Cretid card debt after death

dazza.mk

<...deleted...>

jamesml

Credit card debt can't be jointly liable - its only ever in one persons name. Even if you are a cardholder on someone else's account, the debt is either in your spouses name or your name, not jointly. So the debt is his alone, although that's not to say the above does not apply re survivorship and the CC company.

You mention repatriation - this makes me wonder whether any of the CC companies are non-UK? I don't know whether your fathers residency (either UK or non-UK) might impact the comments above either?

mikefromGU

Thanks all. I need to digest all this. Thanks for your input

whambam

bartman100 wrote: »

I was in the same situation last year my nan passed with credit card debts of £15,000 because they were solely in her name all we had to do was call the credit card companies tell situation forward a copy of death certificate and they wrote the debt off.
My Nan & Grandad owned their property out right and the property was put into my grandads name and he still lives in it as of this day.
The credit card companies were brilliant they gave us no problems at all during this process.
Hope this helps

Did your nan have PPI on death? or was in it the credit card terms and conditions?

chattychappy

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, in the OP's case, it is clear that s421a IA 1986 does apply, and that therefore Mum is (effectively) liable for the debt. Whether the lenders in question choose to apply for an insolvency administration order would be another question.

For "effectively" I would say "potentially". You are correct about the presumption, but the Act gives the court a wide discretion if it does decide to grant an order. It might, for example, order payment by instalments or that a charge be put on the property. It may decide that the case is, indeed exceptional and not grant an order at all. Against this background of uncertainty, I doubt whether a CC would bother for a CC debt (though they might use the Act as a way to threaten). If they did make an application, a deal could almost certainly be had.

S421A has come up a few times before, eg in 2010 (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2403433). AFAIK, nobody has reported it being used.

lisyloo

This is speculation, but I believe a financial insitution would get TERRIBLE press if they took a widow/widower to court for their late spouses debt.

Obviously no-one can say and the potential liability is there, but if it were me in that posistion then I'd be fairly confident that they wouldn't want the publicitly surrounding it.

k12479

I'm not sure it would necessarily be bad publicity, possibly the opposite. People reading such as article may reasonably wonder where and on what/whom the money was spent. If they have their own financial difficulties, they may well question why they've got CCJs or bailiffs knocking on the door over a few thousand while tens of thousands are potentially being written off.

lisyloo

may reasonably wonder where and on what/whom the money was spent

That's not unreasonable, in many cases the spouse is wondering too.

they may well question why they've got CCJs or bailiffs knocking on the door over a few thousand while tens of thousands are potentially being written off.

But would you accept balliff's knocking on your door for something your spouse spent possibly without your knowledge?

When people are alive then no-one is responsible for anyone else'se debt (unless it's joint of course).

From a pragmatic point of view a judge would probably not force a sale for relatively low amounts, hence the money is very illiquid and they could have to wait decades for it.

I still think on the whole most people would not want to see widow/widower spouses pursued for debts that weren't there's and I think most people would see it as scandalous.

magpiecottage

I think a lot of conclusions are being jumped to here.

Lets start with the PPI. If it doesn't exist it won't pay out.

If it does exist, it won't because there is no death benefit. There would be a possibility that a misselling complaint would be upheld. The lender would put any redress toward the debt in the first instance. This is irrelevant if the debt is written off but not otherwise.

Antrobus IS correct. However, the lender demands repayment, the widow can complain that it is being unfair. If the lender does not give a satisfactory response then the widow can go to FOS.

Provided court proceedings have not commenced, FOS can ignore the Insolvency Act and do what it likes if it thinks it is "fair and reasonable". Throwing (presumably elderly) widow out of her home because a bank was silly enough to lend her late husband more than he could pay back seems unlikely to strike an Ombudsman as fair or reasonable.

Would they tell the lender to write the debt off? Possibly not. However, they might do something like ordering it to make an interest free loan for life - possibly secured on the property (with it meeting all legal costs).

k12479

lisyloo wrote: »

But would you accept balliff's knocking on your door for something your spouse spent possibly without your knowledge?

Quite possibly. Companies, and their other customers, have no input into or responsibility for people's dysfunctional personal relationships.

lisyloo wrote: »

I still think on the whole most people would not want to see widow/widower spouses pursued for debts that weren't there's and I think most people would see it as scandalous

Surely the context of what happened to the money is crucial.

Either way, I suspect this will start becoming a bigger and more common problem.