Who pays for property updates after one tenant in common dies?

[Donquix5]

Background:
George & his wife Beatrice purchased their council house under the Right-to-Buy scheme. Three of their adult children contributed the largest share to the purchase price, so George & Beatrice had only an 8.5% share. George & Beatrice were listed at the Land Registry as the legal owners of the property, and the exact interest shares of all contributors were listed in a Declaration of Trust. George & Beatrice made mirror wills in 2014, listing the percentage ownership of the property as detailed in the Declaration of Trust. Beatrice died in 2015 and her name was removed from the title. At the same time, the names of the three adult children were added as tenants-in-common. George died in 2016. The house was subsequently redecorated and new carpet fitted, prior to being sold.

Question:
Should George's estate have been held fully liable for the cost of the redecoration and re-carpeting?
Or
Should the cost of the redecoration and re-carpeting have been split among the tenants-in-common according to their percentage shares?

[des8]

The redecoration carried out and new carpets fitted after George's demise, so should not be charged to his estate.
The executor's/administrator's duty extends to preserving the estate, not improving it.

If not all the owners agreed to the refurbishments, I would suggest the cost is down to those who ordered the works.

[Sam101]

As the improvements were made by the remaining owners before the sale, then I would suggest that they should all be responsible in proportion of their ownership percentage. This would seem to be the fair way to deal with it as they all made benefit.

[MIKE770]

Joint and several comes to mind between them ?

[des8]

[QUOTE=Sam101;n1602008 This would seem to be the fair way to deal with it as they all made benefit.[/QUOTE]

Only a benefit if the works increased the price the property achieved by more than they cost

[Sam101]

There would be far less to distribute than if nothing had been done to improve it at all. The more attractive it is to put on the market then, the quicker the sale should be to benefit all.

[Donquix5]

Joint and several comes to mind between them ?

Please explain?

[Donquix5]

Only a benefit if the works increased the price the property achieved by more than they cost

But G's estate paid for 100% of the costs, but only received 8.5% of the benefit. The other 3 paid nothing & profited by increasing the value of their total 91.5% share

[Donquix5]

There would be far less to distribute than if nothing had been done to improve it at all. The more attractive it is to put on the market then, the quicker the sale should be to benefit all.

But the only people who benefited were the other 3 who paid nothing but increased the value of their share (which was 91.5% between them)

[des8]

So who was the administrator of the estate?
If you were a residuary beneficiary have you been given a FULL inventory and accounting?