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.
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 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.
