Unpaid Nursing Home fees after death - who is liable?

sloughflint

Errata wrote: »

the lady died at the end of Feb and probate can take quite a few weeks to be granted

Mr Ratty has lodged a caveat.

ratty67 wrote: »

They appear to have disregarded the copy of the will DH sent and simply applied the Law of Intestacy whereby the surviving daughter inherits 50% and the children from the daughter who predeceased the lady get the other 50%. That would then make it a 'family dispute' would it not?
.

I thought they paid out before Mr Ratty found out about the policy ( in March).

The value was less than 5k so a sighting of a grant may not have been required.

I'm not sure RL have done anything untoward here to impose them to become involved. If not then up to executor to deal with the blatant fraud .

I suppose the crux is to find out for sure if a grant was needed to be sighted for this policy.

When a grant is needed
A grant is almost always needed when the person who dies leaves one or more of the following:

• £5,000
• stocks or shares
• certain insurance policies
• property or land held in their own name or as 'tenants in common'

In most cases above, the bank or relevant institution will need to see the grant before transferring control of the assets. However if the estate is small some organisations, such as insurance companies and building societies, may release the money to you at their discretion.)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029799

monkeyspanner

The insurance company is clearly trying to get out of its responsibilities. It is not a family dispute. The daughter has obtained the money by disception in the full knowledge there is a valid will and the insurers have not taken sufficient care. If you get nowhere with their complaints proceedure try this
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/assessment-guide/first-annual-report/resolving-insurance-related-disputes.htm

Otherwise you could try embarassing them by going to the financial column of a newspaper, the Sunday Times has a small section on this type of thing each week.

ratty67

sloughflint wrote: »

I thought they paid out before Mr Ratty found out about the policy ( in March).

They did. They paid out on March 17th which was two weeks before NatWest organised themselves enough to send the statements here instead of to the daughters house. RL asked for a copy of the Will when DH telephoned them. Why ask for the Will if they had ZERO intention of rectifying matters?

sloughflint wrote: »

I'm not sure RL have done anything untoward here to impose them to become involved. If not then up to executor to deal with the blatant fraud .

That I find worrying. As I think Errata stated, what is to stop fraud occuring if the RL insurance company does not require proof of WHO they are paying?

I understand what you're saying, that for amounts of less than £5,000 then they would probably NOT need to see either the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration but we've already come across this situation (with the lady's sole bank account at NatWest) and the bank wanted REAMS of proof as to who DH is before they would talk to him, exactly as things SHOULD be.

We can PROVE the daughter knew of the will's existance. First, she stated it existed when she signed forms for the CoP back in 2005. PLUS the solicitor sent her a copy after her Mum had died and, critically, BEFORE she made the insurance claim. It appears that after she saw the Will and noted she was getting nothing she decided she'd get what she could and to heck with the estate and her Mum's final wishes.

Don't forget everyone that this was only one of TWO policies the daughter claimed on. Phoenix Life seem to have more common sense and refused to pay out without Letters of Administration even though the amount was only £2,000 which stopped the daughter in her tracks.

sloughflint

ratty67 wrote: »

That I find worrying. As I think Errata stated, what is to stop fraud occuring if the RL insurance company does not require proof of WHO they are paying?

The problem would seemingly be ( to quote that link) that they used their discretion not to insist on a grant.I guess they would have expected to see the death certificate and daughter's birth certificate maybe?

monkeyspanner wrote: »

and the insurers have not taken sufficient care.

I don't think they have any means to check the existence of a Will prior to probate. What about all those that do get conveniently destroyed?

ratty67 wrote: »

Don't forget everyone that this was only one of TWO policies the daughter claimed on. Phoenix Life seem to have more common sense and refused to pay out without Letters of Administration even though the amount was only £2,000 which stopped the daughter in her tracks.

ratty67 wrote: »

and the other Insurance Co have said they will pay out without waiting for probate.

Phoenix have also paid out before grant of probate ( the caveat) so they too have used their discretion.( but at least after seeing a copy of the Will)

My fear is that RL will have already checked exactly where they stood before writing back to you and are making it the estate's responsibility ( family matter being a poor turn of phrase)

ratty67 wrote: »

RL asked for a copy of the Will when DH telephoned them. Why ask for the Will if they had ZERO intention of rectifying matters?

Probably to check that what Mr Ratty was saying about being the executor was true rather than a phone call from any old Tom !!!!!! or Harry.
How ironic.

ratty67

Thank you sloughflint - I hope you don't think I was being pedantic and picking away at your earlier post!

It's all giving DH a lot to chew over this Bank Holiday weekend (but I'm getting him to do some gardening while he's thinking)

Rikki

Wow, what interesting and shocking reading. :eek:

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


Well done to all the MSE-ers who are giving such great advice. :T.

ratty67

sloughflint wrote: »

My fear is that they'll already have checked exactly where they stood before writing back to you and are making it the estate's responsibility. ( family matter being a poor turn of phrase.

If they are happy to turn responsibility onto the estate, does this then mean that DH would have to either 'sue' the daughter for the missing funds or become liable for the missing money himself?

:eek:

sandraroffey

its becoming clearer as each week goes by that this is blatant fraud.

something legal, police fraud people or something must now surely come into play??

sloughflint

ratty67 wrote: »

If they are happy to turn responsibility onto the estate, does this then mean that DH would have to either 'sue' the daughter for the missing funds or become liable for the missing money himself?

:eek:

Surely you don't mean pay out of his own pocket?:eek:

My understanding is that an executor has a duty to retrieve money due to the estate and act in the beneficiaries' best interests ie he cannot ignore the fact that fraud has taken place all over the place both before and after the lady's death and also needs to try to keep costs involved to retrieve all these missing funds as minimal as possible. A horrible balancing act.
That's why a legal plan is crucial and he needs help with this from someone he trusts.

You are gathering all the required evidence and bit by bit you are finding very good ones ( the forms).

Any news on where the state pension was going yet?

ratty67

Regarding the State Pension, the form the daughter filled in for the CoP said she was the person recieving it but DH is still awaiting concrete proof from the DWP.