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.
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.
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.
