Letting Deposit Return Following Death of Relative
Discussion
I'd like some advice, if I may, please.
My MIL died recently. She was living in a rented property, when my wife requested the deposit is returned the letting agent said that the deposit couldn't be returned to her as she isn't named on any of the letting documentation. To release the deposit, they require to see a will.
There is no will but my wife is named as next of kin on the death certificate but apparently this is not sufficient for the agent.
Any advice on how we can progress this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
My MIL died recently. She was living in a rented property, when my wife requested the deposit is returned the letting agent said that the deposit couldn't be returned to her as she isn't named on any of the letting documentation. To release the deposit, they require to see a will.
There is no will but my wife is named as next of kin on the death certificate but apparently this is not sufficient for the agent.
Any advice on how we can progress this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
If she is the next of kin and administering the estate, the deposit holder might insist that a grant of letters of administration is obtained to evidence entitlement to the funds. Often, banks and insurers etc will release money upon sight of a certified copy of the death certificate, particularly relatively smaller amounts, but I have known utilities and the like holding credit balances to want a formal grant.
If the estate value is below a certain threshold, obtaining the grant is free; above that, there’s a fee - which is a right PITA when the fee exceeds the refund due. Had just this with E.ON recently when administering my late father‘s affairs.
After repeatedly explaining that I was the sole beneficiary as well as the person administering the estate, and pursuing the issue through their complaints process (involving my MP and the company’s CEO, who wouldn’t come out of hiding and tell us how much dead customers’ money E.ON trousered each year by denying refunds due to it being uneconomic for the administrator to obtain a grant), they did, eventually and grudgingly, revise their bereavement policy to allow discretionary refunds of small credits in such circumstances.
If there are no competing or superior beneficiaries to the estate, it might help to rehearse the mantra that the money being withheld now legally belongs to the administrator and any contractual right to retain the deposit died with the deceased, so please return that money to its lawful owner… I was at the point of issuing a small claim in the county court when E.ON saw sense but that’s not straight forward as the court will be looking for a contractual right or tortious claim (like negligence) to exist in order for it to be litigated. Neither apply!
I eventually settled on a claim alleging ‘unjust enrichment’ as the basis for a letter before action, and added 8% statutory interest to the refund due, which seemed to unlock things when E.ON’s legal team were eventually asked to advise. The complaint handler initially asserted legal advice would only be sought if I sued as she had ‘researched the Gov website’ and was happy my father’s money did not have to returned.
Be prepared for a battle; good luck!
If the estate value is below a certain threshold, obtaining the grant is free; above that, there’s a fee - which is a right PITA when the fee exceeds the refund due. Had just this with E.ON recently when administering my late father‘s affairs.
After repeatedly explaining that I was the sole beneficiary as well as the person administering the estate, and pursuing the issue through their complaints process (involving my MP and the company’s CEO, who wouldn’t come out of hiding and tell us how much dead customers’ money E.ON trousered each year by denying refunds due to it being uneconomic for the administrator to obtain a grant), they did, eventually and grudgingly, revise their bereavement policy to allow discretionary refunds of small credits in such circumstances.
If there are no competing or superior beneficiaries to the estate, it might help to rehearse the mantra that the money being withheld now legally belongs to the administrator and any contractual right to retain the deposit died with the deceased, so please return that money to its lawful owner… I was at the point of issuing a small claim in the county court when E.ON saw sense but that’s not straight forward as the court will be looking for a contractual right or tortious claim (like negligence) to exist in order for it to be litigated. Neither apply!
I eventually settled on a claim alleging ‘unjust enrichment’ as the basis for a letter before action, and added 8% statutory interest to the refund due, which seemed to unlock things when E.ON’s legal team were eventually asked to advise. The complaint handler initially asserted legal advice would only be sought if I sued as she had ‘researched the Gov website’ and was happy my father’s money did not have to returned.
Be prepared for a battle; good luck!
Pupp said:
If she is the next of kin and administering the estate, the deposit holder might insist that a grant of letters of administration is obtained to evidence entitlement to the funds. Often, banks and insurers etc will release money upon sight of a certified copy of the death certificate, particularly relatively smaller amounts, but I have known utilities and the like holding credit balances to want a formal grant.
If the estate value is below a certain threshold, obtaining the grant is free; above that, there’s a fee - which is a right PITA when the fee exceeds the refund due. Had just this with E.ON recently when administering my late father‘s affairs.
After repeatedly explaining that I was the sole beneficiary as well as the person administering the estate, and pursuing the issue through their complaints process (involving my MP and the company’s CEO, who wouldn’t come out of hiding and tell us how much dead customers’ money E.ON trousered each year by denying refunds due to it being uneconomic for the administrator to obtain a grant), they did, eventually and grudgingly, revise their bereavement policy to allow discretionary refunds of small credits in such circumstances.
