Mother died and now accused of fraud what can we do?

temba

Hello I just wanted to offer you a cyber hug as this sort of thing drives me crazy.... As if you don't have enough to deal with in a bereavement. I know what I'm talking about..... I had a major bereavement too and as a result I got to know lots of people whose partners had died, and the amount of times that pension/insurance companies will try to take advantage of people (when the last thing they feel like doing is dealing with these sorts of problems) is criminal.

I do hope you manage to sort it all out.

dunstonh

Ididn't realise what a gamble pensions are.

They arent. At retirement you have a range of options and you can choose whether you want a pension income for your life or include your spouse. You can also guarantee the pension for upto 10 years and some also have the option to return a value if the full amount hasnt been paid out before death. In reality, most pensions will pay out far more than we paid in.

The key is to pick the right options at retirement.

and the amount of times that pension/insurance companies will try to take advantage of people

Yes. How cruel of them to ask for their money back when they are entitled to it.

chesky369

The fact the company originally offered to pay to the supposed widow/er leads one to assume that the pension did in fact have a surviving spouse benefit. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the statement.

samja1

Thank you to Tempa for the hug. Much appreciated.

I hiope no one has the impression that we are only interested in inheritance. This is NOT the case.

I still think pensions are a gamble. Many people (like my FIL) only live for a couple of years after they retire and so get hardly a fraction of what they put in.

We all have a part to play in society and fortunately for some lucky ones they understand financial packages. We are not one of these people. We understand cars and people but get very confused by financial matters. There are a lot of people like us who have to put their trust in complete strangers (IFAs) to get by with theri money. Some of these IFAs may not be able to service theri own cars but they undertsand money jargon.
A number of money minded people have pointed out that the money belonged to the insurnce company. But initially the money belonged to my FIL before he put his trust in the company and the fact that he would live long enough to see it again. I understand that the company are entitled to the money if it was paid in error but this does not alter the fact that if he had put the money under his mattress his wife would have had far more a month to live off AND there would have been a substantial amount left over.

when I die I want my son to have any money I may have left over not a faceless institution who didnt know me or give a damn about me.

If I spend it all on snowboarding and bungee jumping before I die this is OK too. In fact I wish my MIL had spent her money on things for herself like holidays etc than stashed it away in bank accounts etc. In fact,I wish she was still here today to carry on spending.

Again I thank you all for yourn comments (even those I dont particularly like).

Samja1

peter999

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Sorry, peter, but IMHO you're wrong.

Just because you have fulfilled your responsibility by notifying an insurer of your spouse's death, doesn't make you the owner of any money the insurer incorrectly pays to you. They are entitled to recover these funds as the OP's mother wasn't entitled to receive them.

If she has notified them & they have paid money due to error & incompetence over a considerable period of time, they cannot expect to recover the money.

Are you a Solicitor ??

peter999

Alfie_E

dunstonh wrote: »

When the insurance company find out the husband died 10 years ago, then there are 10 years of half pension to claw back.

dunston, could this possibly be limited, by statute, to six years? I mean, there’s no expectation that anyone else would still have paperwork relating to money received prior to that time, to allow any challenge to payments the pension company say occurred before that time.

defender_of_the_weak

Get the insurance company to supply a full history of the original pension, and payment history of amounts/dates. If they are going to ask for money from the estate they have to show that the payment was incorrect and give reasons for the error. There is a vague sort of precedent regarding general complaints that runs roughly like 'if the money was dissipated in normal expenditure then the company cannot expect it to be returned'. Take nothing for granted when dealing with this company, whoever they are and insist on written proof of whatever they tell you.

MarkyMarkD

It sounds like from what the OP is saying the money IS available in the estate, so I'm not sure that the argument about it being dissipated would apply. Good point, though, defender.

peter999 - no, I'm not a solicitor and I hope you're not either. I'm more bothered about what's right than what people can get away with; if the money has been paid in error it clearly should morally be returned. There is lots of precedent for people having to return money paid in error. The fact it went on for years is pretty irrelevant too - the ongoing payment would be as a result of a single error, of failing to note the death of the husband, not as a result of an ongoing error.

Lorian

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

if the money has been paid in error it clearly should morally be returned.

I think a copy of the policy is required to understand what the widow's benefits were supposed to be. Also the fact they increased by £50 is strange.

peterbaker

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

peter999 - no, I'm not a solicitor.

I must admit I wondered that too Marky, when you said something about "fraud, inadvertent or not". There is AFAIK no such concept in English law as inadvertent fraud, for that would simply imply an innocent mistake.

and dunstonh, whilst I do so often find your words and shared knowledge extremely useful, and would recommend others to read them too, I do sometimes wish you could temper your tendency towards unnecessary propoganda for your industry!:

Samja wrote:

Ididn't realise what a gamble pensions are.

dunstonh wrote:

They arent.

Those of us who have been stuffed by various Trustees, IFAs, out of control fund managers and rule changes in the past, can testify that a gamble is EXACTLY what insurance-backed pensions actually are. You have to be extremely savvy and of sufficient wealth to be able to keep ahead of the herd by using paid advisors to buy any degree of certainty. If you are just part of the herd you are gambling.