Our cousins took our inheritance and gave it to their mother, I feel I can't carry on acting as if nothing has happened

If someone has firm wishes about who their estate goes to they write a will especially older people. Your uncle was probably happy with being intestate. No one can presume to know otherwise.

It’s a shame cos it might be more straightforward. À solicitor’s letter should do the trick though if your poor sister is happier with that, I would go along with my sibling ´s wishes too if they were ill. No way Îd let it drop though. Out of principal. If they’d have said elderly Aunt desperately needed the money , maybe Îd have agreed but this is really underhanded.

Yes sorry I misread.

I would be dealing with this via the legal route, and cutting them completely out of my life forever. What on earth were they thinking? There are laws which have to be followed in cases like this, your cousin can't just decide to distribute the estate to whoever they want.

Ok. We have been through this a little bit in that my son was excluded from a will in which he was named. The family paid up on being sent a solicitors letter. They paid because they knew they had acted illegally, they had abused their position as executors and once the solicitor informed them this was a criminal offence… they couldn’t do much else but pay. I suspect this is the case with your family.

They have committed fraud to your and your sisters detriment. They have blocked your sister when she raised the issue. This should tell you everything. Please do not let this drop out of some misguided family loyalty. I would definitely sue for your rightful inheritance. Good luck.

Ahah that explains why the cousin is administrating the inheritance. Interesting

You cannot "volunteer" to be administrator (generally speaking), there is a set order in which people can apply to be the administrator. In the OP's situation it was her aunt.

If there were two or more people in the same class of relatives (eg siblings) then one or more of them could choose to be the administrator, In this case, the aunt would either need to decline to act as administrator or appoint others to act in her place.

Yes, I know that. The post quoted was asking about why the aunt was not inheriting the lot given that she was the closest surviving relative, i.e. the next of kin in colloquial terms.

This thread is going to go round and round and round now, isn't it, probably for years.

As @Lassofnorth said, the brother didn't leave a will.

You correctly say in your first point "The uncle died intestate." but you then mention in the next point "the late uncle's will".

A person cannot die intestate and also leave a will. To die "intestate" means that you did not leave a will.

To respond to your other points. There were two brothers and two sisters. One sister (the OP's mum) and one brother had already died. That left the unmarried, childless brother without a will and the OP's aunt.
.

"Also, why does anyone in the generation below the deceased uncle's siblings think that anything is automatically going to come to them?"

When the brother without a will died intestate, who gets his estate is determined by the intestacy rules.

Many other posters here have already linked to the gov.uk website that shows the order in which people inherit in this situation which explicitly states that the generation below the deceased sibling inherits.

You might also want to look at HMRC who state in their tax manual that:

If the deceased had no surviving spouse or civil partner or issue others may benefit in the following order

• parents - equally if both living
• brothers and sisters of the whole blood - equally and their issue per stirpes

The relevant part here is the term "per stirpes". This refers to every person descending down a branch of a family tree.

So, if the sister (OP's mum) can inherit then her issue can also inherit "per stirpes"

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm12125
.

"Can anyone point me to the law on this?"

The Intestacy Rules come from Section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.

Then in Section 47(3) it says that children of deceased siblings etc are to be treated in the same way as grandchildren of deceased children mentioned in Section 47(1)(i).

That is "...of any [sibling] of the intestate who predeceases the intestate, such issue to take through all degrees, according to their stocks, in equal shares if more than one, the share which their parent would have taken if living at the death of the intestate, and so that (subject to section 46A) no issue shall take whose parent is living at the death of the intestate and so capable of taking;"

Not according to English law. Has been clarified several times who inherits in a case like this.

There may not have been an executor but in the absence of a will, someone would have to have been appointed administrator of the estate. It would seem the cousins volunteered for this because they knew what they were going to do.

I am not a lawyer but I believe the term 'next of kin' has no legal significance at all. It's useful when someone is ill in hospital or needs care or has lost mental capacity, to indicate who can reasonably step in and advocate for them and/or look after their affairs. It doesn't indicate who's going to inherit their worldly goods if they die intestate. 'Next of' here is a rather old-fashioned term to indicate nearest.

Ah yes I see! Sorry, I should have said estate not will.

Well I think she needs more information before she does anything because all she has it what the cousin told her sister before she blocked her on everything.

She still doesn't know if the other cousins have definitely been left out or not.

But I think if the children of the aunt have decided to take the whole estate then family relations are already damaged and she should proceed to get the money owed.

I don't have personal experience, but from an observers point of view, I don't think you need to worry about ethics.

On the other hand, they have shown no ethics or morals.

It's funny how we're wired... to worry about the consequences or falling out. I would be the same. But again, observing, YOU don't need to worry about it. THEY have chosen to burn all bridges and they have chosen to risk whatever the consequences may be.

Definitely get to a solicitor asap.

A cousin of my Dad's died a few years ago. She was a widow and had never had any children. She died intestate (and v elderly). Her one sibling had died young, unmarried, no children.

Therefore, the estate was referred upwards to her parents generation and all her parents siblings. There were 8 of them originally (my Dad's Mum included). Some had died in infancy, some others didn't have children. The estate was split equally amongst those of the siblings who had had children (living issue). I think it was one fifth each. Of course none of that generation (my Dad's Mum) were alive, so the estate was then divided amongst their offspring. (my Dad's generation and cousins of the deceased lady).

Some of Dad's cousins hadn't married or had children so those shares were taken back and resdistributed. My Dad was an only child so he woud have inherited one fifth of his cousin's estate, other cousins of his were in a family of 4 children so they each inherited a quarater of one fifth.

Unfortunately it all took so long that my Dad had also passed by the time any money came out, so my dsis and I got one tenth each.

However the real beneficiary was the solicitors dealing with it, they got the largest amount of money in fees, I think about one quarter of the whole estate, plus VAT.

Anyway, long story to share that @NeshButUpNorth is correct about how intestate estates are distributed. And even in complicated situations there are very clear rules for how the estate should be distributed.

People, the OP isn't asking whether it's fair that her aunt got everything.

She knows that she and her sister were entitled to inherit in their mother's place, as per the intestacy rules which have now been linked to about a meeeeeelllion times.

What she wants to know is whether she should pursue her cousin (as the administrator of the estate) for giving it all to his dear old mum rather than distributing it correctly in accordance with his legal obligations, or just let it go.

I'm currently in litigation with my brother (not my choice) over my late mum's estate, she died intestate having had my dad's share pass to her when he died 4 years earlier. My brother believes he owns a large piece of land that my parents bought 10 years ago.
He doesn't but that hasn't stopped him trying everything to thwart the process if applying for letters of administration. Under the law of intestacy the estate is split between us both. I've spent over 6k so far on legal fees just getting to the point of jointly Instructed Solicitors who will act for us both to apply for the grant and subsequent administration.

At this point the principle is worth more to me than any inheritance, I'll fight it so he knows that he can't just bully me hoping I'll give up and go away.

Any hope of a reconciliation has been napalmed, he didn't even turn up at my mum' s funeral.

I hope you pursue this OP, it sounds like they think you and your sister won't bother due to her illness, I'm sorry you are both going through this but please fight for what is rightfully yours x