header-logo header-logo

Online wills storing up trouble?

28 October 2021
Issue: 7954 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Wills & Probate , Technology
printer mail-detail
Increased use of simple online wills could lead to a surge in unsuitable and contested wills, a funeral research and consultancy firm has predicted

In a report published last week, Funeral Solution Expert revealed its research, using nationally representative surveys among UK consumers, had uncovered ‘fundamental problems’, with wills too simplistic for many people’s circumstances. The will writers did not always ask sufficient questions to determine if a ‘simple’ will is suitable for an individual’s circumstances or provide clear warnings of the risks involved. Moreover, nearly a quarter (23%) of consumers did not read or understand the terms of the will they signed.

In particular, the report highlighted that online will writers are unregulated and offer little liability for anything going wrong, which means bereaved families would have nowhere to complain and no legal right to any compensation. 

Online wills have surged in the past year, fuelled by the pandemic.

Factors that could make a person’s affairs complex include marital status, children from previous relationships, assets held, business ownership and self-employment, overseas property and intention to disinherit a family member. However, the analysis found some will writers only asked three or four simple qualifying questions and did not check the customer’s mental capacity to make the will. This problem was exacerbated by the fact 65% of customers who claimed to have simple affairs actually had complex affairs.

Michael Culver, chair of Solicitors for the Elderly, said: ‘It’s shocking that while solicitors are required to have professional indemnity insurance covering claims potentially as high as £2m or £3m (and many firms go for optional additional cover that can take this as high as £10m per claim), other professionals offering wills limit their liability to the cost of the will. £200 compensation doesn’t seem sufficient to cover a mistake that could end up costing someone their entire estate or inheritance.’

Issue: 7954 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Wills & Probate , Technology
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll