A bit of an edge case, but I suspect I'm aware of one.
Home owner has a lodger, maybe even one not paying regular rent. Home
owner passes away quite suddenly, and is immediately known to be intestate.
Who secures the property for the eventual beneficiaries, and does the
lodger have to quit immediately? Rather than squat there and drink the contents of the wine cellar etc.
On 23/02/2026 09:36, Roland Perry wrote:
A bit of an edge case, but I suspect I'm aware of one.
Home owner has a lodger, maybe even one not paying regular rent.
Home owner passes away quite suddenly, and is immediately known to be >>intestate.
Who secures the property for the eventual beneficiaries, and does
the lodger have to quit immediately? Rather than squat there and
drink the contents of the wine cellar etc.
First and foremost, the previous agreement between the resident
landlord and lodger continues, despite the death of the former. It is
not automatically terminated.
If there are specific provisions in the lodger agreement stipulating
what happens in the event that the resident landlord dies then such >provisions will be triggered.
I do not know to which side of the equation your query relates, so will
try to cover both sides as far as practicable.
The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of administration" to >become the personal representative (PR).
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying rent,
per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the rent money
in a separate account until the NoK is formally appointed as PR at
which point the PR will issue a formal demand for outstanding rent.
Once appointed,
the PR is responsible for repairs, but this can be complicated by the
time required for the appointment to be made. In the interim period,
the NoK may wish to undertake necessary repairs to be reimbursed later
once formally appointed as PR.
Title to the house will pass according to the rules of intestacy. Once >formally appointed, the PR can give the lodger "reasonable notice" to
leave, typically equivalent to the rental payment period.
Usually, a lodger is classed as an "excluded occupier" which means they
have only limited protection under the Protection from Eviction Act
1977.
However, the lodger is not required to move out immediately following
the death of the resident landlord and can demand to see both ID and
legal documentation proving that the PR is authorised to act on behalf
of the estate before accepting reasonable notice to leave.
The lodger should document all communication with the deceased resident >landlord, NoK and PR, plus be prepared to produce a record of all
payments made to the landlord and PR.
Hope that helps?
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my girlfriend.
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of administration"
to become the personal representative (PR).
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying
rent, per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the
rent money in a separate account until the NoK is formally appointed
as PR at which point the PR will issue a formal demand for outstanding rent.
In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that week
(couldn't find anyone to assist).
Eh? How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually being
the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my girlfriend.
--Instead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual,
please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also has
two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's house.
Once appointed,Which was about a year later.
So, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased?
Please confirm.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
the PR is responsible for repairs, but this can be complicated by
the time required for the appointment to be made. In the interim
period, the NoK may wish to undertake necessary repairs to be
reimbursed later once formally appointed as PR.
Title to the house will pass according to the rules of intestacy.
Once formally appointed, the PR can give the lodger "reasonable
notice" to leave, typically equivalent to the rental payment period.
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely related
to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean he is a
beneficiary of the estate. So, he won't be giving himself notice to
quit.
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm interested
in.
There was no rental payment, as such.
Usually, a lodger is classed as an "excluded occupier" which means
they have only limited protection under the Protection from Eviction
Act 1977.
However, the lodger is not required to move out immediately
following the death of the resident landlord and can demand to see
both ID and legal documentation proving that the PR is authorised to
act on behalf of the estate before accepting reasonable notice to leave. >>>>
The lodger should document all communication with the deceased
resident landlord, NoK and PR, plus be prepared to produce a record
of all payments made to the landlord and PR.
Given the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
'eventual'? You said above he was appointed, apparently as PR, about a
year later.
Yes, they weren't appointed on the landlords death, or the day after, or
the day after that. Eventually(sic) a year later.
But no payments made anyway.
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the
lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time
the beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to log
the wine they've drunk.
It all depends on the circumstances, which you need to clarify.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my
girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
On 24 Feb 2026 at 17:30:39 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of administration" >>>>> to become the personal representative (PR).
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying
rent, per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the
rent money in a separate account until the NoK is formally appointed >>>>> as PR at which point the PR will issue a formal demand for >>>>>outstanding rent.
In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that week >>>> (couldn't find anyone to assist).
Eh? How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually being
the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my
girlfriend.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the definition of NoK the NHS uses for general >hospitals is totally unrelated to the NoK defined for compulsorily admitted >psychiatric patients, and again unrelated to rights of inheritance under >intestacy rules. You are not surely one of those that believes a word can only >be understood when the writer of a concise dictionary tells you what it should >mean?
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my
girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking
about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it
suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
In message <6619525276.8188584a@uninhabited.net>, at 20:49:55 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
[quoted text muted]
Not at all, but it came as a bit of surprise that the NHS needed
(essentially GDPR nee DPA) forms filling in to discuss routine test
results with a person's spouse. Such as for example "I'm sending my
husband round to pick up my blood test results, can you print them out
have them ready for him", turns into "only if you fill in and sign this form".
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my
girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking
about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it
suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of
consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
In message <6619525276.8188584a@uninhabited.net>, at 20:49:55 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 17:30:39 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of administration" >>>>>> to become the personal representative (PR).
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying
rent, per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the >>>>>> rent money in a separate account until the NoK is formally appointed >>>>>> as PR at which point the PR will issue a formal demand for
outstanding rent.
In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that week >>>>> (couldn't find anyone to assist).
Eh? How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually being >>>> the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my
girlfriend.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the definition of NoK the NHS uses for general
hospitals is totally unrelated to the NoK defined for compulsorily admitted >> psychiatric patients, and again unrelated to rights of inheritance under
intestacy rules. You are not surely one of those that believes a word can only
be understood when the writer of a concise dictionary tells you what it should
mean?
Not at all, but it came as a bit of surprise that the NHS needed
(essentially GDPR nee DPA) forms filling in to discuss routine test
results with a person's spouse. Such as for example "I'm sending my
husband round to pick up my blood test results, can you print them out
have them ready for him", turns into "only if you fill in and sign this form".
I have a friend who was recently released from hospital (yes, I drove)
and had carers coming in three times a day. Sometimes I'd stay overnight
at his place, sometimes mine. *Despite* doing the paperwork, if I
arrived mid morning and asked the carers what they'd given him for
breakfast they'd refuse to say. Only asking so I didn't make exactly the
same thing for lunch. (He'd most likely be asleep, so I couldn't ask
him).
Probing their HQ, the best excuse they could come up with was that the
form to fill in had to be *their* form, on *their* paper, and giving
them a form we'd done with the GP, and crossing out the GP's name and substitutiing theirs, re-signed and re-dated, wasn't sufficient.
So I got one of theirs, had them observe the patient signing it (he was
as fed up as I was), and asked them to confirm that, by countersigning
it themselves, as belt and braces But they refused, saying that wasn't
in their job description.
At that point I gave up, and added the episode to my list of "because of
Data Protection" anecdotes.
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:32:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6619525276.8188584a@uninhabited.net>, at 20:49:55 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 17:30:39 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of administration" >>>>>>> to become the personal representative (PR).
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying
rent, per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the >>>>>>> rent money in a separate account until the NoK is formally appointed >>>>>>> as PR at which point the PR will issue a formal demand for
outstanding rent.
In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that week >>>>>> (couldn't find anyone to assist).
Eh? How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually being >>>>> the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my
girlfriend.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the definition of NoK the NHS uses for general
hospitals is totally unrelated to the NoK defined for compulsorily admitted >>> psychiatric patients, and again unrelated to rights of inheritance under >>> intestacy rules. You are not surely one of those that believes a
word can only
be understood when the writer of a concise dictionary tells you what
it should
mean?
Not at all, but it came as a bit of surprise that the NHS needed
(essentially GDPR nee DPA) forms filling in to discuss routine test
results with a person's spouse. Such as for example "I'm sending my
husband round to pick up my blood test results, can you print them out
have them ready for him", turns into "only if you fill in and sign this
form".
I have a friend who was recently released from hospital (yes, I drove)
and had carers coming in three times a day. Sometimes I'd stay overnight
at his place, sometimes mine. *Despite* doing the paperwork, if I
arrived mid morning and asked the carers what they'd given him for
breakfast they'd refuse to say. Only asking so I didn't make exactly the
same thing for lunch. (He'd most likely be asleep, so I couldn't ask
him).
Probing their HQ, the best excuse they could come up with was that the
form to fill in had to be *their* form, on *their* paper, and giving
them a form we'd done with the GP, and crossing out the GP's name and
substitutiing theirs, re-signed and re-dated, wasn't sufficient.
So I got one of theirs, had them observe the patient signing it (he was
as fed up as I was), and asked them to confirm that, by countersigning
it themselves, as belt and braces But they refused, saying that wasn't
in their job description.
At that point I gave up, and added the episode to my list of "because of
Data Protection" anecdotes.
The ability of the human mind to compartmentalise is astounding. My >understanding is that you have been quite close to the campaigns against >domestic violence and coercive control that directly led to this kind of >policy. And rightly so; it was in fact a win for those campaigns. >(Exploitation and control can by other relatives and friends, not just >spouses.)
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>>>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my >>>>> girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking
about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it
suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of
consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has >> changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate
absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human
rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency >contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
In connection with a death or inheritance matters the next-of-kin has >certain legal responsibilities, and that person is the closest living
blood relative.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb >>>> 2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>>>>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my >>>>>> girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has >>> changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate
absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human >>> rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency
contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
--
In connection with a death or inheritance matters the next-of-kin has
certain legal responsibilities, and that person is the closest living
blood relative.
On 26 Feb 2026 at 06:58:08 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb >>>>> 2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my >>>>>>> girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has
changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate >>>> absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human >>>> rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency
contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
Legally speaking those decisions are made by doctors informed by relatives' >information as to what the *patient*, not the relative, would have wished.
Both these important legal qualifications may be somewhat blurred in practice, >but this is the legal situation.
In connection with a death or inheritance matters the next-of-kin has
certain legal responsibilities, and that person is the closest living
blood relative.
On 26 Feb 2026 10:13:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2026 at 06:58:08 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb >>>>>> 2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my >>>>>>>> girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has
changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate >>>>> absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human >>>>> rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency >>>> contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
Legally speaking those decisions are made by doctors informed by relatives' >> information as to what the *patient*, not the relative, would have wished.
Relative or NOK as hospital recognises them or emerency contact as
Norman puts it)?
--Both these important legal qualifications may be somewhat blurred in practice,
but this is the legal situation.
In connection with a death or inheritance matters the next-of-kin has
certain legal responsibilities, and that person is the closest living
blood relative.
On 26 Feb 2026 10:13:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2026 at 06:58:08 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>> In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has
changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate >>>>> absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human >>>>> rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency >>>> contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
Legally speaking those decisions are made by doctors informed by relatives' >> information as to what the *patient*, not the relative, would have wished.
Relative or NOK as hospital recognises them or emerency contact as
Norman puts it)?
On 26/02/2026 14:27, Martin Harran wrote:
On 26 Feb 2026 10:13:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2026 at 06:58:08 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb
Relative or NOK as hospital recognises them or emerency contact asRecently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>>>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>>>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>>>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has
changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate >>>>>> absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human
rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency >>>>> contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
Legally speaking those decisions are made by doctors informed by relatives' >>> information as to what the *patient*, not the relative, would have wished. >>
Norman puts it)?
As Mr Hayter says, it's the relatives who advise, the doctors who
decide. The next-of-kin does not decide, nor does any relative
individually.
In message <n02qtnF5peqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:10:46 on Mon, 23
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 23/02/2026 09:36, Roland Perry wrote:
A bit of an edge case, but I suspect I'm aware of one.
-aHome owner has a lodger, maybe even one not paying regular rent.
Home-a owner passes away quite suddenly, and is immediately known to
be intestate.
-aWho secures the property for the eventual beneficiaries, and does
the-a lodger have to quit immediately? Rather than squat there and
drink the-a contents of the wine cellar etc.
First and foremost, the previous agreement between the resident
landlord and lodger continues, despite the death of the former.-a It is
not automatically terminated.
An entirely verbal agreement.
If there are specific provisions in the lodger agreement stipulating
what happens in the event that the resident landlord dies then such
provisions will be triggered.
I do not know to which side of the equation your query relates, so
will try to cover both sides as far as practicable.
The next of kin (NoK) needs to apply for "letters of administration"
to become the personal representative (PR).
The NoK should inform the lodger of the need to continue paying rent,
per the agreement, and that the lodger should set aside the rent money
in a separate account until the NoK is formally appointed as PR at
which point the PR will issue a formal demand for outstanding rent.
In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only since a
week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that week (couldn't
find anyone to assist).
Once appointed,
Which was about a year later.
the PR is responsible for repairs, but this can be complicated by the
time required for the appointment to be made.-a In the interim period,
the NoK may wish to undertake necessary repairs to be reimbursed later
once formally appointed as PR.
Title to the house will pass according to the rules of intestacy.
Once formally appointed, the PR can give the lodger "reasonable
notice" to leave, typically equivalent to the rental payment period.
There was no rental payment, as such.
Usually, a lodger is classed as an "excluded occupier" which means
they have only limited protection under the Protection from Eviction
Act 1977.
However, the lodger is not required to move out immediately following
the death of the resident landlord and can demand to see both ID and
legal documentation proving that the PR is authorised to act on behalf
of the estate before accepting reasonable notice to leave.
The lodger should document all communication with the deceased
resident landlord, NoK and PR, plus be prepared to produce a record of
all payments made to the landlord and PR.
Given the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
But no payments made anyway.
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the
lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time the beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to log the
wine they've drunk.
Hope that helps?
Yes, in the snse that it convinces me it's even more of an edge case.
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a-a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that
week (couldn't-a find anyone to assist).
Eh?-a How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually
being the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my girlfriend.
Instead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual,
please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also has
two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's house.
So, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased?
Please confirm.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely related
to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean he is a
beneficiary of the estate.-a So, he won't be giving himself notice to
quit.
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm interested
in.
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a-a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that
week (couldn't-a find anyone to assist).
Eh?-a How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the spouse?
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that fact as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal
lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g. the Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live in
the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on the
mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or evicted without a court order.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their home rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and the home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the home as if
they were an owner.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually
being the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you
home from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is
my girlfriend.
With the greatest of respect, this is a legal newsgroup not a medical
one.-a For the purposes of this discussion, the NHS' definition of NoK is completely irrelevant.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living relative.
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
Instead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual,
please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also has
two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal
permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's
house.
Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon as
they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the house became
their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home rights above).
So, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased?
Please confirm.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
I do not see what difference you think this makes.-a Perhaps you could clarify?
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely related
to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean he is a
beneficiary of the estate.-a So, he won't be giving himself notice to
quit.
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm interested
in.
Are you able / willing to say why you're interested in the previous year?
Regards
S.P.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb >>>> 2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home >>>>>> from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my >>>>>> girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking >>>staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has >>> changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate
absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest
relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human >>> rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever
any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency >>contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only >>>>since aa week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that
week (couldn'ta find anyone to assist).
Eh?a How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the >>lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the spouse?
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that fact
as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal
lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g. the >Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live in
the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on the
mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or evicted >without a court order.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their home >rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and the
home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if they were an owner.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actuallyActually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you
being the closest related person, as the name suggests.
home from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK
is my girlfriend.
With the greatest of respect, this is a legal newsgroup not a medical
one. For the purposes of this discussion, the NHS' definition of NoK
is completely irrelevant.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living relative.
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
Instead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual, >>>please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also
has two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal >>permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's >>house.
Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon as
they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the house became
their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home rights
above).
So, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased? >>>Please confirm.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate >>estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
I do not see what difference you think this makes. Perhaps you could >clarify?
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely
related to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean
he is a beneficiary of the estate.a So, he won't be giving himself >>>notice to quit.
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm
interested in.
Are you able / willing to say why you're interested in the previous year?
What is the precise relationship between the deceased and the lodger /
Nok / PR?
What is the approximate value of the estate please and did the deceased
have any children?
Was the house owned solely by the deceased, or as joint tenants or as >tenants in common?
Given the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
But no payments made anyway.
Ever, or only since the death?
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the
lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time
the beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to log
the wine they've drunk.
The amount the lodger must pay remains the same after the death of the >landlord as it was beforehand. "Market rent" does not enter the
equation nor does "escrow".
It may be suggested to the lodger, but is in no way mandated, that they
set aside the rent money, preferably in a separate account, but this is
some considerable way short of paying "market rent into escrow".
On 26/02/2026 17:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue,
24 Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only >>>>>since aa week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that >>>>>week (couldn'ta find anyone to assist).
Eh?a How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the >>>lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the >>spouse?
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that
fact as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal >>lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g. the >>Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on
the mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or
evicted without a court order.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their
home rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and
the home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if they were an owner.
I am perplexed why the OP presented his question in the way he did. Is
there any suggestion that the marriage was invalid, perhaps?
The crucial question is whether there are children of the deceased? If
there are none, then my understanding of intestacy rules is that the
spouse scoops the lot. There's no IHT. There's no CGT.
She needs to get appointed as the PR in order to deal with the Land
Registry and change the ownership of the house. And, banks and other >financial institutes may only deal with a PR (above a certain financial >limit, which varies from bank to bank).
The bottles of wine in the cellar won't ask questions, and I don't see
why she needs to get appointed as PR in order to drink her inheritance?
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually >>>>being the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you >>>home from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK
is my girlfriend.
With the greatest of respect, this is a legal newsgroup not a
medical one.a For the purposes of this discussion, the NHS'
definition of NoK is completely irrelevant.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living >>relative.
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
as they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the houseInstead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual, >>>>please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also
has two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal >>>permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's house. >> Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon
became their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home
rights above).
I do not see what difference you think this makes.a Perhaps youSo, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased? >>>>Please confirm.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate >>>estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
could clarify?
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely
related to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean >>>>he is a beneficiary of the estate.a So, he won't be giving himself >>>>notice to quit.
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm interested
in.
Are you able / willing to say why you're interested in the previous >>year?
Or, indeed, interested at all?
In message <njrvpkpclq055nv9lv0tvpq6uot01gtn5h@4ax.com>, at 06:58:08 on
Thu, 26 Feb 2026, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:34:00 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 25/02/2026 10:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2026 at 07:16:49 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <10nkplc$3kann$21@dont-email.me>, at 18:11:56 on Tue, 24 Feb >>>>> 2026, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:30:39 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you home
from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK is my >>>>>>> girlfriend.
Seems I dont' have a NoK then.
Recently (well, maybe the last 20yrs) the NHS has been routinely asking >>>>> about NoK, because it's convenient for them to "pass the buck" when it >>>>> suits them. Can also be a kind of informal PoA, with an extra layer of >>>>> consent, to discuss medical matters and make simple decisions.
Transport services, armies and hospitals have been asking
staff/customers who
should be informed in the event of misadventure since forever. All that has
changed in recent decades is that the right of the patient to nominate >>>> absolutely who they like, and not necessarily their nearest
relative, has been
clarified by NHS management, in light of a more liberal attitude to human >>>> rights generally in society. I am really not sure if there was ever
any actual
law on the subject. Does anyone know?
Not as regards the NHS it doesn't matter. They only need an emergency
contact who will not be making any legal decisions.
Is implementing a DNR (in the absence of a predeclared one by the
patient) or turning off life support not a legal decision?
It is, but not something a random person declared to the NHS to be their NoK-Taxi-driver can take.
In message <10nqder$1v6uj$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:20:28 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 26/02/2026 17:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue,
24 Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
In the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that
week (couldn't find anyone to assist).
Eh? How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the
spouse?
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that
fact as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal
lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g. the
Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on
the mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or
evicted without a court order.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their
home rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and
the home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if they were an owner.
I am perplexed why the OP presented his question in the way he did. Is
there any suggestion that the marriage was invalid, perhaps?
None at all.
The crucial question is whether there are children of the deceased? If
there are none, then my understanding of intestacy rules is that the
spouse scoops the lot. There's no IHT. There's no CGT.
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was jointly
owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased.
She needs to get appointed as the PR in order to deal with the Land
Registry and change the ownership of the house. And, banks and other
financial institutes may only deal with a PR (above a certain financial
limit, which varies from bank to bank).
Indeed, and that's where the approx a year of limbo arises from.
The bottles of wine in the cellar won't ask questions, and I don't see
why she needs to get appointed as PR in order to drink her inheritance?
Because when drinking during that year+ of limbo, she's not yet been officially declared the beneficiary.
NoK is not an appointed position but one that comes from actually
being the closest related person, as the name suggests.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you
home from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK
is my girlfriend.
With the greatest of respect, this is a legal newsgroup not a
medical one. For the purposes of this discussion, the NHS'
definition of NoK is completely irrelevant.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living
relative.
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
as they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the houseInstead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual,
please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also
has two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal
permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's house. >>> Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon
became their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home
rights above).
I do not see what difference you think this makes. Perhaps youSo, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased?
Please confirm.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
could clarify?
If the personal representative is the next-of-kin, ie closely
related to the deceased, it is likely that the intestacy rules mean >>>>> he is a beneficiary of the estate. So, he won't be giving himself
notice to quit.
Once they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm interested >>>> in.
Are you able / willing to say why you're interested in the previous
year?
Or, indeed, interested at all?
It's a set of circumstances which might apply to others, so
understanding the rules is useful.
In message <n0bdudFgmqhU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:24:28 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only
since a-a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that
week (couldn't-a find anyone to assist).
Eh?-a How did that arise?
-aLandlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the
spouse?
Only for the last week of the landlord's life.
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that fact
as that is something of a game changer.
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on the
mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or evicted
without a court order.
And that works if they've only been a spouse (rather than a friend who
was a lodger) for a week?
But my question isn't about eviction, rather
it's whether rent is due to the intestate estate, in the year before
said spouse-for-a-week gets appointed as PR, and the months after that before probate is obtained naming them as the beneficiary.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their home
rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and the
home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if they were an owner.
In the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise
(which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living relative.
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
But not instantly (in the absence of a will) the PR, nor the owner of
any of the deceased's property.
Instead of drip-feeding information, as seems unfortunately usual,
please tell us what relation the lodger was to the deceased.
-aFor perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also
has-a two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal
permanent-a residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's
house.
Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon as
they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the house became
their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home rights
above).
Even without having filed the form?
So, he is now the official personal representative of the deceased?
Please confirm.
-aYes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
I do not see what difference you think this makes.-a Perhaps you could
clarify?
It's not inevitable that the ex-lodger and instant spouse will be
appointed PR. Likely, but not inevitable.
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
It may be suggested to the lodger,
but is in no way mandated, that
they set aside the rent money, preferably in a separate account, but
this is some considerable way short of paying "market rent into escrow".
OK, that clarifies. However a third party appeared offering the estate
many thousands a month rental, but this was turned down by the not-yet-
PR.
Who continued living there about half the time (and in their own
properties the other half of the time).
In message <10nqder$1v6uj$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:20:28 on Thu, 26 Feb
2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 26/02/2026 17:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n059b4Fhn1vU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:29:09 on Tue,
24-a Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the case I have in mind the lodger is also the NoK, but only >>>>>> since a-a week before the landlord's death. No paperwork done that >>>>>> week (couldn't-a find anyone to assist).
Eh?-a How did that arise?
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
-aThe person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the
spouse?
-aWith respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that
fact as-a that is something of a game changer.
-aA partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal
lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g.
the Rent-a-Room Scheme).
-aA spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in-a the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on
the-a mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or
evicted-a without a court order.
-aAdditionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their
home-a rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and
the home-a cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
-aIt should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse-a ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if-a they were an owner.
I am perplexed why the OP presented his question in the way he did. Is
there any suggestion that the marriage was invalid, perhaps?
None at all.
The crucial question is whether there are children of the deceased? If
there are none, then my understanding of intestacy rules is that the
spouse scoops the lot. There's no IHT. There's no CGT.
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was jointly owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased.
She needs to get appointed as the PR in order to deal with the Land
Registry and change the ownership of the house. And, banks and other
financial institutes may only deal with a PR (above a certain
financial limit, which varies from bank to bank).
Indeed, and that's where the approx a year of limbo arises from.
The bottles of wine in the cellar won't ask questions, and I don't see
why she needs to get appointed as PR in order to drink her inheritance?
Because when drinking during that year+ of limbo, she's not yet been officially declared the beneficiary.
It's a set of circumstances which might apply to others, so
understanding the rules is useful.
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was jointly
owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased.
Not so. That makes no difference to the spousal IHT relief.
In the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise >>(which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
In message <9955824998.8550eece@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:18 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was jointly
owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased.
Not so.-a That makes no difference to the spousal IHT relief.
AIUI there are numerous exceptions, for example if the spouse's current permanent residence is outside the UK. The house in question is worth
about half the estate's -u3m total value.
On 27/02/2026 14:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <9955824998.8550eece@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:18 on Fri,
27 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was >>>>jointly owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased. >>>Not so.a That makes no difference to the spousal IHT relief.
AIUI there are numerous exceptions, for example if the spouse's
current permanent residence is outside the UK. The house in question
is worth about half the estate's u3m total value.
I have been following this thread with interest..... its actually
provoked more questions than answers.......
Did the deceased and the lodger actually enter into an intimate
relationship before getting married?
Were other people aware that the deceased & lodger were in a
relationship
or was everyone taken by surprise with the wedding?
Were there any guests & how many at the wedding?
Did their financial affairs become linked prior to marriage such as
joint accounts etc? (I note the lodger's name was not on the house
deeds)
Do the bank accounts of the lodger and deceased show any evidence of
fixed monthly/weekly payments for the lodgings?
Is the nature of the deceased's illness or the treatment(s) one of
those that affects mental capacity to give informed consent?
Was the deceased aware of what was goign on around him during the
wedding ceremony and did the officiator do any mental capacity testing >before proceeding with the ceremony?
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?
Was the wedding hastily planned in days (or even hours) or was there a >longer build up such as publishing the banns, booking a wedding venue,
a recpetion, guest list, wedding present list etc?
Is there an age difference between the lodger and deceased?
I many have missed this in teh thread but am I right in understanding
that there are no children of either the lodger or deceased?
I many have missed this in teh thread but am I right in understanding
that there are no children of either the lodger or deceased?
Indeed, no children at all.
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise
(which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
It would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the
previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also put
the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than one,
but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On 27/02/2026 14:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <9955824998.8550eece@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:18 on Fri,
27 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was jointly >>>> owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased.
Not so.-a That makes no difference to the spousal IHT relief.
AIUI there are numerous exceptions, for example if the spouse's
current permanent residence is outside the UK. The house in question
is worth about half the estate's -u3m total value.
I have been following this thread with interest..... its actually
provoked more questions than answers.......
Did the deceased and the lodger actually enter into an intimate
relationship before getting married?
Were other people aware that the deceased & lodger were in a
relationship or was everyone taken by surprise with the wedding?
Were there any guests & how many at the wedding?
Did their financial affairs become linked prior to marriage such as
joint accounts etc? (I note the lodger's name was not on the house deeds)
Do the bank accounts of the lodger and deceased show any evidence of
fixed monthly/weekly payments for the lodgings?
Is the nature of the deceased's illness or the treatment(s) one of those that affects mental capacity to give informed consent?
Was the deceased aware of what was goign on around him during the
wedding ceremony and did the officiator do any mental capacity testing before proceeding with the ceremony?
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?
Was the wedding hastily planned in days (or even hours) or was there a longer build up such as publishing the banns, booking a wedding venue, a recpetion, guest list, wedding present list etc?
Is there an age difference between the lodger and deceased?
I many have missed this in teh thread but am I right in understanding
that there are no children of either the lodger or deceased?
S.
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise >>>> (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
It would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the
previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also
put the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
Maybe he had other things on his mind.
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?
No.
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than one,
but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than one,
but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long
someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* overestimated.
It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, as that's normally
best for the patient's welfare.
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than one,
but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long
someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* overestimated.
It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, as that's normally
best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live. And
for that reason he was personally opposed to the Assisted Dying Bill. I didn't argue the point with him. I think a decision to opt for assisted dying would not be purely on the basis of a doctor's time estimate. It
would also involve assessing what palliative care you can expect, your
pain threshold, your overall quality of life.
I many have missed this in teh thread but am I right in
understanding that there are no children of either the lodger or >>>deceased?
Indeed, no children at all.
Does the deceased have any siblings or parents? (thinking of the
intestacy laws)
Was the deceased on good terms with his immediate family?
On 28/02/2026 12:29, Roland Perry wrote:
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?No.
In short, as you said previously, there's no reason to question whether
the marriage was valid.
Even if the marriage was not consummated, that does not make it void.
Non-consummation would be grounds for asking the court to annul the
marriage, but that's not going to happen in the circumstances.
So, the position is simple. They married. The length of the marriage
doesn't matter. He died intestate. There are no children. The
intestacy rules apply.
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord'sWhat 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
demise (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done. >>>
It would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the >>previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also
put the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
Maybe he had other things on his mind.
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
Why on earth didn't they put it in his diary?
On 27/02/2026 21:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri,
27 Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's >>>>>demise (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done. >>>>What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
It would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the >>>previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also
put the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
Maybe he had other things on his mind.
I wonder if the OP has seen the will? Who were the beneficiaries going
to be if it was not the lodger before the marriage?
Given the value of the estate appearing to being over u3 m, Getting
married does save a huge IHT bill which would almost certainly have
been circa u1.2 m even after the nil rate band of 325k.
That is definately a way to make Rachel weep!
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long
someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* overestimated.
It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, as that's normally
best for the patient's welfare.
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long >>someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic,
as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
And for that reason he was personally opposed to the Assisted Dying
Bill. I didn't argue the point with him. I think a decision to opt for >assisted dying would not be purely on the basis of a doctor's time
estimate. It would also involve assessing what palliative care you can >expect, your pain threshold, your overall quality of life.
On 28/02/2026 09:26, SH wrote:
On 27/02/2026 14:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <9955824998.8550eece@uninhabited.net>, at 13:39:18 onI have been following this thread with interest..... its actually >>provoked more questions than answers.......
Fri, 27 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
I have an idea that the "no IHT" only applies if the house was jointly >>>>> owned, which it wasn't. Being in the sole name of the deceased.
Not so.a That makes no difference to the spousal IHT relief.
AIUI there are numerous exceptions, for example if the spouse's
current permanent residence is outside the UK. The house in question
is worth about half the estate's u3m total value.
Did the deceased and the lodger actually enter into an intimate >>relationship before getting married?
Were other people aware that the deceased & lodger were in a >>relationship or was everyone taken by surprise with the wedding?
Were there any guests & how many at the wedding?
Did their financial affairs become linked prior to marriage such as >>joint accounts etc? (I note the lodger's name was not on the house
deeds)
Do the bank accounts of the lodger and deceased show any evidence of >>fixed monthly/weekly payments for the lodgings?
Is the nature of the deceased's illness or the treatment(s) one of
those that affects mental capacity to give informed consent?
Was the deceased aware of what was goign on around him during the >>wedding ceremony and did the officiator do any mental capacity testing >>before proceeding with the ceremony?
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?
Was the wedding hastily planned in days (or even hours) or was there
a longer build up such as publishing the banns, booking a wedding
venue, a recpetion, guest list, wedding present list etc?
Is there an age difference between the lodger and deceased?
I many have missed this in teh thread but am I right in
understanding that there are no children of either the lodger or >>deceased?
S.
and is there any link at all between the lodger and the person who
advised the deceased to get married?
(thinking of a possible conspiracy along the lines of pay me % of the
estate in return for me "advising" the deceased to marry you"
In message <10nv4l7$3g37o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:55 on Sat, 28 Feb
2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 28/02/2026 12:29, Roland Perry wrote:
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?-aNo.
In short, as you said previously, there's no reason to question
whether the marriage was valid.
I didn't make any suggestion it was invalid. That's the point anyway, it
was about *rent* during the year it took to get probate.
Even if the marriage was not consummated, that does not make it void.
Irrelevant.
Non-consummation would be grounds for asking the court to annul the
marriage, but that's not going to happen in the circumstances.
So, the position is simple. They married. The length of the marriage
doesn't matter.-a He died intestate. There are no children. The
intestacy rules apply.
But what about the rent, the rent?
In message <n0ef9lFrt0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:05:57 on Fri, 27 Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's
demise-a (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was >>>>> done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
-aIt would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the
previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also
put-a the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
Maybe he had other things on his mind.
Yes he did, but a simple will could potentially have been drummed up.
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one,-a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
Why on earth didn't they put it in his diary?
What's that supposed to mean?
On 02/03/2026 07:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nv4l7$3g37o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:55 on Sat, 28
Feb 2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 28/02/2026 12:29, Roland Perry wrote:
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married?aNo.
In short, as you said previously, there's no reason to question
whether the marriage was valid.
I didn't make any suggestion it was invalid. That's the point
anyway, it was about *rent* during the year it took to get probate.
Even if the marriage was not consummated, that does not make it
void.
Irrelevant.
Non-consummation would be grounds for asking the court to annul the >>>marriage, but that's not going to happen in the circumstances.
So, the position is simple. They married. The length of the marriage >>>doesn't matter.a He died intestate. There are no children. The
intestacy rules apply.
But what about the rent, the rent?
Wives don't pay rent.
What's your interest in wanting to know, anyway?
On 02/03/2026 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0ef9lFrt0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:05:57 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri,
27 Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's >>>>>>demisea (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done. >>>>>What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
aIt would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will
(the previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and >>>>also puta the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
Maybe he had other things on his mind.
Yes he did, but a simple will could potentially have been drummed
up.
He presumably married on his death bed to ensure that his wife
benefitted properly from his estate.
She will now. She may not have under the terms of any previous Will.
He did what was important.
Give him a break.
What's that supposed to mean?They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>one,a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
Why on earth didn't they put it in his diary?
He may not have been so inconsiderate to die early if he had a proper >appointment.
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one,-a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
-a On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long
someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated.-a It must be built in professionally to be optimistic,
as that's normally-a best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an
aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
In message <10o1r3k$d908$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:56:19 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one,-a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long
someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, as
that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
It's not always the case. Someone close to me was told that there was
no recorded instance of anyone with their condition living more than
5yrs, although they didn't give an option on how long through that hypothetical five years the patient would live. 20yrs later, they are
still alive!
Being over-optimistic is not inevitably good for the patient's welfare, because they may be much happier to know that their affairs are in
order,
and getting a move on is imperative.
For example, some ill-health-retirement pensions allow the beneficiary
to take a lump sum or an annuity, and if that has a "break even" at say 8yrs, it matters to some extent whether the patient thinks they will
live 4yrs or 12yrs.
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 Mar
2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long
someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic,
as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an
aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas.
They die because that organ is incapacitated.
On 02/03/2026 07:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10o1r3k$d908$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:56:19 on Sun, 1 Mar >>2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:It's not always the case. Someone close to me was told that there
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>one,a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how long >>>someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic,
as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
was
no recorded instance of anyone with their condition living more than >>5yrs, although they didn't give an option on how long through that >>hypothetical five years the patient would live. 20yrs later, they are >>still alive!
Being over-optimistic is not inevitably good for the patient's
welfare, because they may be much happier to know that their affairs
are in order,
Which of course he ensured by marrying his wife before he died.
and getting a move on is imperative.
Indeed! It's a lesson for us all.
For example, some ill-health-retirement pensions allow the
beneficiary to take a lump sum or an annuity, and if that has a
"break even" at say 8yrs, it matters to some extent whether the
patient thinks they will live 4yrs or 12yrs.
Then they need to engage an actuary who will consult a probability table.
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1
Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>one,a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
a On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how
long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* >>>>overestimated.a It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>as that's normallya best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months >>>ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas.
They die because that organ is incapacitated.
In message <n0kul2F17blU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:04:50 on Mon, 2 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nv4l7$3g37o$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:55 on Sat, 28
Feb-a 2026, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
On 28/02/2026 12:29, Roland Perry wrote:
Did the lodger exert undue influence on the deceased to get married? >>>>> -aNo.
In short, as you said previously, there's no reason to question
whether the marriage was valid.
-aI didn't make any suggestion it was invalid. That's the point
anyway, it-a was about *rent* during the year it took to get probate.
Even if the marriage was not consummated, that does not make it void.
-aIrrelevant.
Non-consummation would be grounds for asking the court to annul the
marriage, but that's not going to happen in the circumstances.
So, the position is simple. They married. The length of the marriage
doesn't matter.-a He died intestate. There are no children. The
intestacy rules apply.
-aBut what about the rent, the rent?
Wives don't pay rent.
They don't own the house, the estate does. It's not their primary
residence, rather than a second 'home'. Why shouldn't they pay rent to
the estate until probate is granted, the intestacy sorted out, and then eventually (but inevitably) own the house?
What's your interest in wanting to know, anyway?
Asking a legal question in a legal newsgroup, I didn't realise that was forbidden.
In message <n0kurpF17blU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:24 on Mon, 2 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0ef9lFrt0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:05:57 on Fri, 27
Feb-a 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri,
27-a Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's
demise-a (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all >>>>>>> was done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
-aIt would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new willMaybe he had other things on his mind.
(the-a previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding)
and also-a put-a the house into joint names, rather than his sole name. >>>>
-aYes he did, but a simple will could potentially have been drummed up.
He presumably married on his death bed to ensure that his wife
benefitted properly from his estate.
Which would have been much better organised with even just a simple will.
-aShe will now.-a She may not have under the terms of any previous Will.
We don't know that. But it's not obvious who else the estate would have
been left to.
However, even years before getting married the house could
have been put in joint names, which also would have simplified things.
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put
into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications
if the original owner doesn't live seven years. Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
He did what was important.
Give him a break.
-aWhat's that supposed to mean?They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one,-a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
Why on earth didn't they put it in his diary?
He may not have been so inconsiderate to die early if he had a proper
appointment.
Appointment with whom?
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put
into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications
if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, 2 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1
Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how
long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>> as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an
aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas.
They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because they
can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver)
which matters.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:39:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put
into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications
if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Yes.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
It's part of it. Family farms are passed to the next generation at some >point, and that gift will generally be IHTable under the new regime.
In message <10o3lpr$112cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:03 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:39:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put
into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications
if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Yes.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
It's part of it. Family farms are passed to the next generation at some
point, and that gift will generally be IHTable under the new regime.
But why doesn't the older generation farmer gift the farm to his
offspring sufficiently early he has at least 7yrs expected lifespan?
And this isn't just about farms (although they have tractors to block
the roads when they feel aggrieved). It's the same for *any* family
business living over the shop.
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1
Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>> one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how
long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>>> as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an
aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months >>>>> ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas.
They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because they
can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver)
which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas (and adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
In message <10o3lpr$112cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:03 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:39:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put
into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications
if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Yes.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
It's part of it. Family farms are passed to the next generation at some
point, and that gift will generally be IHTable under the new regime.
But why doesn't the older generation farmer gift the farm to his
offspring sufficiently early he has at least 7yrs expected lifespan?
On 02/03/2026 10:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10o3lpr$112cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:03 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:39:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put >>>> into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications >>>> if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Yes.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
It's part of it. Family farms are passed to the next generation at some
point, and that gift will generally be IHTable under the new regime.
But why doesn't the older generation farmer gift the farm to his
offspring sufficiently early he has at least 7yrs expected lifespan?
They can, and now they have to if they want to avoid IHT. Previously, passing on farms to offspring was not subject to IHT at all, so there
was no point in doing it early. Now there's a whole tranche of farmers (whose average age is currently about 67 I believe) who may not survive another 7 years, so may be caught whatever they plan and do now.
And this isn't just about farms (although they have tractors to block
the roads when they feel aggrieved). It's the same for *any* family
business living over the shop.
Farming, though, is an extreme asset-rich, cash-poor business. If the working assets have to be sold to pay an unexpected tax bill, or even an expected one down the line, the farm ceases. There's nothing with which
to carry it on.
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
On 02/03/2026 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, 2 Mar >>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 >>>>> Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>>> one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how >>>>>>> long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always*
overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>>>> as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>>>> aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months >>>>>> ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas. >>>> They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because they >>> can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver)
which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas (and
adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
Of course, if you can remove the organ with the aggressive cancer, it
won't be that which kills you. Leave it alone, though, and I think you
need to worry more about that than where it may have spread.
Anyway, an organ that can be removed is by definition not a vital organ.
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
In message <n0lc3eF36qeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it again. Right, I see.
The house that I live in was sold off by the estate to pay double death duties when heirs to the estate died off in quick succession. TBH I
think the second one being an inept spendthrift was more relevant.
On 2 Mar 2026 at 12:13:14 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2026 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, 2 Mar >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 >>>>>> Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>>>> one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how >>>>>>>> long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* >>>>>>>> overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>>>>> as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>>>>> aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months >>>>>>> ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live. >>>>
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas. >>>>> They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because they >>>> can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver)
which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas (and >>> adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
Of course, if you can remove the organ with the aggressive cancer, it
won't be that which kills you. Leave it alone, though, and I think you
need to worry more about that than where it may have spread.
Anyway, an organ that can be removed is by definition not a vital organ.
That rather contradicts your statement above, saying the pancreas was a vital organ. And just to contradict your above declaration I have a neighbour who has been cancer free for about five years following complete removal of his liver. I leave how that works to ingenuity of the reader.
In message <n0lc3eF36qeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2 Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it again. Right, I see.
On 2 Mar 2026 at 11:54:21 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2026 10:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10o3lpr$112cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:03 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:39:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put >>>>> into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications >>>>> if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Yes.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
It's part of it. Family farms are passed to the next generation at some >>>> point, and that gift will generally be IHTable under the new regime.
But why doesn't the older generation farmer gift the farm to his
offspring sufficiently early he has at least 7yrs expected lifespan?
They can, and now they have to if they want to avoid IHT. Previously,
passing on farms to offspring was not subject to IHT at all, so there
was no point in doing it early. Now there's a whole tranche of farmers
(whose average age is currently about 67 I believe) who may not survive
another 7 years, so may be caught whatever they plan and do now.
And this isn't just about farms (although they have tractors to block
the roads when they feel aggrieved). It's the same for *any* family
business living over the shop.
Farming, though, is an extreme asset-rich, cash-poor business. If the
working assets have to be sold to pay an unexpected tax bill, or even an
expected one down the line, the farm ceases. There's nothing with which
to carry it on.
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Land does not disappear if a farm goes out of business.
Any more than housing
disappears when private landlords go out of business.
On 02/03/2026 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0lc3eF36qeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it again.
Right, I see.
The fashion right now is to turn the land over to solar farms since it generates more income than growing crops and with no effort or risk to
the farmer (apart from being very unpopular with their neighbours).
On 02/03/2026 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0lc3eF36qeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2
Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it
again.
Right, I see.
The fashion right now is to turn the land over to solar farms since it generates more income than growing crops and with no effort or risk to
the farmer (apart from being very unpopular with their neighbours).
It is a weird unintended consequence of them losing various EU farm
subsidies to grow foodstuffs after Brexit.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it again. Right, I see.**
In message <n0bdudFgmqhU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:24:28 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
-aLandlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the
spouse?
Only for the last week of the landlord's life.
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that fact
as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal
lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g. the
Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on the
mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or evicted
without a court order.
And that works if they've only been a spouse (rather than a friend who
was a lodger) for a week?
But my question isn't about eviction, rather
it's whether rent is due to the intestate estate, in the year before
said spouse-for-a-week gets appointed as PR, and the months after that before probate is obtained naming them as the beneficiary.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their home
rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and the
home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if they were an owner.
In the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise
(which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
-aActually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you
home-a from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK
is my-a girlfriend.
With the greatest of respect, this is a legal newsgroup not a medical
one.-a For the purposes of this discussion, the NHS' definition of NoK
is completely irrelevant.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living relative.
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
But not instantly (in the absence of a will) the PR, nor the owner of
any of the deceased's property.
-aFor perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also
has-a two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal
permanent-a residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's
house.
Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon as
they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the house became
their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home rights
above).
Even without having filed the form?
-aYes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
I do not see what difference you think this makes.-a Perhaps you could
clarify?
It's not inevitable that the ex-lodger and instant spouse will be
appointed PR. Likely, but not inevitable.
-aOnce they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm
interested-a in.
Are you able / willing to say why you're interested in the previous year?
That previous year, between the landlord's death and PR (later there was probate), can the "lodger" squat paying no rental, or should they at
least be putting it into escrow for whoever eventually gets appointed as
PR.
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
-aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise
(which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
It would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the
previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also put
the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than one,
but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
What is the precise relationship between the deceased and the lodger /
Nok / PR?
The lodger was the deceased's spouse for a week, before he died.
Appointed PR at least a year later.
What is the approximate value of the estate please and did the
deceased have any children?
No children have emerged from the woodwork. The estate is worth about -u3m.
Was the house owned solely by the deceased, or as joint tenants or as
tenants in common?
Solely by the deceased.
-aGiven the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
-aBut no payments made anyway.
Ever, or only since the death?
Both.
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the
lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time
the-a beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to log
the-a wine they've drunk.
The amount the lodger must pay remains the same after the death of the
landlord as it was beforehand.-a "Market rent" does not enter the
equation nor does "escrow".
It may be suggested to the lodger, but is in no way mandated, that
they set aside the rent money, preferably in a separate account, but
this is some considerable way short of paying "market rent into escrow".
OK, that clarifies. However a third party appeared offering the estate
many thousands a month rental, but this was turned down by the not-yet-
PR. Who continued living there about half the time (and in their own properties the other half of the time).
On 2 Mar 2026 at 12:13:14 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2026 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, 2 Mar >>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 >>>>>> Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>>>> one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how >>>>>>>> long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* >>>>>>>> overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>>>>> as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>>>>> aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months >>>>>>> ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live. >>>>
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas. >>>>> They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because they >>>> can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver)
which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas (and >>> adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
Of course, if you can remove the organ with the aggressive cancer, it
won't be that which kills you. Leave it alone, though, and I think you
need to worry more about that than where it may have spread.
Anyway, an organ that can be removed is by definition not a vital organ.
That rather contradicts your statement above, saying the pancreas was a vital organ. And just to contradict your above declaration I have a neighbour who has been cancer free for about five years following complete removal of his liver. I leave how that works to ingenuity of the reader.
On 02/03/2026 13:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 12:13:14 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2026 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon,
2 Mar
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 >>>>>>> Mar-a 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>>>>> one,-a but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
-a-a-a On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how >>>>>>>>> long-a someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* >>>>>>>>> overestimated.-a It must be built in professionally to be
optimistic,
as that's normally-a best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>>>>>> aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 >>>>>>>> months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to >>>>>>>> live.
-a-a That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the
pancreas.
They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because >>>>> they
can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver) >>>>> which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas
(and
adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
Of course, if you can remove the organ with the aggressive cancer, it
won't be that which kills you.-a Leave it alone, though, and I think you >>> need to worry more about that than where it may have spread.
Anyway, an organ that can be removed is by definition not a vital organ.
Well, the pancreas is generally regarded as a vital organ, for example:
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/pancreas
That's perhaps why it is only removed in a very small number of cases. Heaven knows what external plumbing or extreme treatment for life is
then required to keep the patient alive and what the prognosis may be. I imagine a major side-effect of removal is death.
That rather contradicts your statement above, saying the pancreas was
a vital
organ. And just to contradict your above declaration I have a
neighbour who
has been cancer free for about five years following complete removal
of his
liver. I leave how that works to ingenuity of the reader.
The existence of possible external machines and pipework that can mimic
the function of a vital organ does not detract from its being a vital
organ in the first place.
On 02/03/2026 13:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 11:54:21 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2026 10:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10o3lpr$112cq$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:38:03 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 08:39:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
Although that makes me want to ask another question - if a house is put >>>>>> into joint names without being spouses, does that have IHT implications >>>>>> if the original owner doesn't live seven years.
Yes.
Is this what the
mechanism behind the "family farm tax" is all about...
It's part of it. Family farms are passed to the next generation at some >>>>> point, and that gift will generally be IHTable under the new regime.
But why doesn't the older generation farmer gift the farm to his
offspring sufficiently early he has at least 7yrs expected lifespan?
They can, and now they have to if they want to avoid IHT. Previously,
passing on farms to offspring was not subject to IHT at all, so there
was no point in doing it early. Now there's a whole tranche of farmers
(whose average age is currently about 67 I believe) who may not survive
another 7 years, so may be caught whatever they plan and do now.
And this isn't just about farms (although they have tractors to block
the roads when they feel aggrieved). It's the same for *any* family
business living over the shop.
Farming, though, is an extreme asset-rich, cash-poor business. If the
working assets have to be sold to pay an unexpected tax bill, or even an >>> expected one down the line, the farm ceases. There's nothing with which >>> to carry it on.
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Land does not disappear if a farm goes out of business.
But it won't be farmed, and that's the point.
Any more than housing
disappears when private landlords go out of business.
There is always demand for that. For working farms, I think it is
rather different.
On 02/03/2026 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0lc3eF36qeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2 Mar
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it again.
Right, I see.
It's hard to see an economic argument for it under the current tax regime.
I invite you to search in Google for 'how hard is it to make a living
from farming in uk'.
On 02/03/2026 13:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 12:13:14 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2026 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, 2 Mar >>>>> 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 >>>>>>> Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>>>>> one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how >>>>>>>>> long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* >>>>>>>>> overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be optimistic, >>>>>>>>> as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>>>>>> aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 months >>>>>>>> ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to live. >>>>>
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the pancreas. >>>>>> They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because they >>>>> can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver) >>>>> which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas (and >>>> adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
Of course, if you can remove the organ with the aggressive cancer, it
won't be that which kills you. Leave it alone, though, and I think you
need to worry more about that than where it may have spread.
Anyway, an organ that can be removed is by definition not a vital organ.
Well, the pancreas is generally regarded as a vital organ, for example:
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/pancreas
That's perhaps why it is only removed in a very small number of cases.
Heaven knows what external plumbing or extreme treatment for life is
then required to keep the patient alive and what the prognosis may be.
I imagine a major side-effect of removal is death.
That rather contradicts your statement above, saying the pancreas was a vital
organ. And just to contradict your above declaration I have a neighbour who >> has been cancer free for about five years following complete removal of his >> liver. I leave how that works to ingenuity of the reader.
The existence of possible external machines and pipework that can mimic
the function of a vital organ
does not detract from its being a vital--
organ in the first place.
On 02/03/2026 14:23, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2026 13:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 12:13:14 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:Well, the pancreas is generally regarded as a vital organ, for example:
On 02/03/2026 11:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2026 at 10:50:53 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>
In message <n0l16oF17blU4@mid.individual.net>, at 08:48:23 on Mon, >>>>>> 2 Mar
2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0jvmpFr78bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 23:16:41 on Sun, 1 >>>>>>>> Mar 2026, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/03/2026 16:56, GB wrote:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than >>>>>>>>>>> one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
On several occasions, I had good reason for asking doctors how >>>>>>>>>> long someone had to live. My experience is that they *always* >>>>>>>>>> overestimated. It must be built in professionally to be
optimistic,
as that's normally best for the patient's welfare.
However, about a week ago I spoke to a man with terminal cancer, an >>>>>>>>> aggressive form of pancreatic cancer in fact, who said that 18 >>>>>>>>> months
ago he was told by his oncologist that he had just 6 months to >>>>>>>>> live.
That's about right (4-6 months). However, what people die
*of* is secondary cancer,
Not if it's an aggressive cancer in a vital organ such as the
pancreas.
They die because that organ is incapacitated.
Don't give up the day-job. That's not the process involved, because >>>>>> they
can stent the pancreas, it's spread to other organs (often the liver) >>>>>> which matters.
Indeed, occasionally it is appropriate to remove the whole pancreas
(and
adjacent bits) in the hope of a cure.
Of course, if you can remove the organ with the aggressive cancer, it
won't be that which kills you. Leave it alone, though, and I think you >>>> need to worry more about that than where it may have spread.
Anyway, an organ that can be removed is by definition not a vital organ. >>
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/pancreas
That's perhaps why it is only removed in a very small number of cases.
Heaven knows what external plumbing or extreme treatment for life is
then required to keep the patient alive and what the prognosis may be. I
imagine a major side-effect of removal is death.
That rather contradicts your statement above, saying the pancreas was
a vital
organ. And just to contradict your above declaration I have a
neighbour who
has been cancer free for about five years following complete removal
of his
liver. I leave how that works to ingenuity of the reader.
The existence of possible external machines and pipework that can mimic
the function of a vital organ does not detract from its being a vital
organ in the first place.
I was aware of dialysis machines in the case of kidney failure but
didn't think there was a similar treatment for total liver failure?
On 27/02/2026 11:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdudFgmqhU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:24:28 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
Landlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying the
lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the
spouse?
Only for the last week of the landlord's life.
The duration is immaterial. They were legally married at the point of
death. All benefits arising from being spouses are in play.
Unless and until there is proof of foul play which you've clearly stated
is not even suspected, never mind evidenced.
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with that fact
as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal
lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g. the
Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on the
mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or evicted
without a court order.
And that works if they've only been a spouse (rather than a friend who
was a lodger) for a week?
Yes. The second the marriage was legalised, the spousal relationship
took effect with all that entails. The creation of the spousal
relationship supersedes any landlord / tenant relationship that may have existed previously, but as no rent was being paid and the agreement had
not been formalised, it is an arguable that the spouse was not even a
lodger prior to becoming a spouse. (Possibly a licensee, but more
likely a guest.)
But my question isn't about eviction, rather
it's whether rent is due to the intestate estate, in the year before
said spouse-for-a-week gets appointed as PR, and the months after that
before probate is obtained naming them as the beneficiary.
Widows / widowers are not expected to make payments to the estate in
lieu of rent whilst probate is progressing. If you believe otherwise, I would need to press you for a source of your belief.
Additionally, if the spouse completes Form HR1 to formalise their home
rights with the Land Registry their interests are protected and the
home cannot be sold or mortgaged without their consent.
It should be noted that home rights do not automatically give the
spouse ownership of the property, but it permits them to occupy the
home as if they were an owner.
In the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's demise
(which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
Filing the form merely formalises the rights which were automatically
created at the point of marriage. If it is unlikely that said rights
were going to be formally challenged, there is no need to go to the
trouble and expense of formalising them.
But they exist, whether formalised or not.
Actually, the NHS's definition of NoK is "someone who can drive you
home from the hospital". Doesn't even need to be a relative. My NoK
is my girlfriend.
With the greatest of respect, this is a legal newsgroup not a medical
one. For the purposes of this discussion, the NHS' definition of NoK
is completely irrelevant.
As far as intestacy is concerned, the NoK is the closest living relative. >>>
In the instant case, the spouse is the NoK.
But not instantly (in the absence of a will) the PR, nor the owner of
any of the deceased's property.
No. But, as previously explained. the widow/er has a right to live in
the house without needing to pay "market rent into escrow", which was
your original query, or indeed any rent, in any form, to anyone or anywhere.
I do not think I can make the point more clearly.
For perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also
has two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal
permanent residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's
house.
Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon as
they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the house became
their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home rights
above).
Even without having filed the form?
Yes. The form merely formalises the rights already granted by the marriage.
Yes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate
estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
I do not see what difference you think this makes. Perhaps you could
clarify?
It's not inevitable that the ex-lodger and instant spouse will be
appointed PR. Likely, but not inevitable.
I can think of no circumstances that could be applied to this case in
which it is anything but inevitable that the spouse is the primary Next
of kin and therefore has priority to administer the estate.
Divorce or legal separation? No!
Presence of a valid will? No!
Invalid / Void marriage? No!
What circumstances do you have in mind that apply to the instant case in which the spouse is not primary next of kin and therefore has priority
to administer the estate.
I am genuinely interested, because, having giving the matter some
thought, I cannot envision any.
--That previous year, between the landlord's death and PR (later there wasOnce they *are* the PR, I agree. It's the previous year I'm
interested in.
Are you able / willing to say why you're interested in the previous year? >>
probate), can the "lodger" squat paying no rental, or should they at
least be putting it into escrow for whoever eventually gets appointed as
PR.
As previously advised, a *lodger* is advised to put aside the money they
have previously been paying in rent to forward to the PR, once
appointed, to go to the estate when demanded by the PR.
In the instant case, the *lodger* had been paying zero rent meaning the amount the *lodger* should put aside, (note "aside" - not "in escrow"),
would be -u0 per rental period.
However, the second the marriage took place, the lodger, (if that is
indeed what they were), became a spouse with all the rights that this entailed, included the right to live in the matrimonial home unless and
until probate is completed, absent a specific agreement to the contrary, which does not exist in the instant case.
Regards
S.P.
On 02/03/2026 08:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0kurpF17blU2@mid.individual.net>, at 08:08:24 on Mon, 2
Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/03/2026 07:19, Roland Perry wrote:Which would have been much better organised with even just a simple >>will.
In message <n0ef9lFrt0U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:05:57 on Fri,
27 Feba 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on >>>>>>Fri, 27a Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord's >>>>>>>>demisea (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done.
What 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
aIt would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will >>>>>>(thea previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) >>>>>>and alsoa puta the house into joint names, rather than his sole name. >>>>>Maybe he had other things on his mind.
aYes he did, but a simple will could potentially have been drummed
He presumably married on his death bed to ensure that his wife >>>benefitted properly from his estate.
Who would that have benefitted apart from his wife, in your opinion?
You? A friend of yours?
If he meant his wife to inherit the lot, as it appears, he did what was >important. Intestate estates are really not difficult to sort out.
aShe will now.a She may not have under the terms of any previous Will.We don't know that. But it's not obvious who else the estate would
have been left to.
Then let it rest. Why are you so concerned?
However, even years before getting married the house could have been
put in joint names, which also would have simplified things.
For whom?
What does it matter to you?
On 27/02/2026 11:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdudFgmqhU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:24:28 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 24/02/2026 17:30, Roland Perry wrote:
Only for the last week of the landlord's life.aLandlord was on deathbed, and someone advised him that marrying
the lodger would make things simpler and potentially more tax >>>>efficient.
The person you have been referring to as a lodger is, in fact, the >>>spouse?
The duration is immaterial. They were legally married at the point of >death. All benefits arising from being spouses are in play.
Unless and until there is proof of foul play which you've clearly
stated is not even suspected, never mind evidenced.
With respect, it would have been useful if you had led with thatAnd that works if they've only been a spouse (rather than a friend
fact as that is something of a game changer.
A partner, never mind a spouse, is generally not considered a legal >>>lodger, nor can they be recognised as such for tax purposes, (e.g.
the Rent-a-Room Scheme).
A spouse usually has "Home Rights" meaning they have a right to live
in the matrimonial home, even if they do not own it, or are not on
the mortgage or tenancy and they cannot be treated as a lodger or >>>evicted without a court order.
who was a lodger) for a week?
Yes. The second the marriage was legalised, the spousal relationship
took effect with all that entails. The creation of the spousal
relationship supersedes any landlord / tenant relationship that may
have existed previously, but as no rent was being paid and the
agreement had not been formalised, it is an arguable that the spouse
was not even a lodger prior to becoming a spouse. (Possibly a
licensee, but more likely a guest.)
But my question isn't about eviction, rather it's whether rent is
due to the intestate estate, in the year before said
spouse-for-a-week gets appointed as PR, and the months after that
before probate is obtained naming them as the beneficiary.
Widows / widowers are not expected to make payments to the estate in
lieu of rent whilst probate is progressing. If you believe otherwise,
I would need to press you for a source of your belief.
as previously explained. the widow/er has a right to live in the house >without needing to pay "market rent into escrow", which was your
original query, or indeed any rent, in any form, to anyone or anywhere.
I do not think I can make the point more clearly.
Even without having filed the form?aFor perhaps 50yrs a friend, and for one week a spouse. Lodger also >>>>hasa two houses of their own, one of which I expect is their formal >>>>permanenta residence, but was a roughly 50% lodger in the landlord's
Regardless of their living arrangements prior to marriage, as soon
as they married, the spouse ceased being a lodger and the house
became their matrimonial home with all that this entails (see home >>>rights above).
Yes. The form merely formalises the rights already granted by the marriage.
aYes. And being the spouse is now the beneficiary of the intestate >>>>estate. But for about a year no-one had yet been appointed as PR.
I do not see what difference you think this makes.a Perhaps you
could clarify?
It's not inevitable that the ex-lodger and instant spouse will be >>appointed PR. Likely, but not inevitable.
I can think of no circumstances that could be applied to this case in
which it is anything but inevitable that the spouse is the primary Next
of kin and therefore has priority to administer the estate.
Divorce or legal separation? No!
Presence of a valid will? No!
Invalid / Void marriage? No!
What circumstances do you have in mind that apply to the instant case
in which the spouse is not primary next of kin and therefore has
priority to administer the estate.
I am genuinely interested, because, having giving the matter some
thought, I cannot envision any.
the second the marriage took place, the lodger, (if that is indeed what
they were), became a spouse with all the rights that this entailed,
included the right to live in the matrimonial home unless and until
probate is completed, absent a specific agreement to the contrary,
which does not exist in the instant case.
What circumstances do you have in mind that apply to the instant case in
which the spouse is not primary next of kin and therefore has priority
to administer the estate.
I am genuinely interested, because, having giving the matter some
thought, I cannot envision any.
Dementia? - a deputy might need to be appointed by the Court?
On 27/02/2026 17:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0dhosFqjbsU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:42:02 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
aIn the week between the death-bed wedding and the landlord'sWhat 'paperwork' do you have in mind?
demise (which caught everyone on the hop) no paperwork at all was done. >>>
It would have helped a lot if the deceased had made a new will (the >>previous one being automatically nullified by the wedding) and also
put the house into joint names, rather than his sole name.
They did think he might live for three or four weeks, rather than
one, but that's just yet another thing the NHS got wrong.
Why do you think any of that might have helped? What difference do you >think it will make to the eventual outcome which is the spouse getting
the lot, assuming that was the deceased's wish?
On 27/02/2026 12:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
What is the precise relationship between the deceased and the lodgerThe lodger was the deceased's spouse for a week, before he died. >>Appointed PR at least a year later.
/ Nok / PR?
So a spouse then, rather than a lodger, regardless of the form the >relationship took prior to marriage.
What is the approximate value of the estate please and did theNo children have emerged from the woodwork. The estate is worth
deceased have any children?
about u3m.
Thereby demonstrating that marriage was an eminently sensible move to
avoid sending a large chunk of change in the general direction of the >Government's coffers.
Was the house owned solely by the deceased, or as joint tenants orSolely by the deceased.
as tenants in common?
Meaning the spouse needs to complete form AS1 (Assent) to transfer the >property into their name, form AP1 (Change the Register) and submit
both forms plus a copy of the death certificate, and Probate to the
Land Registry along with the necessary fees and they become the legal >registered owner of the property.
Were the property held as Joint tenants, the spouse would still need to >complete form DJP (Deceased Joint Proprietor) to remove the name of the >deceased.
In short, there's forms to complete and fees to pay regardless of the >ownership structure.
Neither is particularly onerous, IMHO. YMMV.
In the name of completeness, had the deceased been minded to change the >ownership structure whilst still alive, they would have needed to
complete forms TR1 (Transfer of Registered Title) and AP1, and then
send them along with relevant ID
and the necessary fees to the Land Registry.
The astute will notice that the only difference in doing this prior to
or after the death is the use of form TR1 (if still alive) or form AS1
(if deceased).
If I were given a time to live of a few weeks, I do not think I would
want to spend a notable portion of that time completing forms that can
be sorted just as easily once I have shuffled off my mortal coil.
Again, YMMV.
Both.aGiven the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
aBut no payments made anyway.
Ever, or only since the death?
Meaning it is likely that, prior to the marriage, they were at best a >"licensee" (a sub-category of lodger with even fewer rights than a >traditional lodger) but more likely a "guest".
However, all of this is academic. They were married at the point of
death and were thus a spouse.
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the >>>>lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time >>>>thea beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to
log thea wine they've drunk.
The amount the lodger must pay remains the same after the death of
the landlord as it was beforehand.a "Market rent" does not enter the >>>equation nor does "escrow".
It may be suggested to the lodger, but is in no way mandated, that
they set aside the rent money, preferably in a separate account, but >>>this is some considerable way short of paying "market rent into escrow".
OK, that clarifies. However a third party appeared offering the
estate many thousands a month rental, but this was turned down by the >>not-yet- PR. Who continued living there about half the time (and in
their own properties the other half of the time).
Speaking strictly legally, (which is the default for this group), the
spouse had no option but to refuse the offer of a tenancy from a third
party as they could not legally grant a tenancy to someone until they
were formally appointed as the PR.
I confess that I still haven't the first clue where you're heading with
this thread.
On 02/03/2026 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0lc3eF36qeU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:54:21 on Mon, 2
Mar 2026, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.
Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it
again. Right, I see.
It's hard to see an economic argument for it under the current tax regime.
I invite you to search in Google for 'how hard is it to make a living
from farming in uk'.
The fashion right now is to turn the land over to solar farms since it
generates more income than growing crops and with no effort or risk to
the farmer (apart from being very unpopular with their neighbours).
Or perhaps both crops and solar at the same time ("agrivoltaics").
On 02/03/2026 02:36 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
And if farms cease, so does the food they produce.Because no-one will ever, ever, buy that land and grow food on it
again. Right, I see.**
But has any UK government any (moral) right to operate a tax system
which simply forces sale of land owned by a family or individual to
someone else and is designed for that purpose?
Are "wealth taxes" (and inheritance taxes masquerading as wealth
taxes), manipulated to appeal to know-nothings riven with envy, a good
thing in any sense?
Thou shalt not covet...
Who was it who wrote that?
[** It's perhaps more likely in this era that a farmer will sell the
land most susceptible to planning consent and the building of houses
that no-one in the area wants. I suppose some of the new residents
might grow tomatoes in a back-garden greenhouse.]
Well, the pancreas is generally regarded as a vital organ, for example:
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/pancreas
That's perhaps why it is only removed in a very small number of cases.
In message <n0m264F6tu1U1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 2 Mar 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 12:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0bdqdFgm9fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 17:22:20 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> remarked:
What is the precise relationship between the deceased and the lodgerThe lodger was the deceased's spouse for a week, before he died.
/ Nok / PR?
Appointed PR at least a year later.
So a spouse then, rather than a lodger, regardless of the form the
relationship took prior to marriage.
What is the approximate value of the estate please and did theNo children have emerged from the woodwork. The estate is worth
deceased have any children?
about -u3m.
Thereby demonstrating that marriage was an eminently sensible move to
avoid sending a large chunk of change in the general direction of the
Government's coffers.
Was the house owned solely by the deceased, or as joint tenants orSolely by the deceased.
as tenants in common?
Meaning the spouse needs to complete form AS1 (Assent) to transfer the
property into their name, form AP1 (Change the Register) and submit
both forms plus a copy of the death certificate, and Probate to the
Land Registry along with the necessary fees and they become the legal
registered owner of the property.
Were the property held as Joint tenants, the spouse would still need to
complete form DJP (Deceased Joint Proprietor) to remove the name of the
deceased.
Thanks, I'd never heard of that form before. Clearly another of the gaps
in the "Tell us once" procedure.
In short, there's forms to complete and fees to pay regardless of the
ownership structure.
Neither is particularly onerous, IMHO. YMMV.
In the name of completeness, had the deceased been minded to change the
ownership structure whilst still alive, they would have needed to
complete forms TR1 (Transfer of Registered Title) and AP1, and then
send them along with relevant ID
I'm told one of the issues during the week things imploded, was finding
stuff like IDs. It got worse, because a lot of the deceased's paperwork
was locked inside an Apple laptop, which to this day no-one has been
able to access.
and the necessary fees to the Land Registry.
The astute will notice that the only difference in doing this prior to
or after the death is the use of form TR1 (if still alive) or form AS1
(if deceased).
If I were given a time to live of a few weeks, I do not think I would
want to spend a notable portion of that time completing forms that can
be sorted just as easily once I have shuffled off my mortal coil.
Again, YMMV.
Obviously, one would try to engage the enthusiasm of a suitable
paralegal, but they often take more than a week to reply to an initial request for help.
Both.Given the lodger, NoK, and eventual PR are all the same person...
But no payments made anyway.
Ever, or only since the death?
Meaning it is likely that, prior to the marriage, they were at best a
"licensee" (a sub-category of lodger with even fewer rights than a
traditional lodger) but more likely a "guest".
However, all of this is academic. They were married at the point of
death and were thus a spouse.
Let's try a different question: once the landlord dies, should the
lodger pay market rent into escrow, in case in the fullness of time
the beneficiary doesn't turn out to be them? And do they have to
log the wine they've drunk.
The amount the lodger must pay remains the same after the death of
the landlord as it was beforehand. "Market rent" does not enter the
equation nor does "escrow".
It may be suggested to the lodger, but is in no way mandated, that
they set aside the rent money, preferably in a separate account, but
this is some considerable way short of paying "market rent into escrow".
OK, that clarifies. However a third party appeared offering the
estate many thousands a month rental, but this was turned down by the
not-yet- PR. Who continued living there about half the time (and in
their own properties the other half of the time).
Speaking strictly legally, (which is the default for this group), the
spouse had no option but to refuse the offer of a tenancy from a third
party as they could not legally grant a tenancy to someone until they
were formally appointed as the PR.
Although they did shuffle some of the estate's physical assets to third parties, long before formally appointed PR. Naughty, or nice?
I confess that I still haven't the first clue where you're heading with
this thread.
I've been involved in helping administer the estates of four quite close friends/relatives the last couple of years, and I'm sure others will appreciate a light shining on some of the intricacies, in case they end
up in the same position.
Also, some of us are getting to the stage in life where it might be
useful to pre-empt some of the hiccups which might result should we
step under a bus earlier than expected.
One loose end I've not explored is that the deceased was attorney for a lifelong friend with dementure, and I have no idea how that was
resolved. As far as I know the spouse didn't either automatically or voluntarily pick up that baton.
One loose end I've not explored is that the deceased was attorney for a
lifelong friend with dementure, and I have no idea how that was
resolved. As far as I know the spouse didn't either automatically or
voluntarily pick up that baton.
If no other person is actually named on the power of attorney the power ceases >to be effective with the holder's death.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:12:32 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,978 |