider for an update, the service provider did not respond promptly, leading to Mr L making a complaint, escalating it to us when he received no response.    

The service provider did not respond to the complaint until after it was escalated to us. At that point, it acknowledged some failings and offered £200 compensation. This offer was rejected by Mr L. 

The Legal Ombudsman’s view and approach 

The complaint was reviewed on receipt, and it was clear Mr L had standing to bring his complaint to us, as a beneficiary of the estate. It was passed to the Early Resolution Team because the service provider had already made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint. 

It was recognised that Mr L had a personal interest in ensuring the estate was administered in accordance with his father’s wishes. Due to the poor relationship with his siblings, he had no option but to turn to the service provider. 

As the service provider wasn’t an executor, it required the siblings’ consent before sharing information with Mr L. The investigator found the service provider’s response to the enquiries and subsequent complaint was balanced and clear, but the delay in responding was unreasonable. 

The service provider offered compensation of £200 to Mr L, recognising that he was caused avoidable upset and concern by the failure to respond to his request for updates in a timely manner. We considered this to be a fair remedy and told Mr L. He didn’t agree.  

We considered the offer to be reasonable, and an ombudsman dismissed the complaint under our Scheme Rule 5.7c), as a reasonable offer had been made by the service provider and remained open for acceptance. As the complaint was dismissed, a case fee was not payable.  

LeO’s insights 

  • As beneficiaries are able to bring a complaint to us under Scheme Rule 2.8c) service providers should provide a reasonable response to a reasonable request within a reasonable time – as they should with any client. 
  • It is often sensible for a service provider to seek consent from executors and to manage costs to the estate, when dealing with enquiries from beneficiaries. 
  • Addressing where the service fell short and trying to resolve matters, albeit with delay, was taken into account and avoided a case fee to the service provider.