KEY DOCUMENTS
ESTATE ACCOUNTS
​
Will
Summary of 4th December 2019
Estate Accounts
Counsel Opinion
302 pages of Evidence attached to the Legal Ombudsmans Case Decision
​
SCCO ASSESSMENT PROCESS
​
LEGAL OMBUDSMAN PROCESS
An Ombudsmans view of Good Service
​
Evidence attached to the Case Decision
PIB Comments in reply to Case Decision report
Legal Ombudsman Final Decision Report
​
THE PROPERTY
​
Time Ledger costs and comments
Copy of Berrys Particulars and internal photos
​
POSSESSION
​
EXECUTOR REMOVAL/RETIREMENT
Correspondence of 14th May 2014
​
MEETING NOTES
Executors and Beneficiaries 16th September 2014
​
PLANNING APPROVAL
Evidence attached to the Case Decision
The Legal Ombudsman.
​
From 6th August 2019 the Legal Ombudsman investigated the complaints of the beneficiaries from the viewpoint of the firms service. The case decision report dated 29th September 2022. I replied by email of 7th October 2022 and 10th October 2022. The Ombudsmans final decision is dated 15th November 2022.
​
You can find out more about the approach of the Legal Ombudsman here.
​
There is some useful work we can do here. On a rolling 12 month basis the Legal Ombudsman keeps a list of the complaints they have investigated. Ombudsman decisions made between 1 April 2022 – 31 March 2023. 859 firms attracted 1257 complaints. If we examine the accompanying csv what issues in relation to wills and probate in particular have been of concern?
​
The Ombudsman asks first was there Evidence of poor service? In this case the answer was Yes.
The Ombudsman confirmed by email dated 3rd October 2022 the issue of Costs were not considered as these matters are with the Courts. Nor was Delay. The most obvious detriment was the failure to utilise the beneficiaries individual capital allowances which were available for 2016/17 so £32,000 was paid in unnecessary capital gains tax. Appropriation of the property also would have mitigated the capital gains tax as the beneficiaries main residence relief would have been available to deal with the inflationary gain during the administration and improvement of the house. The Usual Ombudsman remedy is refund of fees but the Ombudsman required no remedy as the issue of Costs and Delay were before the Courts.
LEGAL OMBUDSMAN
​
background information to the Legal Ombudsmans reports.
The firm submitted that this was a personal appointment irrespective of Mr Shepherd being a solicitor and made replies accordingly. The Ombudsman did not consider the issue of Costs charged to estate funds and beneficiary shares, Transparency or Delay as these issues are before the Court. Nonetheless the Ombudsmans report provides a factual background as to the quality of the administration of the Trust by the Firm.
​
Opinion of Counsel September 2015
​
Legal Ombudsman Service standards and evidence requested
As can be seen from the responses of the firm the firm has submitted that this was a personal appointment for Mr Shepherd and the various complaints therefore are not their concern. The firm has refused to supply bank statements even to the Legal Ombudsman or equivalent information. The Ombudsman did not consider the issues of Costs, Transparency or Interest due to delay as these matters are before the Courts. Possession was not required until November 2015 as the firm was until then considering Brealeys offer of probate value + overage + assuming the liability of the agricultural occupiers. As can be seen Brealey did not refuse to repay the £40,000 school fee loan and nor was it requested until July 2018 when it was agreed it should be set against his estate share bearing in mind that he was in any case a 44% beneficiary. The firm say the Ombudsman wholly dismissed 15 of the 17 complaints however that is evidently not the case as the firm maintained this was a personal appointment for Mr Shepherd irrespective of his being a solicitor.
​
Case Decision First Ombudsmans report pdf
Final Decision Second Ombudsmans report pdf
304 pages of information supplied by the firm to the Legal Ombudsman were attached to the case decision
Berrys, Towcester Letter to Legal Ombudsman dated 10th January 2022
regarding complaints 6 and 7
​
Complaint 17. The firm delayed providing the estate accounts despite repeated requests.
​
"The firm says these were circulated to Mr Brealey on 14 August 2019, and
again to his solicitor on 15 August 2019 and 13 September 2019."
​
This is of course besides the point. The Ombudsman said they saw no evidence of a request for annual accounts or subsequent requests for annual accounts. In fact Jones & Co wrote to the firm in 2017 requesting accounts but received no reply. The bundle of information attached to the Legal Ombudsmans case decision also contained correspondence requesting annual accounts.
Be that as it may 2015 accounts were requested and available but were not supplied nor was equivalent information which might have disclosed Mr Shepherds unauthorised charging to estate funds. Similarly a litigation file was opened and sums charged to estate funds despite being contrary to the wishes of the beneficiaries and in the view of Counsel who the executors consulted unnecessary.
If accounts had been supplied Mr Shepherds charging could have come to light at a much earlier stage and challenged. Mr Shepherd could have been removed as an executor but without the accounts that was not possible for the beneficiaries and Court to consider in February 2016. In 2016 Mr Shepherd admitted he had charged costs related to the property of £100,000 in reply to Brealeys request for an estimate of his estate share for Mortgage purposes. Brealey promptly confirmed he would request an assessment of those costs and that executors should not charge their costs. It can be seen therefore that the firm have been aware of a likely assessment since 2016.
​
In the evidence the Ombudsman appends it is clear the beneficiaries wanted annual accounts and an annual meeting to improve the knowlege of the facts and good administration of the trust.
Mr Brealeys solicitors wrote in 2017 requesting accounts but did not receive them. Accounts finally had to be compelled by pre action protocol letter in August 2019.
