Charities across the UK warn that probate delays continue to choke their cash flow, forcing some to sell “vital assets” and scale back services for beneficiaries. A new survey, reported by Today’s Wills and Probate, finds that an average of 14% of annual charity income sits stuck in estates awaiting probate. The research mirrors last year’s result, suggesting that the backlog has not eased despite sustained complaints from the sector. Leaders say the hold?ups disrupt budgets, stall projects, and strain staff who must juggle promises to supporters with uncertain timelines for legacy payments. As the sector leans on gifts in wills to fund essential work, organisations argue that slow estate administration now poses a material risk to service delivery, especially for charities with thin reserves or heavy reliance on legacy income.
The report appeared in the UK on Thursday, 13 November 2025. Today’s Wills and Probate said the findings draw on a poll of 100 UK charities and reflect experiences across the country.
Legacy income stuck in probate: what the figures show
The survey cites a stark number: on average, 14% of a charity’s annual income remains tied up due to probate delays. That share matches the level reported in a similar study last year, and it signals persistent pressure on budgets that rely on legacies. Respondents also said they sold “vital assets” to bridge the gap. Those measures place long?term sustainability at risk, especially where organisations had planned to invest in services or infrastructure. Delays to legacy payments can also mute fundraising momentum, because planned projects depend on funds that supporters expected to reach frontline work sooner.
The report links those cash squeezes to visible changes in operations. Some charities cut services, paused hires, or postponed programmes that require stable funding. Trustees face hard choices: either they run down reserves to keep promises to service users, or they retreat from growth plans. Both options place strain on staff and on the people who rely on the charity’s work. The repeat finding of a 14% income hold?up suggests a structural issue rather than a short?term blip.
Why probate delays matter to charities’ budgets
Gifts in wills often fund core services, not just extras. When executors cannot secure a grant of probate, they cannot collect and distribute the estate to beneficiaries named in the will, including charities. That bottleneck can last for months, according to practitioners who handle estates, and it can hit multiple gifts at once. A charity that expects several legacy payments in a year may see a significant chunk of its income timetable slide.
These delays complicate planning. Finance teams set budgets and commitments at the start of the year; they need predictable cash flow to sign contracts, run programmes, and pay staff. If legacy payments arrive late, managers must either cut back or find stop?gap funds. That pressure can ripple through collaborations with local partners and community groups, which also rely on timely funds to deliver projects.
System pressures and sector concerns over timelines
Probate services in England and Wales have faced sustained pressure in recent years. The courts and tribunals service has moved to a more digital system, and the sector has reported backlog issues that pre?date and then grew during the pandemic. Solicitors and executors have described waits that stretch well beyond initial estimates. While the government has outlined plans to improve turnaround times, charities say they still see uneven timelines and limited visibility on cases that matter to their budgets.
Practitioners point to several friction points: incomplete forms, document queries, and spikes in applications can all slow down a grant. Estates that include property sales can add further delay, because executors often wait for the grant before they complete a sale and release funds. Charities do not control those steps, yet they carry the financial risk when the process drags.
Evidence of strain: asset sales and service reductions
Today’s Wills and Probate reports that some charities have sold “vital assets” to deal with the cash gap created by probate delays. Those sales may include items that support operations or generate income. Once a charity sells an asset to bridge a shortfall, it loses the future value that asset could have created. Leaders warn that such moves can create a cycle: a one?off sale stabilises cash flow today but weakens the organisation tomorrow.
Service reductions carry their own cost. People who rely on housing support, health programmes, or community services cannot easily absorb gaps in provision. When charities postpone or shrink services, local authorities and NHS partners can face more demand. Donors may notice the impact as well. If a charity cannot deliver the project that inspired a gift, trust can erode, and future fundraising can suffer.
How trustees and teams respond to the cash flow crunch
Charity finance teams report a set of practical responses. Many review their reserves policies and model different timing scenarios for legacy income. Some step up contact with executors and solicitors to track progress and catch paperwork issues early. Others adjust project timelines and phase spending so they can pivot if funds arrive late. These steps help, but they cannot erase the risk when a large share of income depends on probate.
Sector advisers also urge clear communication with supporters. Charities can explain that a legacy gift remains on the way but depends on legal steps outside the charity’s control. Donor care teams can keep families informed and thank them for their patience. That approach protects relationships while trustees work to stabilise budgets.
Calls for clearer data and faster processing
Sector voices continue to call for clearer published data on probate timelines and for faster, more predictable processing. Practitioners argue that standardised updates and better guidance for executors would help reduce errors that lead to queries and delays. They also point to the value of consistent resourcing for probate offices so that surges in applications do not create long queues.
Charities also seek practical fixes that sit outside the court process. Some ask executors to share updates on asset sales, property listings, and tax clearances to improve forecasts. Others explore tools that could unlock a portion of expected legacy income once an estate reaches a defined stage. Any change must protect estate beneficiaries and legal safeguards, but charities say even modest gains in predictability would ease planning.
What the 14% figure signals for the year ahead
The repeat finding that probate issues hold back 14% of annual income signals a stubborn problem. If the trend continues, more organisations may face choices between cutting services and taking on financial risk. That risk concentrates in charities with a high reliance on legacies, but it also touches larger organisations that depend on legacy income to fund national services.
Trustees will likely keep focusing on cash flow, reserves, and scenario planning. They will also press for steady progress on probate processing and for practical guidance that helps executors avoid delays. Donors who care about legacy gifts can help by ensuring wills remain up to date and by sharing intentions with executors and families, which can reduce disputes and confusion.
Charities across the UK now weigh difficult options as probate backlogs persist. The new survey, reported by Today’s Wills and Probate on 13 November 2025, shows that the problem has not eased, with an average of 14% of income still stuck in estates. Organisations say the delays have forced asset sales and service cuts, and they warn that prolonged uncertainty will strain budgets and communities. Trustees plan for different funding scenarios and seek closer contact with executors, while sector advisers push for clearer data and faster case handling. If probate processing gains speed and predictability, charities can stabilise operations and deliver the services donors expect. If not, the sector risks another year of hard trade?offs.
