A Beneficiary Complains: What Should a Probate Practice Put Right, Explain or Challenge?

“They are not our client”: why that does not end the question

The Legal Ombudsman accepts qualifying beneficiary complaints about services provided to, or as, a personal representative. A residuary beneficiary need not have instructed the firm. Jurisdiction, eligibility and time limits still require checking. [1]

The SRA’s probate review recommends dealing with beneficiary complaints through the firm’s procedure while recognising that the service expected differs from that owed to a client. Where the professional is the sole executor, direct transparency is particularly important; where lay executors instruct the firm, an agreed communication arrangement may be appropriate. [2]

A right to complain does not make the beneficiary your client, give them authority to instruct you or confer unrestricted access to the file.

Ask three questions before drafting the reply

1. What is said to have gone wrong? Extract the particular event, omission, figure or decision. Separate a service concern from disagreement with an executor’s decision or another beneficiary’s position.
2. What does the file show? Locate instructions, dates, explanations, accounts, costs information and the reason for the decision. Identify gaps rather than reconstructing certainty from memory.
3. What now needs to happen? An explanation, correction, revised timetable, internal review and separate dispute advice are different responses. More than one may be needed.

Do not wait for a person to use the word “complaint” before recognising dissatisfaction. Refer it through the practice’s procedure where appropriate. [3]

Concerns to investigate—and positions that may be reasonable

The following are file-review prompts, not findings that a complaint succeeds or fails. Test the facts and the practice’s actual role.

For the substantive issue, use the guides on accounts objections, blocked distributions and executor deadlock.

When can the practice calmly hold its position?

A beneficiary may want more detail, faster payment or a different decision without demonstrating poor service. LeO’s probate guidance recognises reasonable limits on repetitive or disproportionate requests. Agree a communication approach with the executors where appropriate, explain the arrangement and keep the reasons. Do not overlook genuinely new information. [4]

Distinguish the account or explanation needed from a demand for every email and working paper. Consider confidentiality, privilege and disclosure authority specifically; neither full disclosure nor a blanket refusal is the automatic answer.

What needs prompt internal or specialist review?

• A possible loss or immediate risk: missing funds, a missed deadline, an unsafe payment or an asset needing protection.
• The firm’s own position: allegations about its advice, charges, executor conduct or prior involvement. Consider independent review, conflicts and insurer notification requirements.
• An unreliable explanation: inconsistent accounts of events, unsupported assurances or a reply that does not address the point.

Preserve the original record. Allocate responsibility for protective action and the complaint response separately where needed. A service complaint, a negligence allegation, a conduct concern and a dispute over estate rights may overlap, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

An external adviser does not itself resolve an own-interest conflict. Solicitors should assess their position under the SRA Code; accountancy practices should apply their own professional requirements. [6]

A proportionate response

Acknowledge the concern, identify the issues being reviewed, say who is responsible and explain the next update. Check the practice’s complaints process and current signposting requirements. LeO ordinarily allows escalation after eight weeks without resolution; that is not a reason to defer addressing the problem. [1]

For each issue, state what the records establish, any limitation in the evidence and the action proposed. Where service fell short, identify how it will be put right. Where the decision remains justified, explain the basis without treating disagreement as misconduct by the beneficiary.

Consider what can properly be disclosed, who should provide the information and any adjustments needed to make the response accessible. Do not assume complaint-handling time can simply be charged to the complainant or deducted from their inheritance.

A short complaint-review record

Use these headings in the practice’s own file note or review document:

1. Concern raised and outcome requested.
2. The practice’s role, client and relevant service or decision.
3. Evidence reviewed and any unanswered point.
4. Explanation, correction or further investigation needed.
5. Urgent action or separate professional advice required.
6. Responsible person, response date and next review point.

This is an action record, not a complaint-risk score. A strongly expressed concern can be unfounded; a restrained one can reveal a significant problem.

Accountancy probate practices

Do not assume the SRA framework applies to accountants. ICAEW-authorised probate firms have their own engagement and complaints requirements, and LeO provides specific guidance for them. Accountants undertaking tax or accounts work only should distinguish that engagement from authorised probate services and check the applicable complaint route. [7] [8]