Unpaid Nursing Home fees after death - who is liable?

ratty67

Can I reassure everyone that there is a plan - criminal action.

DH and the 3 beneficiaries have tossed around the idea of civil action but ATM we believe the costs to take that step would far outway the amount we could see returned to the estate. It would be like taking a sledgehammer to a nut.

DH is not about to let the daughter get away with anything but the evidence gathering is taking far longer than he'd hoped and most of this is down to the NatWest. They are responding to his queries regarding the accounts eventually, but it's a bit like pulling teeth.

localhero - unfortunately I don't think at this present time the letter from the soli could have been any stronger. We can't write daughter a letter saying we KNOW you owe the estate £XXXX because we're a) still finding things out and b) still waiting for responses from the NatWest regarding the dodgy transactions. Trust me, we'd love to be able to put an exact figure on this but we cannot right now.

Another issue has now cropped up, details in the next post!

Mrsmoneypenny

Even if the evidence gathering takes a while - SHE WILL KEEP!

As you will know the estate cant be distributed until everything is in order and everything you are getting in is all going to be used in the case against this woman, it would be a shame to make a move too soon and miss an opportunity to cause her as much discomfort as possible.

At the same time, hopefully, the insurance, banks, etc., may all want to catch up with her, which would involve even more officials and agencies.

Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.

I will keep returning to get updates from you.

dzug1

Well the daughter's defence is - mother gave me all this as a gift. I suspect it won't be that easy to get a conviction - needs proving 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It's her word against largely circumstantial evidence. Civil would be easier (balance of probabilities).

I hope I'm wrong

ratty67

Last Friday DH received a response to one of the letters he sent to NatWest regarding two £3,000 transactions from 2004. One said simply 'To ISA', the other gave an account number.

Both amounts (the letter said) went to the ISA which was held in the sole name of the ladies deceased husband. Please ring for details. This is why the bank is irritating me, you ring them with a question, they tell you to put it in writing, they respond by letter in the briefest possible manner and then tell you to phone for details. AGH!!

Anyhow, DH phoned them. Yes there was an ISA and it was closed in October 2006. Now that's almost 2 years after the gentleman in question passed away and 11 months after the lady went into a care home in a profoundly confused state. Don't think either of them closed it down hey?!

The residue of the account was sent by cheque to a solicitors. The amount sent was a fraction over £4,000. So that's at least a £2,000 discrepancy from the total we know about. NatWest are sending details.

DH then phoned this solicitors. They confirmed they did indeed receive a cheque from the NW for £4,000 to be held on behalf on the incapacitated lady. The amount they now hold however is a shade under £2,000. So, where the heck has ANOTHER £2,000 gone? This firm say they paid OUR firm of solicitors 'an amount' for work they did.

OUR firm of solicitors (covering all 5 offices) say they have NO record of this happening.

Oh, and this firm acted for the daughter for her to gain receivership. There's a bill for that of around £1,300 still owing.

So, to recap - The NatWest ISA had at least £6,000 in it.
- That was closed containing £4,000
- There's now less than £2,000 left of it with no explaination as to why.
- This firm of solicitors want £1,300 of the remainder.

It's like the Powers That Be have looked down on my DH and decided what he was already dealing with wasn't complicated enough!

Does anyone here have any ideas? DH is ready and willing to hit the phone again tomorrow!

ratty67

dzug1 wrote: »

Well the daughter's defence is - mother gave me all this as a gift. I suspect it won't be that easy to get a conviction - needs proving 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It's her word against largely circumstantial evidence. Civil would be easier (balance of probabilities).

I hope I'm wrong

The daughter is still making rumbling noises regarding CONTESTING the Will, stating her Mother was already mentally incapacitated and of Unsound Mind at the time she made it out (May 05). Now if she wishes to claim that, then any 'gift' given TO THE DAUGHTER or anyone else after that point must have also been given when her Mother was of Unsound Mind. To my mind she cannot have that one both ways.

I am of agreement with you that civil action would be easier to prove but we don't believe the estate holds sufficient funds to undertake that action or that the result would be worthwhile. Pointless to spend £20,000 for example to gain a third of it back!

