On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:38:13 +0000, MB <[email protected]> wrote: >On 25/12/2014 10:57, Gordon wrote: >> If they are engaged by someone to search for heirs then they will and >> can charge for work done even if they mess up, though I guess a >> solicitor would argue re charging for poor work. Those that use the >> published lists from the Treasury to hunt for heirs only make money if >> they sign up any heirs, that is why they try to work large "estates" >> only. The Treasury stopped publishing the size of the "estates" to stop >> fraudulent claims. > > > >They usually look for people who own their own house rather than >renting, even a quite modest house can mean there is enough in the >estate to allow them to make some profit. > >I presume that if it was heavily mortgaged then the bank (or whoever >issued the mortgage) would have already tried to recover their money by >getting the house sold. > "Getting the house sold" would initially be for the executors not for the bank which by that time would be just one more creditor (but with the advantage of having the house/whatever as security in the event that there is nothing else to discharge the mortgage). >The smaller heir-hunter companies often seem to take on the difficult >cases that larger companies have dropped. > >Always amused by the way they carefully avoid including the size of the >commission in the TV programme, if someone rang me or came to my door it >would be the first question that I asked! > >Also the way they will ring neighbours of the deceased quite early in >the morning, apologising of course! I would never give out information >on a neighbour, especially if the house was empty because they could be >burglars. And I would expect to be paid for the information. >