If there are no competing or superior beneficiaries to the estate, it might help to rehearse the mantra that the money being withheld now legally belongs to the administrator and any contractual right to retain the deposit died with the deceased, so please return that money to its lawful owner… I was at the point of issuing a small claim in the county court when E.ON saw sense but that’s not straight forward as the court will be looking for a contractual right or tortious claim (like negligence) to exist in order for it to be litigated. Neither apply!
I eventually settled on a claim alleging ‘unjust enrichment’ as the basis for a letter before action, and added 8% statutory interest to the refund due, which seemed to unlock things when E.ON’s legal team were eventually asked to advise. The complaint handler initially asserted legal advice would only be sought if I sued as she had ‘researched the Gov website’ and was happy my father’s money did not have to returned.
Be prepared for a battle; good luck!
I'm sorry for your loss and thank you for taking the time to reply in such detail. We've found that some companies are great at dealing with bereavement and closing accounts. There are some, however, that are very insensitive, inefficient and downright obstinate to deal with.If the estate value is below a certain threshold, obtaining the grant is free; above that, there’s a fee - which is a right PITA when the fee exceeds the refund due. Had just this with E.ON recently when administering my late father‘s affairs.
After repeatedly explaining that I was the sole beneficiary as well as the person administering the estate, and pursuing the issue through their complaints process (involving my MP and the company’s CEO, who wouldn’t come out of hiding and tell us how much dead customers’ money E.ON trousered each year by denying refunds due to it being uneconomic for the administrator to obtain a grant), they did, eventually and grudgingly, revise their bereavement policy to allow discretionary refunds of small credits in such circumstances.
If there are no competing or superior beneficiaries to the estate, it might help to rehearse the mantra that the money being withheld now legally belongs to the administrator and any contractual right to retain the deposit died with the deceased, so please return that money to its lawful owner… I was at the point of issuing a small claim in the county court when E.ON saw sense but that’s not straight forward as the court will be looking for a contractual right or tortious claim (like negligence) to exist in order for it to be litigated. Neither apply!
I eventually settled on a claim alleging ‘unjust enrichment’ as the basis for a letter before action, and added 8% statutory interest to the refund due, which seemed to unlock things when E.ON’s legal team were eventually asked to advise. The complaint handler initially asserted legal advice would only be sought if I sued as she had ‘researched the Gov website’ and was happy my father’s money did not have to returned.
Be prepared for a battle; good luck!
As time goes on, tt's becoming more a crusade of principle than retrieving the money.
With respect why do you think they should release the deposit on the basis of a death certificate?
If letters of administration are not gong to be obtained (why not?) then you might persuade them to release on the basis of a suitably worded indemnity such that the person they pay will be responsible to them if anyone else pops up asking for the deposit as well.
If letters of administration are not gong to be obtained (why not?) then you might persuade them to release on the basis of a suitably worded indemnity such that the person they pay will be responsible to them if anyone else pops up asking for the deposit as well.
pork911 said:
With respect why do you think they should release the deposit on the basis of a death certificate?
If letters of administration are not gong to be obtained (why not?) then you might persuade them to release on the basis of a suitably worded indemnity such that the person they pay will be responsible to them if anyone else pops up asking for the deposit as well.
Thankfully I'm not well versed on dealing with affairs following death and this option hadn't occurred to me, thank you for your suggestion. I'll mention it to my wife and see if that will satisfy their request.If letters of administration are not gong to be obtained (why not?) then you might persuade them to release on the basis of a suitably worded indemnity such that the person they pay will be responsible to them if anyone else pops up asking for the deposit as well.
To answer your question, I think it's reasonable to assume that being named on a death certificate as the next of kin transfers all responsibilities to that person. As mentioned, I'm inexperienced at dealing with this so happy to be corrected and learn.
JohnWest said:
I'm sorry for your loss and thank you for taking the time to reply in such detail. We've found that some companies are great at dealing with bereavement and closing accounts. There are some, however, that are very insensitive, inefficient and downright obstinate to deal with.
As time goes on, tt's becoming more a crusade of principle than retrieving the money.
Sorry about your and your wife’s loss. As time goes on, tt's becoming more a crusade of principle than retrieving the money.
Your comments about the differences in some companies behaviour are spot on though.
I found this out “twice” for the relative I was LPA for and then when she passed away.
It is possible on a death certificate to not be next of kin per se and the individual named as recording said death can be as a qualified “ informant “.
Playing devils advocate I can see perhaps why the Letting Agent is being difficult especially as also no will.
Assuming they now know this I would be sending them a polite email to whomever is in charge stating facts and the fact your wife is now responsible for addressing her late Mothers affairs.
