More nails in the coffin for Russian Federation extradition requests?
Unfortunately, and regardless of overwhelming opposition, probate and estate administration lawyers are dismayed to see that the Government is pushing through a massive hike in probate fees.
Currently there are flat, fixed rates for applications involving a solicitor (£155) and applications done in person (£215). These fees apply irrespective of value in the estate. Estates worth below £5,000 do not incur a fee.
From May (the exact date is still to be confirmed), here is the new probate fees structure:
|New fee structure:
Value of estate (before inheritance tax)
|Up to £50,000 are exempt from requiring a grant of probate (an increase from £5,000)||£0|
|Exceeds £50,000 but does not exceed £300,000||£300|
|Exceeds £300,000 but does not exceed £500,000||£1,000|
|Exceeds £500,000 but does not exceed £1m||£4,000|
|Exceeds £1m but does not exceed £1.6m||£8,000|
|Exceeds £1.6m but does not exceed £2m||£12,000|
In summary, an estate worth in excess of £2 million suffers a court fee a staggering 129 times greater than if the probate application had been received in April. Such estates are of course very common in the South East, simply due to real estate property values. An estate worth in excess of £1.6 million (frequently encountered in many parts of England and Wales) now pays a fee astoundingly 77 times greater.
The concession that estates with a value of up to £50,000 incur no fees is of no comfort. Most of these estates do not need Grants because the assets will be below thresholds requiring one (for example, Barclays’ threshold to release funds is as much as £30,000, as is Nationwide’s).
The Government’s consultation response document helpfully highlights the criticism these measures have received, but seemingly offers very few direct replies. For example, the main disagreements with the proposal were that:
Rather than refuting these criticisms, the justification seems to be that money talks – i.e. “We expect these reforms to deliver around £300 million in additional income per year” and it is fair to tax in this way because “we believe it is reasonable to ask those who use the services to pay more where they can afford to do so”. The Government’s response implies that people who object to this funding mechanism jeopardise “a fair and functional justice system”.
Asset heavy, cash poor estates will be the hardest hit. How will executors raise funds upfront to settle this extra pre-Grant fee? Currently, many executors struggle to raise funds to pay inheritance tax. Have the Government arranged a scheme with banks and building societies to release funds upfront, as they do for inheritance tax? The Government answers: “The British Bankers’ Association and the Building Societies’ Association’s bereavement principles encourage members to work to support the individual needs of the bereaved, to treat them with compassion and respect, and to allow necessary payments to be made where possible, within the law. This does not amount to a guarantee that funds will be released from a deceased’s bank account either without, or pending, a grant of probate – each case will always have to be considered on its merits.” – that’s a “no” then.
How about accessing Government stock or NS&I assets which are, of course, Government administered; surely these will have a failsafe early access mechanism? Well, the Government have said the Ministry of Justice is “investigating this option” – err, so no mechanism in place here either.
In the short term, therefore, executors will have little choice but to fund these extra fees personally, whether by loan (depending on the executor’s credit rating), or from their personal non-estate assets. Needless to say, interest arising on such a loan and the professional costs of arranging this will also increase the estate costs. In the case of professional executors, the Government suggests that firms may be willing to pay this fee upfront on behalf of the estate. We are very sceptical about this being true for the majority of asset heavy, cash poor scenarios; it is asking the professional firm to take on a large liability and cash flow hit, only repayable once there are sufficient funds available (which will not be upon issuing of the Grant but until a point possibly much later, when the deceased’s house has eventually been sold).
In summary, our reaction to this announcement in the words of that US bloke dominating our news agenda: Sad!
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility