Ms J was a residuary beneficiary (those left a percentage of what is left in the estate, after all other deductions) of an estate, following the sad passing of her friend. The service provider was appointed to act as executor under the will of Ms J’s friend.
Ms J became concerned about the time being taken to administer the estate. She raised concerns with the service provider, as she felt she wasn’t being kept updated and didn’t understand the reason for the delay in completing.
In her complaint, Ms J mentioned that the will had been amended just before the death of her friend, and that the amounts left to her friend’s family had been changed. She also explained that, as a result, one of the other beneficiaries of the will had lodged a caveat, which prevented the estate from being administered. It was clear that Ms J was concerned about the actions of the other beneficiary.
To resolve her complaint Ms J wanted the service provider to keep her informed and to conclude the administration of the estate.
Ms J complained to the service provider about the time being taken to progress the estate, raised concerns about the actions of the other beneficiary and also told the service provider that she felt they were not keeping her informed of progress on the estate.
The service provider responded, explaining that the delays were as a result of the caveat that had been lodged. The service provider also explained that they could not progress the estate until the caveat was removed. Further, they explained that they were not responsible for the actions of the other beneficiary and that there was nothing to update Ms J on at present, as the caveat could only be removed by agreement or by court order.
Ms J was unhappy with the service provider’s response and escalated her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
The case was reviewed on receipt and passed to the Early Resolution Team for consideration. This was because the service provider could not be held responsible for third party delays: The delays were caused by the actions of the other beneficiary, which were not within the service provider’s control. There were equally no updates to provide Ms J with as there was no work being undertaken due to the need to resolve the issue of the caveat.
It was also the case that the Legal Ombudsman could not require the service provider to progress the administration of the estate.
The Legal Ombudsman wrote to Ms J, to advise that her complaint did not have any reasonable prospects of success. On receipt of the notice, Ms J agreed that the Legal Ombudsman could not help her, and the complaint was closed as an agreed outcome.
As the case was resolved by the Early Resolution Team, no case fee was payable by the service provider.
