Southern Cross today sent £2.500 for uncle who died over 3 years ago

antrobus

joycee98 wrote: »

.... We still need to find out though, why as he died in the home and all bills paid up up to, and after his death, Why after three and a half year they phone with this bill. especially as she was in touch with the home during the time of his death, and visited three times a week when he was alive. It seems a bit iffy to me

I'd agree that it is all a bit iffy. In the circumstances it would appear that Southern Cross would have been quite well aware of the fact that a) the uncle (their customer) was dead, and b) that the sister-in-law was dealing with his estate, and that therefore any claim they had against the estate should have been submitted to the sister-in-law within a reasonable time of his death.

I think they'd have a hard time persuading a judge that the sister-in-law was liable for this debt some three and a half years after the event.

pimento

antrobus wrote: »

Perhaps you haven't been reading the right bits of the right newspapers:-

"The main actions that the executor will need to carry out are to ....

Place the statutory advertisement for creditors and other claimants...."

http://www.bereavementadvice.org/probate-and-other-legal-procedures/understanding-the-probate-process.php

And perhaps more to the point;

"You could be personally liable if any debts come to light after the estate has been distributed unless you have placed a statutory notice in the London Gazette."

http://www.which.co.uk/money/retirement/guides/applying-for-probate/legal-help/

Ah yes the good old London Gazette, I'd forgotten about them. But that's what you're supposed to do. You pay for an advert, formally known as a 'notice pursuant to Section 27 of the Trustee Act 1925' , and set a deadline for any claims against the estate.

Hence the first question would be, did the sister-in-law publish such a notice? Because if she did she has protected herself from any claim by a latecomer such as Southern Cross.

The second question would be, in the absence of any such general notice, did the sister-in-law write to Southern Cross and ask them specifically to supply a final account as regards her deceased uncle.

And so forth.

But the OP said that her uncle had no debts.

Pollycat

joycee98 wrote: »

He never ever owed money he was 82, never took a loan, never used a credit card always paid cash. he never married. He died in the Southern Cross home. All his care fees came out by direct debit. The strange thing is after asking my sister in law if it was an itemized bill, she said it was a phone call. I have just got that info from her now.
She is calling into my house on Saturday, so We may go to the home concerned as it has not closed yet.
We still need to find out though, why as he died in the home and all bills paid up up to, and after his death, Why after three and a half year they phone with this bill. especially as she was in touch with the home during the time of his death, and visited three times a week when he was alive. It seems a bit iffy to me

I wonder if Southern Cross are trying it on here.

If all the bills were paid by direct debit, why would there be an amount outstanding?
Unless she closed his account before the final payment came out.

I'd be very wary of someone just telephoning to say there's an outstanding bill for £2500 dating back over 3 years.

Why would they telephone?
Why not write?

I wouldn't go to visit the care home, I'd either wait for them to send a proper invoice or write to them saying that everything was fully paid up to his death.

pinkshoes

If it was just a phone call, then I'd ignore it.

If something turns up in writing, then she should write back saying that all debts were paid, and no money is owed.

antrobus

pimento wrote: »

But the OP said that her uncle had no debts.

Obviously someone at Southern Cross is of a different point of view, and believes that the uncle owes them £2,500.

Besides, I think you're missing the point. No executor can be a 100% certain that they are aware of every single debt that the deceased incurred prior to their death. Publishing the stautory notice in the London Gazette and a local paper protects the executor against any personal liability for any claims that emerge subsequent to the distribution of the estate. Professional executors (as in solicitors) always publish statutory notices for that very reason.

joycee98

First of all my sister in law dealt with Southern Cross practically everyday her uncle was in there, he left no debts. She dealt with the people in charge of the home personally, face to face three and a half year ago.
Anything there was owing three and a half year ago with the home was paid then after his death.
So putting it in the paper would have made no difference in this case as the home itself settled everything with her Face to face three and a half year ago.

antrobus

joycee98 wrote: »

First of all my sister in law dealt with Southern Cross practically everyday her uncle was in there, he left no debts. She dealt with the people in charge of the home personally, face to face three and a half year ago.
Anything there was owing three and a half year ago with the home was paid then after his death.
So putting it in the paper would have made no difference in this case as the home itself settled everything with her Face to face three and a half year ago.

I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm trying to be helpful. It just happens to be the case that had the sister-in-law placed the statutory adverts in the press then it would make a difference, as she would now be in a position to tell Southern Cross to 'get lost' without having to go through any further rigmarole whatsoever. Which is why it is worthwhile asking the question in the first place.

I'd also presume that because the sister-in-law "settled everything ... face to face" that there isn't any correspondence confirming the settlement of any liability to Southern Cross.

On that basis, I would suggest that the way forward is to request from Southern Cross a detailed breakdown of this £2,500 and an explantion of why it is has taken them three years to come up with this demand having given the sister-in-law the impression that everything had been settled long ago. Not that this will necessarily change the legal position you understand, it's just that it might make Southern Cross wake up and realise what idiots they are being.

As I said before, I think they'd have a hard time persuading a judge that the sister-in-law was liable for this debt some three and a half years after the event.

unholyangel

The SIL could also argue that as she informed them at the time, she is discharged from all liability. The announcement imo is more for possible unknown creditors.

It would be completely ludicrous for the home to make a claim based on there being no notice posted to make them aware indirectly when they were made aware directly.

Waiting until they put it in writing would be a good idea however if your SIL is worrying excessively over it, she could always write to them stating that the account was settled in full and she would like an explanation of why she is being contacted now with a claim that monies are owed.

It may be there was a mistake with their systems, it may be just a scam attempt or it may be that the monies are owed. Does she still have the paperwork?

joycee98

She will be being charged for six months worth of bank statements from the last six month he was in their care, this is normal. But after I emailed her today and asked if she had the number or did she do 1471 etc to check if the number was genuine. She said yes she had got the number and rang them back to ask why they phoned her after all this time, and was this the office she used to dealt with when her uncle was alive. Re:The office for Southern Cross she always contacted and sorted her Uncles affairs with, was on Team Valley in Gateshead, which is a seperate location from the home. The home is on Lobbley Hill Road in Gateshead which is about three minutes away from the office by car (This is in the North East and very near to me and also my sister in law. The man that answered the phone said no the office was not there anymore and he was in an office in LONDON!!!??? She said he seemed a bit off gaurd and flusterered and could he call her back tomorrow. She said yes so he is ringing tomorrow. He then said "well I better have your number" she said "You already have it you called me yesterday didn't you" So I advised her again to make sure when he calls her tomorrow to ask for an itemised bill and the reason that they have waited three and a half year to say that money is owed. i also said to tell him she wants a letter explining why they are ringing and also what has been said in there converstions in writing. I hope even after the call tomorrow that she will go to the home itself and see if they know anything of this, and hopefully I will go too to get to the bottom of it. I am finding some very good advice from you all so thank you very much. I will post the result of her call tomorrow.

antrobus

unholyangel wrote: »

The SIL could also argue that as she informed them at the time, she is discharged from all liability. The announcement imo is more for possible unknown creditors.

That's correct. But it also protects against known potential creditors who might later claim to have made a mistake and discovered that there is indeed a debt.