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

unholyangel

antrobus wrote: »

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.

I dont see how a notice in a gazette as opposed to being told directly would make a difference to that. The effect is the same. They are told the person has passed and indication would be clear in both cases........get a final bill ready for full and final settlement.

IMO informing them directly should effectively release you from liability on a much more solid basis as the OP has done all she can to give the creditor "last orders" type thing (like you would get in a bar/club/restaurant...the last possible moment to register your order).

ofc law doesnt always make sense.

Optimist

An executer is responsible for any negligence in the administration of a estate. If a debtor comes forward after distribution of the assets and within the statute of limitations, then the executor is responsible, this assumes there were sufficient assets in the estate in the first place to pay said debts. A notice in the local and the London Gazette giving two months for debtors to come forward covers the executor/s from any comeback later on if any unpaid debts do arise against the estate.

This is not relevant to claims from relatives they have 6 months to claim which is why solicitors tend to take what seems to be a inordinate amount of time to settle estates.

RAS

unholyangel wrote: »

I dont see how a notice in a gazette as opposed to being told directly would make a difference to that. The effect is the same. They are told the person has passed and indication would be clear in both cases........get a final bill ready for full and final settlement.

IMO informing them directly should effectively release you from liability on a much more solid basis as the OP has done all she can to give the creditor "last orders" type thing (like you would get in a bar/club/restaurant...the last possible moment to register your order).

ofc law doesnt always make sense.

Sadly, it does make a difference. The notice in the Gazette protects the executor or administrator from anyone who comes back later chasing a debt after the estate is distributed.

And since the executor or administrator is personally liable for any debts that needs paying after distribution, this is a relatively cheap insurance policy.

joycee98

01325348370 this is the phone number that called my sister in law, he said he was in London. I havve just googled the number and it ia a Darlington post code. I am still trying to find who actually owns that number through google, and cant see why if it is genuine they say they are in London when they are actually in Darlington! That number also comes up as a tracking number for UPS parcel service

bod1467

It's possible for calls to be rerouted through a different connection. For example, in my business I deal with clients in Glasgow (0141) but their phone numbers are all Aberdeen (01224) area code as that is where their head office is.

Alter_ego

Looks like a scam to me.

DVardysShadow

unholyangel wrote: »

I dont see how a notice in a gazette as opposed to being told directly would make a difference to that. The effect is the same. They are told the person has passed and indication would be clear in both cases........get a final bill ready for full and final settlement.

IMO informing them directly should effectively release you from liability on a much more solid basis as the OP has done all she can to give the creditor "last orders" type thing (like you would get in a bar/club/restaurant...the last possible moment to register your order).

ofc law doesnt always make sense.

Telling them directly gives them a much better chance to make a timely claim. But I don't see that doing it this way actually releases the executor form liability on a much more solid basis when you think about proving it.

"I sent this letter"
"No you didn't"

But if the advert is in the paper, there is no grounds for dispute.

unholyangel

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Telling them directly gives them a much better chance to make a timely claim. But I don't see that doing it this way actually releases the executor form liability on a much more solid basis when you think about proving it.

"I sent this letter"
"No you didn't"

But if the advert is in the paper, there is no grounds for dispute.

Hence why i asked if they still had the paperwork. AFAIK in a small claims you only have to prove what is likely to have happened. If you have correspondence from them acknowledging his death and discussing full and final settlement, i think they would find it very hard if not impossible to argue they hadnt been notified.

I thought it would be common sense to know you would need the paperwork to back it up.

Flyboy152

pimento wrote: »

Indeed. Keep your hand tightly on your wallet until they can prove (if) your uncle's estate owes the money.

As the estate has now probably been dissolved and the executors discharged, their is no one to be liable for the debt.

Flyboy152

antrobus wrote: »

I was always under the impression that part of the process of dealing with the deceased's estate was to publish the 'statutory advertisement' calling all creditors to come forward and make their claim. So the first question would be, did the sister-in-law place the necessary ad in the local paper?

Although the section twenty-seven notice is required for generally untraceable claimants on the deceased's estate, the fact that he died whilst a resident in one of their homes, it would negate the necessity for them to be informed by the advert. In other words, by that very fact, they knew he was dead. So, even if the executors did not post the advertisement, it would not have affected Southern Cross's ability to be informed.