Please believe me when I say that NOBODY here wishes for the daughter to get away with anything. It is abundently clear that she has financially abused her own Mother, a henious act, but we need to proceed with caution and have everything in place before we make any kind of move.

dzug1

Agreed she can't have it both ways - but she doesn't immediately have to decide WHICH way. Though the way things are developing she can't leave it much longer.

splishsplash

I'm sorry I have absolutely no advice to offer, but I think you and your husband are fantastic, and I hope you can keep up your good work!

It seems like the daughter is a really nasty piece of work. What she has done, and the calculated way she went about it sickens my stomach. I would hate to think she could walk away from this. It's outrageous.

Well done to all the MSE-ers who are giving such great advice, you're all amazing :T.

red_bertie

Hello Ratty

Like many posters I cannot [don't have] offer advice, but I do want to say to you and your husband how much I admire and support your actions.

This sorry tale will re-assure many of us MSE'rs moving into our twilight years, that there are still decent, conscientious folk who are prepared to 'go the extra mile' to safeguard our final wishes.

Thank you both.

ukmaggie45

I thought you might be interested in this New York Times article on elder abuse.

The responses to it are quite interesting too!

Best wishes, and good luck!

Maggie

ratty67

Thank you for the link ukmaggie45. Very interesting...some of the replies did make my hair stand on end, especially the one who states if someone's going to die it's not stealing if you help yourself beforehand :eek:

I can give updates today, progress in one area, more confusion in others unfortunately.

We have had written confirmation from the NatWest that according to their records NO-ONE other than the deceased lady had financial control over her single bank account.

Also, the online banking was set up on June 3rd 2005 and MUST HAVE BEEN DONE (their words) by the old lady. So an aging lady who cannot even turn on a computer and therefore doesn't own one and has no interent connection asked for online banking? On an account she didn't even use because she had her own personal account with the Halifax where she drew her pension every week?

If we want copies of any cheques it's £4 a pop.

The fraud department do now appear to be willing to at least look at the 'suspicious' activity but of course want it all in writing. The estate team had to give permission before he could even talk to fraud because of 'account security'. DH very nearly lost his temper at this point. We're not convinced NatWest could pick out suspicious activity if it jumped up and waved at them!

Success also with the Royal London. This is relating to the policy that has already been claimed by the daughter. There was NO named beneficiary on the policy therefore the daughter HAS obtained money by deception. The daughter claimed her Mother died without leaving a will but the R L are investigating as they should not have paid out merely on strength of the death certificate alone. Still clueless as to how much this policy is worth but it is looking hopeful we will see the money at some point.

Now to the confusing discoveries - I'll try to keep this as simple as possible but it's confusing me!

The NatWest ISA was closed Oct 2006. They stated there was a fraction over £4,000 transferred to solicitor A. Solicitor A says there is now a fraction UNDER £2,000.

Solicitor A say they paid £2,300 for the funeral of the ladys husband (died Jan 2005, now that's what I calla delayed payment) and £411.25 to solicitor B for work they did relating to the husbands estate. Add these figures up then take them away from the £4,000. Doesn't work does it? Someone is getting their sums wrong.

Solicitor B is from the same firm where the will was made only a completely different branch. They say they started doing this work for the (now) deceased lady and then it was transferred by the daughter to solicitor A. They are sending us full details of exactly what work they did.

We are at a loss as to why the lady would have instigated work at a branch that was miles away from her home relating to her husbands estate and then use the obvious branch (a 10 min walk away from her home) to write out her will. Or the other way round which is more likely. This branch said she came in once, gave instructions and then failed to respond to any letters they sent. As my DH said earlier - are they sure it actually was the lady in question?!

Solicitor A have also stated they are owed £1,299 relating to work carried out on behalf of the daughter when she applied for receivership on her Mothers' accounts. Knowing what we know now from the NatWest this was clearly unsuccessful. Solicitor A can't understand how we have ended up with the bill as it was sent to the daughter BEFORE her Mother passed away, therefore to my mind showing where liability lies.

Oh, and still no word one way or the other from the LA but someone there is looking for the Direct Debit mandate that was signed for the nursing home fees as the money was coming from the single account - the one no-one (except the lady) had authority over...