What's a Vulnerable Persons Discretionary trust and what is it for?

I know there was a Will (and therefore, no intestacy) - many, actually, towards the end; presumably re-written (by a bedridden and rather vulnerable testatrix) until it said what was required by the Executor/carer. The property and effects have already been distributed by the Executor - is this actually legal without Probate? Could this, otherwise, be fraud or theft? I was told (not sure if this is so) that if a share of a property was simply transferred from one beneficiary to another, then Probate isn't necessarily required - in this case, one share of the property has been sold for money by one beneficiary to another. Is this legal without Probate? Is Probate absolutely required in law? Surely there is some sort of official body that oversees the proper carrying out of Wills, 'Probated' or not? Otherwise, anyone could say they were the Executor and do what they pleased. I, apparently, can't even get hold of a copy of the Will without jumping through, (I suspect, expensive) legal hoops. I was told, by the Testatrix, I was to be one of the Executors, but I can't check on this as I haven't been allowed to see the Will. How can one be sure that the final Last Will has been the one acted upon, if there was more than one Will made - as in this case where there seems to have been several?

Thank you Mould, that's very helpful. Could I ask, what is a 'pre-action disclosure letter' and what does it mean? Would I need to have a solicitor send this 'pre-action disclosure letter' or is it something I can do myself? How should I word such a letter? Is there any sort of template letter I could access anywhere? I have googled 'CPR Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct' but I'm afraid I don't really understand it. (I see Mould is going to be busy for the next few months so if anyone else could help, I'd be grateful).

Anyone?

My parent died 5 years ago and a sibling acted as Executor. I have never seen the Will (despite requests) and the Probate Office has no record which indicates it did not go to Probate even though there was property and effects involved which have since been distributed. I thought I was also named as an Executor (along with a third sibling) but, of course, since I haven't seen the Will I have no way of knowing for sure. I have contacted the solicitors who, as far as I know, dealt with the Will and they say they were not asked to do the Probate and do not know if any subsequent Wills were made but if I wanted a copy of the Will they do hold I would need a copy of the Death Certificate and the permission of the other Executors, the latter being the problem due to lack of cooperation. This being the case, plus the apparent lack of Probate - meaning the Will is therefore not in the public domain - is there any other way I can obtain a copy? I would like to be certain the assets were disposed of in accordance with the wishes of the deceased as I have reason to believe there may be some discrepancy. I have discovered the deceased made several Wills before death (while in the care of the Executor sibling), two in the same month, and the property has not gone to the person the deceased and their spouse (who died first) always wished it to (which was not me, by the way). How can one be certain it is indeed the very last Will & Testament that's been acted upon by an Executor - or that it's been carried out properly? If Probate has not been granted, can anyone who has a Will of a deceased person obtain Probate - in other words, is it the first person to get there, so to speak? Can someone dispose of property and/or effects without Probate? Are beneficiaries entitled to see the Will?

Even though the leak is due to faulty plumbing in the property above, which is the Landlord's responsibility to fix?

Hi everyone, My expensive DSLR camera was damaged (completely kaput) by a leak dripping from the flat above mine. My Landlord says I should claim on my insurance. Is this right? I thought, since the damage was caused by a leak in their property, it should be their insurance. They don't deny the leak but say there is no proof my camera was damaged by said leak. They might have a point but I'd like their insurance people to deal with it, even if to say the same thing (I thought that was what we paid them for). Anyone know what my rights are in this? Thanks in advance for any advice.

Hi Heaver22 - I think all the help you need is in this thread. If your accident was in 2003 and the claim is for Personal Injury, that's Statute Barred after three years. I'm still not entirely clear, though, if that's three years from the date of the incident or from the last communication. Does anyone have a definitive answer to that? Either way, sounds as if someone on that bus is pulling a fast one. Perhaps they were the only one on the bus who'd heard of the MIB. It's amazing how they apparently pay out on these claims willy-nilly, without first, seemingly, doing very much in the way of investigation. Going by my own experience and from reading this thread, anyone could say they'd been hit by an uninsured, preferably untraceable driver, make a claim to the MIB and get a pay out. As I said before, when I put that to them on the phone they simply had no answer - unbelievable.

Indeed, BB. In fact, every driver in the country has cause to be concerned since around £30 of every insurance premium goes to fund the MIB. It's our money they're throwing around.

Thank you BB. I agree, the MIB must be reported. And I will certainly complain - we should all complain, people. As I said above, the whole process by which they operate appears to be flawed. They seem to be a law unto themselves. No better than muggers. Thought you'd like an update, though, I received a letter this morning from MIB to the effect that '...having reconsidered the matter, on this occasion...' they'll no longer be pursuing the matter and their file of papers has now been closed. They have also informed Close Credit Management of their decision. Big deal. Clearly it'd be unreasonable of me to expect an apology and an admission they made a balls up and perhaps even a compensatory payment to me for all the stress they've caused. And I don't suppose they'll put as much energy in pursuing for fraud the claimant to whom the incompetent idiots paid out money in the first place. BB, one thing I should say though, is that were it not for the MIB (and Google) I wouldn't have found the CAG either - I'm now a confirmed fan. Thank you to all those who've given great advice and support.

Sorry, folks, I'm double posting - my browser's playing up.

Yes, I've been confused by this. Some people say the 6 year Statute Barred period starts from the date of the original incident, some say from the date of the last communication. Also, does anyone know for sure, can one be pursued for a debt at all if it hasn't been to court first - or that you've admitted to? In my case it seems the MIB have just taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury regardless. I was not personally involved in the original incident actually (see previous messages),and it was in 2006 so not SB'd though I dealt with it (by proxy, so to speak) by sending a letter explaining the correct version of events and denying liability. The MIB now say they never received this letter. Conveniently. Also, they now say that, although they admit they discussed the matter with me back then, (which is how I found out the other person had apparently given them 3 different versions - you'd have thought that would have raised some doubts in their tiny minds) they're now not prepared to due to the Data Protection issue. Can I use that fact against them, I wonder - that they violated Data Protection? It seems a very strange state of affairs when apparently someone can go to the MIB, say they've had an accident (allegedly) with either an uninsured driver, untraceable uninsured driver, or even, in some cases on here, insured driver, get a nice little sum in their back pocket and on top of that leave some poor sucker none the wiser until a nasty letter from a DCA drops onto their doormat. I did actually put that to them at the time and they literally had no answer. We could all do that! (I said that, too). Are these people for real?? I can hardly believe it's actually legal!

Me too, i.ash123 - (I posted earlier in this thread re. accident on private land). I wouldn't sign anything until you get some advice from the very helpful peeps (thanks to them) here in case you drop yourself in it. Can they just doggedly insist '...we are satisfied that you were driving without insurance and that you were at fault for the accident' in spite of our, albeit belated, protests? Like you, there was no opportunity offered to defend self, not in court anyway, though I did write at the time - they're saying they have no record of that letter (I do, it's on my pc and I later sent a copy to Weightmans, their solicitors), just that I phoned them. I haven't received the form you mention and didn't sign anything at the time either. Should this have happened, I wonder? Did the MIB follow the proper procedure - whatever that is? (If anyone knows the correct procedure for definite and would be kind enough to post it I'd be interested to hear it). If they didn't, would this invalidate their claim and entitle you to say, with any authority, 'case dismissed'? I emailed MIB recently, on behalf of my daughter (who's not in the country), and they're saying that though they dealt with me at the time, they can't now because of Data Protection. Fair enough, but having admitted that they did in 2006, I wonder, have they now admitted to 'breaking the rules' and would that invalidate their claim? Like you, i.ash123, this happened in 2006 so I can't use the 'Statute Barred' rule, though Wotsy says they dismissed his case because they admitted they didn't give him chance to defend before they payed out. (Do you mean in court, Wotsy?). In my case it's only for a few hundred pounds and I could just pay it but it's the principle, it was on private land and the other persons fault. We were willing to settle for a private 'knock for knock', as neither car was badly damaged and, certainly, the other car was a wreck anyway. I'd never heard of the MIB - obviously not as savvy as the other b*****d!

Wow, Jasper, that's impressive, thank you. I'll certainly put all that in. Can I ask, though, referring to your first line: '...a claim to the MIB was not the correct way to bring action', what should have been the correct action? Also, what's '...the claimant would have been put to strict proof such were in force' mean? No, my daughter signed nothing at the time or since.