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

Flyboy152

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.

Although your are absolutley correct in respect to the duties of the executors, that would only be if the advert would have been material in informing the claimant. As they already knew he was dead, the section twenty-seven notice is somewhat irrelevant to their claim.

Flyboy152

pinkshoes wrote: »

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.

Also I would advise that the OP's sister-in-law never ever acknowledges the debt, at any time.

Flyboy152

Optimist wrote: »

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.

From what I understand, probate would only be granted if the executors' statutory duties have been carried out anyway.

Optimist

Flyboy152 wrote: »

From what I understand, probate would only be granted if the executors' statutory duties have been carried out anyway.

Probate gives them the right to administer the estate. In many but not all cases the Executor would have trouble dealing with the estate without a grant of probate.

joycee98

My sister in law called in today and I have showed her this blog, so she can see the useful info being offered.
She told me the person from Southern Cross did not call her back yesterday as he had promised. So she called him at 2:00pm on the number I have already mentioned here, and asked for the person that called her originally. When he answered she said he sounded under stress he was huffing and puffing (She demonstrated the way he was doing it -Like when you ask someone something and they haven't got time for you)
He apologised for not getting back to her as he promised and said he had been very busy. He was looking into it trying to find out what the bill was for!!!

She advised him of the bank statements from her uncles bank that cover the last six month he was in care, and the last payment which she took down to the office and handed over, which was the final payment AFTER her uncles death. She paid that last bill by cheque and it was a lot more for the final month, the normal monthly Direct Debits
She asked him where he had came up with this large figure that he said her uncle owed, and he said he was trying to find out, could she go on hold for a while?

She had the grand son to pick up from school and advised him of that so he said he would go and try and find out while she was on the phone. She again said well if you are saying this money is owed, you surely must have some idea what its for, you have really stirred up a hornets nest here because there is no money so it will not be being paid. (Her uncle had no property only his savings which were not a lot, as most of them went on his care.)
The man then said: " Well it might be something like when pensioners get a rise, and maybe social services have not passed it on, because if they get a rise then it goes towards the care"
He didn't say he new this, it was his own opinion as though he was guessing!! The thing is that if social services made the mistake then why phone my sister in law. The other thing is I am a pensioner, and the biggest rise you got as a pensioner until this year, was 40p or 50p a week!!! So if it was a rise of 50p a week that wouldn’t come to £2,500 over three and a half year. This year I think it was £2 or £3 but that is irrelevant as he has been dead for three and a half year.
So we are still no further forward, and I am thinking the reason they phoned in the first place is because they just think she owes money, otherwise they would have put it in writing and explained why. To me this is all very strange. The phone number I have put on this blog will be genuine as I checked on where Southern Cross head office is -and it is in Darlington. Even though the man said he was in London.

anmarj

basically the care home can increase the fees by however much they want to, they don't follow the same as government increases. if you google care home fees you will find loads on the subject, but the social services should of been doing an assessment every financial year and advising your sister in law of the changes and what your late uncle was expected to pay towards his fees but that may only be if the local authority were contributing towards the care, if he was totally self funding and paying the full fees then Southern Cross should of informed your sister in law. There have been some subjects recently from people saying that care homes (not just Southern Cross) have been in touch with bills going back years because the rate was not calcuated correctly when it went up, they may of only just come across it during an audit of the accounts.


you may find this interesting especially about the amount people pay and what the council pay

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Care-home-operators-39won39t-touch39.6799904.jp

antrobus

Flyboy152 wrote: »

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

I'm sorry that's just plain wrong;

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/

RAS wrote: »

... 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.

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.

Well I'm glad at least some 'get it'. As I said before;

antrobus wrote: »

... had the sister-in-law placed the statutory adverts in the press then ... 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 was worthwhile asking the question in the first place.

Given that the sister-in-law didn't place the advert in the first place, the argument is somewhat academic, but given that many of us will likely be in the position of trying to sort out the estate of some deceased relative at some point in our lives, it's worthwhile knowing that by placing the statutory adverts you can protect yourself from getting thumped later down the line should something go wrong. It is, as the man said a "relatively cheap insurance policy".

antrobus

joycee98 wrote: »

My sister in law called in today and I have showed her this blog, so she can see the useful info being offered. She told me the person from Southern Cross did not call her back yesterday as he had promised. So she called him at 2:00pm on the number I have already mentioned here, and asked for the person that called her originally... he was huffing and puffing .... So we are still no further forward, and I am thinking the reason they phoned in the first place is because they just think she owes money, otherwise they would have put it in writing and explained why. To me this is all very strange....

It does indeed seem strange. However, given the recent developments, as in 'Southern Cross set to shut down and stop running homes' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14102750), I expect that the admin of Southern Cross is in a state of chaos, and that employees are more concerned about their own financial futures that sorting out anybody elses's problems.

I must admit that I'd be very much inclined to do absolutely nothing at the moment. As I said before, I think it would be very difficult, even if a debt actually existed, for Southern Cross to actually be able to enforce the debt in the circumstances outlined. I would recommend that the sister in law follows the advice given above to never, ever acknowledge that any debt exists, and to insist that full and final settlement has already been made, should the occasion ever arise, simply because (as far as I'm aware) the statute of limitations will eventually apply.

Flyboy152

antrobus wrote: »

I'm sorry that's just plain wrong;

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/

Those comments were made on the presumption that the executor had carried out their statutory responsibilities. As of yet we do not know either way.

pmduk

Southern Cross may have their headquarters in Darlington, but if the administrators/liquidators are in London it would explain why you are getting calls from there. Have you tried googling the number that is calling you? Anyway, you are best waiting (and not panicking) until they get back to you.