8th May 2013 Blog No 2

I am still on the trail of proving that the executors of my late mother’s estate should not have disposed of part of her estate by way of a 3-year lease, and to do so months before they had obtained Grant of Probate in June 2011.

I allege tying-up part of the estate on a 3-year lease was a reckless act on their part, and they have committed a devastavit (a wasting of the estate) by that reckless act. It caused a loss of part of the estate’s assets for a period of at least 3-years and possibly more if the tenant subsequently refuses to vacate the leased premises by the terms set-out in the lease. It’s easy to get tenants into a property but it’s another matter when it comes to getting them out.

I cannot see anywhere where it states that it is the duty of an executor to run a profitable business out of the estate. It is, however, the duty of the executor to pay all debts and recover any outstanding moneys due to the estate in a timely fashion and to distribute the estate among the beneficiaries.

All the vacant units on the estate were unfit for letting in any event for various reasons which I had put to the executors. They went ahead and advertised and let and obtained other prospective tenants against my advice, even though they were officially unfit for letting.

On 20 April 2012 I requested permission to view the estates accounts which I understood I could do as a legatee free of any costs to the estate. However, in his letter to me dated 25 April 2012 in response (See copy letter below) Executor Mr Barry Long said that if I wanted to view the accounts it would be at a cost to the estate because a member of staff would have to be in attendance.

Now that is contrary to what is written on page 600 of the book entitled “The Law of Succession” (12^th Edition) by Parry & Kerridge. In citing Freeman v Fairlie (1812) and Ottley v Gilby (1845) (a legatee is entitled to inspect, but not to a copy of the accounts at the expense of the estate).  This book is well worthwhile obtaining if you find yourself in a similar position with bent solicitors acting as executors of an estate.

 

 

To-date I still have not inspected the estates accounts as held by Oxley & Coward Solicitors but I have reserved the right to contests their accounts when they eventually become finalised.

 

The executors from the onset erected a TO LET sign on the property and advertised vacant units on the estate as been for letting as opposed to putting the estate on the open market as been FOR SALE and/or at the same time progressing the proposed purchase/sale of the estate to the interested supermarket chain.

 

When pushed by the beneficiaries to sell the estate Burgess Commercial (the instructed commercial estate agent) put an advertisement/photograph in the Rotherham Advertiser. It did not make any mention of the size/area of the estate being 0.93 acre nor did it show the 14 workshop, shop and/or office units, nor did it show the detached dwelling with separate brick-built garage and additional workshop set in spacious gardens. The advert did in fact look like a small disused travellers’ site, or as put to me by one of the other beneficiaries, “a chicken run”. See copy of advert/photograph below. I allege that the executors had no intention in selling the property until such time they had milked the estate dry.

 

I allege that the misrepresentation in the sale of the estate by the executors and/or their instructed estate agents in the advertising of the estate were a wilful act. When put to the Property Ombudsman the Ombudsman responded by saying that they were unable to act on my behalf as a beneficiary in a complaint against the estate agent, but they went on to agree with me that it could be a matter for the police as a scam or fraud.

 

 

I have put the whole matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) but to-date they have simply shunned it off by saying they only investigate matters where the public are at risk as they have not got the resources.

I have lodged a complaint to the SRA asking for their decision to be re-visited due to new information that has recently come to light.

I have been advised by the tenant occupying the unit with the controversial 3-year lease that he was offered compensation back in early 2012 to vacate his unit and relocate elsewhere. However, he obviously refused their offer because he is still in occupation of his unit. He still occupies the “Ransom Strip”.

In the first instance; had the letting of the aforesaid unit been legal then the executors would not have had to offer compensation to the tenant to vacate and relocate, and in the second; where was the money coming from to pay him off, THE ESTATE??

In accordance with advice from the SRA I put my complaints about the solicitors to the Legal Ombudsman back in October 2012. They returned recently with their negative Report on the matter saying that the executors/solicitors have done nothing untoward. They did this when acknowledging in their report that they had not investigated all the issues I had put to them. I allege here that the SRA and the Legal Ombudsman are just a well paid Quango that are in a position to cover the backs of the solicitors, and they do not work within the interests of the public.

I will come back with an update on the SRA and the Legal Ombudsman, and also on the new commercial estate agent who was instructed by the executors in February 2012 in place of Burgess Commercial. You will just not believe it.

This true story continues ……………