My grandfather died in 1952 and left a substantial Will, incorporating money, as well as property and land that he had acquired through his business as a demolition contractor between 1911 and 1952.
The Estate also incorporated two property companies, as well as the Estates of his mother and father..

He appointed the National Westminster Bank (under its former name of District Bank) to act as Trustees and the managers of all aspects of his estate.
They were assigned as first contact by post and any other means, and put their name on all the assets listed with the Land Registry. and dealt with all matters concerning the estate. They managed and controlled all income and were responsible for repairs, maintenance and expenses where it was applicable.

It is now apparent that from the outset, the NatWest Bank acted on its own initiative, and apparently to its own financial benefit, failing to conform with the terms of the Will or with the regulation of Civil Law, namely the Trustees Act (1928), causing substantial financial and material loss to the beneficiaries of the Will and Estate.

From the correspondence now in my possession, it is clear that the Bank operated without recourse to any other party or to the beneficiaries. There is clear evidence that the Bank only informed my grandmother of its actions after it had taken them, and even then not as a matter of routine. In a number of cases, these acts were to the detriment of the Trust and in breach of the Trustees Act.

One of their strange actions is evidenced by the demand for the return of the chequebook used for payments of expenses incurred in maintaining the properties. That were a part of the Deansgate Trust (one fifth of the estate)..
Once the chequebook had been returned, the Bank became de facto controller of all aspects of the Deansgate Trust. By the terms of the will, they were already in receipt of all correspondence concerned with the Deansgate Trust, in exactly the same way as they were with the other parts of the Estate. All agents, individuals etc. reported to the Bank, including my grandmother’s solicitor, and the accountant.

After the death of my grandmother, in December 1965, the Bank seemed to consider it had a completely free hand in all matters concerning the Estate and acted totally without contact with, or care for, the surviving beneficiaries. A former employee of my grandfather attempted to rescue parts of the estate in 1966, but was thwarted by the Bank.
Similarly, also in 1966, the Bank refused to have my mother as co Trustee, in replacement for my grandmother, thereby continuing its sole control of the estate.

The National Westminster Bank then began to answer ny mother’s enquiries with statements that implied that my grandfather’s estate had “gone” and there was “nothing left”.
Looking at matters retrospectively, this was an unlikely occurrence as property and land were involved and, as I understand it, these assets do not “disappear”. However, my mother was temporarily persuaded that this was the case.

In 1978, the Duchy of Lancaster contacted the beneficiaries of the estate and asked what they intended to do with the 16 stone built cottages the Duchy had been contacted about, as they had fallen into disrepair, with no rent collected and no repairs carried out for over twenty years.

Eventually the Duchy seized these and a small payment was made to the beneficiaries, from which the National Westminster Bank also managed to gain. They should have been looking after these properties.
These events made my mother realise that the estates had not “disappeared” at all and there were many other parts still active and producing income, none of which had been paid over.

She started a legal process through a senior partner at solicitors in Manchester, to discover what had happened, but even this was blocked and thwarted continually by the bank until she became ill and had to stop.

In 1995 my mother died and subsequent to that the Bank eventually paid over the part of the Fred Jagger Estate that was stocks and shares. They also managed to post to me several envelopes full of deeds and a file of correspondence, which they thought, was no longer relevant.

After some work I was able to restart the process of reclaiming the Estate in 1999 and eventually received an admission of liability from NatWest in 2001, after the Trust manager and a senior executive from the Royal Bank Of Scotland in Edinburgh had visited my home to discuss matters.
.
A lot of this alluded to sites and property where they were still collecting rents and had been since 1952, although there were some Chief Rents involved that had been extinguished because of the Bank’s own negligence and failure to administer or collect rents, as they had been entrusted to do.

In September 2002, the Trustees Department of the NatWest attempted to sell some parts of the Estate to a firm in Wales, without the consent or prior knowledge of the beneficiaries. It should be borne in mind that he had already admitted that the Bank were liable for the losses of the estate and that prior to that, had told the beneficiaries that the estate had “disappeared” and was worthless.
Strange then, that after moving from the point where they had said the estate was worthless, after admitting the liability for he losses, they were busily trying to sell off assets without anyone’s knowledge.

Despite all my efforts, no further progress has yet been made. I am aware that the NatWest is still collecting rents but only a very small part of the rental income has ever been transferred. One tenant has paid on every due date for fifty-five years, but seemingly none of this money has ever made it to the beneficiaries, or benefited the Estate, as it should have done. There are certainly still thirty and possibly as many as sixty income-yielding sites across the Manchester area.

The Nat West has continued in its policy of thwarting and blocking enquiry. I have followed every course possible in order to achieve a proper settlement but, with the exception of an offer of £250,
(even though they admitted full liability), this has not occurred and I am left with no alternative but that of having to take further action , while the National Westminster Bank continue to play the game of brinkmanship, seemingly considering that they can wear me down, as they did my mother and grandmother before me.

My grandfather placed implicit trust in the NatWest Bank to conduct his business to the benefit of the surviving relatives and others, who are the beneficiaries. This has never been the case and that trust has been betrayed repeatedly over the past fifty-five years.