Personal Representative vs Executor UK: Key Differences Explained

The Terminology: Personal Representatives, Executors, and Administrators

English law uses the phrase “personal representative” as the general term for the person responsible for collecting the assets of a deceased person’s estate, paying its debts, and distributing what remains. The term encompasses two distinct roles:

The practical duties of both are largely the same once they are authorised to act: locate and value the estate, notify creditors, pay inheritance tax, apply for the grant, collect assets, pay debts and costs, and distribute to the beneficiaries. The differences lie in the source of authority and the timing of when that authority arises.

Executors: Authority from the Will

An executor’s authority derives from the will itself. As soon as the testator dies, the executor has a duty to take possession of the estate and a corresponding authority to act. They do not need to wait for the Probate Registry to grant probate before taking certain steps.

An executor can, before probate is obtained:

• Arrange and pay for the funeral from their own funds (with reimbursement from the estate).
• Preserve estate assets — paying insurance premiums, taking in livestock, arranging security for property.
• Collect certain assets (some banks will release small balances without requiring probate — thresholds vary by institution but are typically £5,000–£50,000).
• Transfer registered shares within a nominated survivor scheme where authorised.
• Pay urgent debts to prevent the estate incurring penalties or losing assets.

The grant of probate then provides the documentary evidence of authority that third parties — banks, HMRC, the Land Registry — require before they will deal with the executor in relation to estate assets. It is confirmation, not creation, of the executor’s powers.

An executor who does not wish to act can renounce their appointment by filing form PA15 (Renunciation of Probate) at the Probate Registry, provided they have not already “intermeddled” — carried out any acts in administration of the estate. Once an executor has intermeddled, they cannot renounce; they must either prove the will (obtain probate) or apply for double probate to be granted to another. An executor may also take out a grant with power reserved to other executors named in the will who are not currently applying — those executors retain the right to apply for probate later if the acting executor dies or becomes incapable.

Administrators: Authority from the Court

An administrator has no authority to act until the Probate Registry grants Letters of Administration. This is the fundamental distinction. Without that grant, any dealing with estate assets by a purported administrator is unauthorised and potentially makes them an executor de son tort (see below).

Administrators are appointed in several circumstances:

• Intestacy (no valid will at all) — the application is for Letters of Administration; the priority order under Rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 runs: spouse/civil partner first, then children (or issue of a deceased child), then parents, then siblings, then half-siblings, then more remote relatives.
• Will with no executor — if the will fails to name an executor, or all named executors have died, renounced, or are under a disability, Letters of Administration with Will Annexed are granted. The will is admitted to probate, but a court-appointed administrator carries out the administration.
• Partial intestacy — where the will disposes of some property but not all (for example, failing to include a residue clause), the unadministered portion is governed by intestacy and an administrator may be required for that portion.
• Minority or incapacity — where a sole beneficiary is a minor or lacks mental capacity, the court may appoint an administrator to act for the estate.

Chain of Representation

The chain of representation is a mechanism under section 7 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 that prevents estates from being left in limbo when an executor dies before completing the administration.

The rule works as follows: if the executor of estate A dies while administering it (or before completing administration), their own executor — on taking out probate of the second estate — automatically becomes the executor of estate A. No separate grant is required. The chain can extend through multiple generations: executor A’s executor B’s executor C is also the executor of any earlier estate in the chain.

The chain breaks in three situations:

• An executor at any link in the chain dies without having taken out a grant themselves (having renounced or power having been reserved to them only).
• A link in the chain is an administrator rather than an executor — administrators cannot form part of the chain.
• There is no executor willing and able to continue — for example, if all of the deceased’s executors renounced.

When the chain breaks, the unadministered estate must be dealt with by a new grant: Letters of Administration de bonis non administratis (of goods not yet administered), usually abbreviated to “de bonis non.” The priority rules for who may apply for this grant mirror those for the original Letters of Administration.

Executor de son tort: The Unauthorised Intermeddler

An executor de son tort — literally “executor by his own wrong” — is a person who, without any proper appointment as personal representative, takes it upon themselves to deal with the estate. This might be a family member who empties a bank account, collects debts, or sells assets before any grant has been obtained and without being named as executor.

The law treats such a person harshly: they acquire all the burdens of the executor role without its legal protections. They can be sued by the estate’s creditors to the extent of the assets they misappropriated. They may also be liable to beneficiaries for any loss caused by their unauthorised acts. They do not, however, acquire the right to complete the administration — the lawful personal representative (once appointed) takes precedence.

There is one limited safe harbour: acts of necessity do not constitute intermeddling. Paying for the funeral, making reasonable arrangements to preserve perishable or at-risk assets, and maintaining property insurance are recognised as justified interventions that do not give rise to de son tort liability.

Frequently Asked Questions