Old Policy/Missing Partner/Rights on other half of money

Gemini48

My partner was contacted last year by an insurance company who had used a tracing agent to find him, saying he had a policy that had matured in 2012 and had some funds due to him. After duly signing the forms, providing ID etc., they wrote saying that the policy had in fact been in two names, himself and an ex girlfriend from 20 years previously and that she needed to sign.

My partner has had no contact with her for a very long time and no knowledge of her whereabouts. The insurance company said they were using a tracing agent to try and find her and were "still trying". For the next 5 months, he chased the company to find out how they were progressing, they simply said that they had had no reply from her last known address. He encouraged them to send it Recorded Delivery, which was duly returned by the Post Office, two weeks later, as she is obviously not there.

The company then agreed, in December 2013, to release 50% of the funds to my partner, he had to sign a disclaimer saying if his ex girlfriend came forward at any stage, to claim 100% of the money [strange?], he would have to give it back.

In May 2014 he contacted them to ask if they had located his ex girlfriend and if not, what would be done with the other 50%? We are 100% sure that they have given up trying to find her but what we want to know is what do we do now? They wrote back to say the other 50% is legally hers, full stop.

Our feeling if is he can write a disclaimer for 50% of the money, surely he can sign a disclaimer for 100%, when it seems they have no realistic prospects of finding her.

Is it ethically right that the company can basically just sit on this money forever? Or is there a set length of time they can sit on it? He's never received any paperwork about the performance of the fund over the 25 years of the policy, only a verbal confirmation of the amount on the phone and they just sent him 50% of it. And it's not that much money, around £2000 so it would hardly seem worth going to court, as the insurance company have instructed him to?

advice please?

dunstonh

Our feeling if is he can write a disclaimer for 50% of the money, surely he can sign a disclaimer for 100%, when it seems they have no realistic prospects of finding her.

He doesnt become the 100% owner just because the owner cannot be found at this time.

Is it ethically right that the company can basically just sit on this money forever?

Yes. It is certainly more ethical than paying it to someone that has no right to it.

The insurer wont give up. They employ tracing companies to do this. it just takes time.

[Deleted User]

Gemini48 wrote: »

The company then agreed, in December 2013, to release 50% of the funds to my partner,

That's all he will ever get. The rest of the money clearly does not belong to him.

Gemini48

Thanks for your honest, if blunt replies. My point was never to take money away from her if she is found. But what if she's never found? Surely my partner has more right to it than the insurance company? And actually, they more or less admitted to my partner that they had tried all efforts to find her and had given up, actually. So there was never any implication that he wanted to take money that doesn't belong to him, just money that clearly doesn't seem to belong to the insurance companies.

[Deleted User]

Gemini48 wrote: »

Surely my partner has more right to it than the insurance company?

Your partner has no right to the money at all.

If she's never found, her share should go to charity if anything.

Gemini48 wrote: »

But what if she's never found?

That really need not concern you or your partner..

Insider101

Gemini48 wrote: »

Thanks for your honest, if blunt replies. My point was never to take money away from her if she is found. But what if she's never found? Surely my partner has more right to it than the insurance company? And actually, they more or less admitted to my partner that they had tried all efforts to find her and had given up, actually. So there was never any implication that he wanted to take money that doesn't belong to him, just money that clearly doesn't seem to belong to the insurance companies.

If they pay it to him and he spends it then if his ex can't reclaim it from him she may attempt a claim against the insurance company which paid it to him knowing it was hers. Which is why they are averse to doing so.

-taff

It's her money. Unless she's found, no one gets it.

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

Unless she's found, no one gets it.

Actually, I believe it will be eventually turned over to the State.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5009248_what-happens-dormant-bank-accounts.html

Insider101 wrote: »

Which is why they are averse to doing so.

No, they are simply adverse to paying someone who has no entitlement to that money.

magpiecottage

If you could prove she died whilst the policy was still in force he would probably be entitled to it.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

If you could prove she died whilst the policy was still in force he would probably be entitled to it.

That's a different scenario altogether and we have no reason to assume the OP's partner or ex-girlfriend is of an age where death in the last twenty years is a likelihood. However, it'd probably be easier to trace a deceased person!

Insider101

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Actually, I believe it will be eventually turned over to the State.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5009248_what-happens-dormant-bank-accounts.html


No, they are simply adverse to paying someone who has no entitlement to that money.

From their perspective I doubt they give two hoots whether she is entitled to it or not. I'm sure a good lawyer could make an argument about it being paid from a joint bank account etc... They do give two hoots about the potential liability and risk this poses to their business. Banking and financial services is all about risk.