Use the carrot and stick principle ie say you don’t want to prolong any issues and so if the money is not returned within ( say ) 7 days you will need to speak with their Trade body and also seek legal advice but obviously you would much rather prefer they just play ball.
Social media mention threat ( all done elegantly ) might also help.
Good luck.
JohnWest said:
Thankfully I'm not well versed on dealing with affairs following death and this option hadn't occurred to me, thank you for your suggestion. I'll mention it to my wife and see if that will satisfy their request.
To answer your question, I think it's reasonable to assume that being named on a death certificate as the next of kin transfers all responsibilities to that person. As mentioned, I'm inexperienced at dealing with this so happy to be corrected and learn.
The issue you have is, you're not trying to show your wife is the next of kin. You're trying to show you're entitled to the money and a will or letters of administration if there is no will are the things you need to show that. Without the will or letters of administration how do the companies know that they're releasing the monies to the correct person? The estate could have a huge tax bill for all they know or it could be in dispute and they're releasing monies to the wrong person. To answer your question, I think it's reasonable to assume that being named on a death certificate as the next of kin transfers all responsibilities to that person. As mentioned, I'm inexperienced at dealing with this so happy to be corrected and learn.
JohnWest said:
pork911 said:
With respect why do you think they should release the deposit on the basis of a death certificate?
If letters of administration are not gong to be obtained (why not?) then you might persuade them to release on the basis of a suitably worded indemnity such that the person they pay will be responsible to them if anyone else pops up asking for the deposit as well.
Thankfully I'm not well versed on dealing with affairs following death and this option hadn't occurred to me, thank you for your suggestion. I'll mention it to my wife and see if that will satisfy their request.If letters of administration are not gong to be obtained (why not?) then you might persuade them to release on the basis of a suitably worded indemnity such that the person they pay will be responsible to them if anyone else pops up asking for the deposit as well.
To answer your question, I think it's reasonable to assume that being named on a death certificate as the next of kin transfers all responsibilities to that person. As mentioned, I'm inexperienced at dealing with this so happy to be corrected and learn.
I’m hopeful that rather than being dicks, the agents are just following the need to ensure the money goes to the correct party and requiring either a legal will with beneficiary or grant of probate. If they paid the deceased money to someone who is not entitled to it legally I can see how hot water might prevail.
If no will, start with the rules of intestacy to identify the lawful beneficiaries/beneficiary to the estate. If one only, and that person is administering the estate, the indemnity suggested above might do the trick if offered.
As to why not apply for letters of administration, I was in the position that the estate had been dealt with already apart from a credit held by EON… all other organisations were content to release monies due to the estate on the strength of sight of the death cert. EON insisted they needed to see a grant.. the fee for obtaining that was £300; to recover about £200.
It wasn’t the money per se that motivated me to persist; it was the way in which it was assumed the company was entitled to retain monies it had no claim to unless the administrator (and beneficiary) spent £300 to secure a refund of £200 (or whatever). It wasn’t their money to keep, which they eventually acknowledged.
As to why not apply for letters of administration, I was in the position that the estate had been dealt with already apart from a credit held by EON… all other organisations were content to release monies due to the estate on the strength of sight of the death cert. EON insisted they needed to see a grant.. the fee for obtaining that was £300; to recover about £200.
It wasn’t the money per se that motivated me to persist; it was the way in which it was assumed the company was entitled to retain monies it had no claim to unless the administrator (and beneficiary) spent £300 to secure a refund of £200 (or whatever). It wasn’t their money to keep, which they eventually acknowledged.
Pupp said:
If no will, start with the rules of intestacy to identify the lawful beneficiaries/beneficiary to the estate. If one only, and that person is administering the estate, the indemnity suggested above might do the trick if offered.
As to why not apply for letters of administration, I was in the position that the estate had been dealt with already apart from a credit held by EON… all other organisations were content to release monies due to the estate on the strength of sight of the death cert. EON insisted they needed to see a grant.. the fee for obtaining that was £300; to recover about £200.
It wasn’t the money per se that motivated me to persist; it was the way in which it was assumed the company was entitled to retain monies it had no claim to unless the administrator (and beneficiary) spent £300 to secure a refund of £200 (or whatever). It wasn’t their money to keep, which they eventually acknowledged.
Or, not entitled to release to someone claiming to have rights over it but not able to evidence it, and it wasn't their money to just give to whoever asks for it.As to why not apply for letters of administration, I was in the position that the estate had been dealt with already apart from a credit held by EON… all other organisations were content to release monies due to the estate on the strength of sight of the death cert. EON insisted they needed to see a grant.. the fee for obtaining that was £300; to recover about £200.
