Partner has recently died...what happens about joint mortgage?

DVardysShadow

The_J wrote: »

You presumably know exactly what happened and what was referred to in the conversation? No? Oh.

I was assuming that the adviser would have gone through a compliant process, it's hard to imagine now that this would be different (it was through a building society) and it's likely that any reason for recommendation would have been spelled out in writing. "A lump sum will be paid out into your estate to be distributed as per your wishes" - almost inevitable and then boom, no complaint.

The culture of finding someone to blame for their lack of personal responsibility is a cancer on our society. It's not helped by people like you using hyperbole and prejudice to push your own agenda. Who was it that said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

What do you think my agenda is?

Associating me with a 'cancer on our society' really stretches the envelope for the idea that you don't use hyperbole.

Just stop the bluster and tell me whether [and why] this is unreasonable:

As a lay person, I am expecting a Mortgage Advisor to be selling a policy to protect the interests of the surviving partner in the mortgaged property.

If there is a cancer on society evident in this matter, it is Mortgage Advisers selling policies to trouser the commission, rather than to protect the interests of the surviving partner in the mortgaged property.

betmunch

@The J - DVardysShadow has been posting in these forums long enough for me (and others) to realsie he is not one for claiming compo for the sake of claiming compo.

I agree that the Compo culture is a cancer on our society, I dont believe DVardy is part of it

@DVardy - You are absolutely correct that you should expect better from our industy. This is a situation that people look to me for advice. If a policy is written to pay of a mortgage (which this one was) it damn well better pay off the mortgage!

While we dont know all the details it seems that the proceeds from this policy are going to the estate, not to the joint mortgagee therefore it is not doing what the OP wanted and expected, and is potentially a mis-sale.

The reason I say potentially is the worrying thing, as it was set up by a Building Society there is a high chance that it was set up by an unqualified salesman on a non-advised basis, and if this is the case then the responsibility lies with the OP, even if they feel they were advised on the product.

The non-advised sale has been abused systematically by Salesman types in these corporate environments desperate to get sales and avoid a telling of at the end of the month, which, I believe, is why its being all but cut off by the MMR.

For me this case smacks of a Salesman doing an Advisors job and trying to boost his figures, I hope I am wrong.

The fact is it was intended to protect a joint mortgage (from the OP), it should have been a joint policy for the amount of the mortgage. Anything else would need a solid reason why it was different

magpiecottage

The_J wrote: »

I was assuming that the adviser would have gone through a compliant process, it's hard to imagine now that this would be different (it was through a building society) and it's likely that any reason for recommendation would have been spelled out in writing. "A lump sum will be paid out into your estate to be distributed as per your wishes" - almost inevitable and then boom, no complaint.

I suspect FOS may disagree. The fact that it paid out into the estate made it unsuitable because it needed to go to the OP to pay off the mortgage.

An IFA might not realise its purpose (although it is arguable that they should) but the building society hardly seems in a position to rely on such a defence.

I was assuming that the adviser would have gone through a compliant process, it's hard to imagine now that this would be different (it was through a building society)

That would be why banks and building societies never get PPI complaints upheld then.

Thrugelmir

magpiecottage wrote: »

I suspect FOS may disagree. The fact that it paid out into the estate made it unsuitable because it needed to go to the OP to pay off the mortgage.

An IFA might not realise its purpose (although it is arguable that they should) but the building society hardly seems in a position to rely on such a defence.

Bearing in mind that no change was made to a 20 year old will. Then it is apparent that no professional advice was sought regarding the civil partnership at all. So difficult now to assume what the intentions were of the deceased.

MarkyMarkD

The cheapest option to ensure the repayment of the mortgage is a joint life policy. Two single life policies (assuming both are for the full mortgage balance) is excessive, over-expensive, and illogical - the only beneficiary is the sales person who gets more commission.

As others have said, I would expect to see a very good "reason why" explanation of why single life policies were sold.

All of that said, though, staying married for 20 years to "the wrong person" whilst living with someone else, and not changing your will at all shows severe lack of concern for the new partner and is very sad.

rlaforge

Each policy was designed to pay out the same amount - and cover the full amount borrowed. However, mine has critical illness added whereas partner was not allowed to have this on account of his age at the time (55). Do you think this was the main reason the policies were sold seperately?

rlaforge

I agree that the will situation is far from ideal and leaves me in a financial situation that I wouldn't wish on anyone but love makes people fickle not sensible. He was a fit and healthy 59yr old with what we thought were years ahead - to sort out all of the other stuff.

Expensive and painful lesson learned. Take off the rose tinted glasses and make sure every eventuality is covered.

Millie_Millsters

rlaforge wrote: »

I agree that the will situation is far from ideal and leaves me in a financial situation that I wouldn't wish on anyone but love makes people fickle not sensible. He was a fit and healthy 59yr old with what we thought were years ahead - to sort out all of the other stuff.

Expensive and painful lesson learned. Take off the rose tinted glasses and make sure every eventuality is covered.

You have my deepest sympathy, I lost my husband 18 months ago, he was only 55. It's hard enough dealing with the grief without having to worry about the financials too.

magpiecottage

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Bearing in mind that no change was made to a 20 year old will. Then it is apparent that no professional advice was sought regarding the civil partnership at all. So difficult now to assume what the intentions were of the deceased.

Except that the cover was arranged to match a mortgage taken out jointly by the deceased and the OP and arranged by the lender.

So, on the balance of probability I would say its purpose was to protect the OP from having to shoulder the burden of the mortgage alone.

Since it was set up in a way that did not do that I think FOS would probably conclude that it was unsuitable.

Wh05apk

I have only just seen this thread, what an awful situation.

With regards to trusts, I have always sold (or at least advised)single policies are placed in trust, however I know banks/building societies on the whole tend to be ignorant of the benefits of this, and rarely discuss/refer to trusts.

I suspect when the policies were sold there was probably no discussion around trusts, but a standard disclaimer in the suitability letter advising the OP to consider trusts and/or see a specialist advisor.

Once again sadly this brings home the benefits of getting advice around a policy like this rather than just getting the cheapest option, possibly online with no advice.

I think the OP needs to get some proper legal advice with this, taking in all paperwork relating to the original sale, also I am not sure, but wonder if they would have a claim over the payout/property, if they can show they have contributed to it?