A lack of consistency with probate applications means it is difficult to tell a client just how long their case could take, according to Jo Summers, private tax and wealth partner at Jurit and spokesperson for Step.
Speaking in front of the Justice Committee yesterday (April 17) , Summers gave evidence alongside Stuart Simpson, head of Equiniti Benefactor at Equiniti, about their experiences with the current system.
In November 2023, the Justice Committee launched an inquiry into probate amid concerns over delays and consumer protection.
The inquiry is examining people’s experiences of applying for probate including how effectively beneficiaries, executors and the bereaved are supported through the process and protected from rogue traders.
According to a survey of its members in January 2023, Step found registry errors and inexperienced staff were causing probate delays.
Summers said: “I don't know what to tell people when they ask how long their application will take. It could be four weeks or it could be 18 weeks. There is no way of knowing.”
Both Summers and Simpson said paper applications in their experiences have taken much longer to be processed than online applications.
Simpson said: “We had an example where it took three weeks from the date the application was delivered by Royal Mail, to the date the application appeared on the system and was starting to process.
"We were told only once the application is marked as processing does the 16 weeks timeframe begin.”
Simpson suggested there could be a digital exclusion for those people who potentially did not have access to a computer, or were not computer literate, or have a disability meaning they are unable to apply online.
“Are those people who need to make a paper form because they do not have the means to make one online disadvantaged because of the disparity in timescales between online and paper applications?” he added.
One member of the committee pointed out the probate registry used to take four weeks to process an application which he said was “completely reasonable”.
“We have now invented a system that has created problems for something that worked perfectly well in the first place so how do we now get back to that four week process?”
Summers said there needed to be better communication and to have the ability to actually speak to the registrar handling the case at the registry.
The committee member added: “Why don’t we just go back to the old system. As politicians we invent systems that don’t work and then look at ways to carry on systems that don’t work.
“Whereas actually the process that happened before, we would have to quantify the cost of that but it was a system that worked, it gave reassurance to people and it was done in a timely efficient manner.”