It wasn’t the money per se that motivated me to persist; it was the way in which it was assumed the company was entitled to retain monies it had no claim to unless the administrator (and beneficiary) spent £300 to secure a refund of £200 (or whatever). It wasn’t their money to keep, which they eventually acknowledged.
For all those bemoaning the unreasonableness of heartless corporations who know nothing of the deceased's life, imagine you are second in the queue and they've already released money to someone else without evidence. No objections?
An estate dispute is not a good place to be dragged into.
Well Parliament disagreed some time ago as a matter of public policy and enacted statutory law to assist administrators of small estates:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/32/conte...
It is this legislation that allows a wide variety of specified estate creditors to release without sight of a grant, and most banks and insurance companies will do precisely that upon being reasonably satisfied as to the the bona fides of the administrator, and for relatively substantial sums often.
The Act doesn’t cater for every circumstance but is a clear indicator that discretion can and should be exercised where possible to lessen the need for unnecessary bureaucracy.
As I say, E.ON, a major utility, did revise their bereavement policy when this was pointed out (along with some realities about the rules on intestacy).
If there’s real property involved or very large sums, no question a grant is needed; but if it’s small sums and personal property only with clear lines of inheritance, there’s no legal reason to require that hoop to be jumped through.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/32/conte...
It is this legislation that allows a wide variety of specified estate creditors to release without sight of a grant, and most banks and insurance companies will do precisely that upon being reasonably satisfied as to the the bona fides of the administrator, and for relatively substantial sums often.
The Act doesn’t cater for every circumstance but is a clear indicator that discretion can and should be exercised where possible to lessen the need for unnecessary bureaucracy.
As I say, E.ON, a major utility, did revise their bereavement policy when this was pointed out (along with some realities about the rules on intestacy).
If there’s real property involved or very large sums, no question a grant is needed; but if it’s small sums and personal property only with clear lines of inheritance, there’s no legal reason to require that hoop to be jumped through.
Ill add a view from the letting agents pov (having been there from that side and ex lawyer)
OP is asking for the deposit back as "tenant" has died.
1st the agents will be looking to see if the rent is fully paid up. If not then there will be a claim on the deposit.
2nd - what condition is the property in? will it need cleaning/repairs caused by the tenant. ie did the tenant die in the property.
3rd What date will the tenancy end? Is it a roll on (periodic) or does the tenant have a fixed term?
The tenants estate may be liable to the end of that term or when it is relet. (see deposit issue later)
4th When does all the tenant possessions get removed ? Agents almost certainly would require rent to that date the property is fully emptied and cleaned even if they allow/view/agree the tenants fixed term may be bought to an end early.
5th re-let fees - agents entitled to the cost of re-letting the property in breach of a fixed term. See Tenant Fee Act.
6th As the deposit can only be a max of 5 week there is almost £0 to come back as the full deposit will be used in resolving the above issues. Often the estate will be asked for payment if point 2 and 4 arnt resolved. See DPS regulations.
So point 6 is usually where things end up.
Bear in mind its a two way street - the estate may be asked/claimed against for damages the decd tenant may have caused or the "debt" ie arrears they may have been in if this exceeds the deposit held.
Lastly if there is any doubt about who to pay any deposit to other than the named tenant on the TA then the agents will start a deposit dispute and let them sort it out.
Hope that clarifies the practical process.
OP is asking for the deposit back as "tenant" has died.
1st the agents will be looking to see if the rent is fully paid up. If not then there will be a claim on the deposit.
2nd - what condition is the property in? will it need cleaning/repairs caused by the tenant. ie did the tenant die in the property.
3rd What date will the tenancy end? Is it a roll on (periodic) or does the tenant have a fixed term?
The tenants estate may be liable to the end of that term or when it is relet. (see deposit issue later)
4th When does all the tenant possessions get removed ? Agents almost certainly would require rent to that date the property is fully emptied and cleaned even if they allow/view/agree the tenants fixed term may be bought to an end early.
5th re-let fees - agents entitled to the cost of re-letting the property in breach of a fixed term. See Tenant Fee Act.
6th As the deposit can only be a max of 5 week there is almost £0 to come back as the full deposit will be used in resolving the above issues. Often the estate will be asked for payment if point 2 and 4 arnt resolved. See DPS regulations.
So point 6 is usually where things end up.
Bear in mind its a two way street - the estate may be asked/claimed against for damages the decd tenant may have caused or the "debt" ie arrears they may have been in if this exceeds the deposit held.
Lastly if there is any doubt about who to pay any deposit to other than the named tenant on the TA then the agents will start a deposit dispute and let them sort it out.
Hope that clarifies the practical process.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 10th May 06:38
Edited by superlightr on Friday 10th May 06:41
Edited by superlightr on Friday 10th May 06:48
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff