Children of Deceased Father

phyllisgrant

Thank you very much for all your responses.

Insider101

The definitive answer on this one. If a will was left, the right to complain is held by the executor named under a grant of probate. If no will was left then the right of complaint is held by the administrator of the estate, who should have applied for a grant of letters of administration (see https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/death-and-wills/dealing-with-the-financial-affairs-of-someone-who-has-died/#h-if-the-amount-of-money-is-small).

If neither of these are held then it is entirely up to the institution in question whether they will accept a complaint from another party. Even then there are stumbling blocks, as others have identified correctly, if it is the bankrupt wife then the redress will generally be an asset of the official receiver. Then there is the fact that despite what the third parties and newspapers would have you believe, there is no such thing as a "claim for PPI", they would potentially making a complaint alleging missale of the product, which is tricky (though not impossible) if the buyer is not around to give their side of the story. Then there is the problem that the CMC are already involved and you would need to find out how far they had got. If they are aware that the insured has died then they may drop the matter, however, they may try to pursue it regardless and bearing in mind the circumstances it is questionable whether the mother (or anyone else) has the authority to fire them.

jamesd

phyllisgrant wrote: »

They were still married when he died. She can't claim because she had to become bankrupt.

She can claim even though bankrupt. She can also tell her receiver about the claim so the receiver can make it. She's actually obliged to claim because it is probably currently an undisclosed asset of a bankrupt, so at a minimum she has to tell the receiver.

phyllisgrant wrote: »

Can the children claim?

If she dies they can claim as executors or administrators of her estate. The money will need to be declared to the receiver so that the receiver can use it to pay off creditors. If anything is left the children will get it. Might as well get the receiver to do the work instead.

phyllisgrant wrote: »

If they could, then they could use the money to get on the property ladder. Have a deposit for a house.

And she is currently hiding assets from her official receiver and could even conceivably get prosecuted for it, though a bankruptcy restriction order and extended time until discharge are more likely outcomes.

She needs to tell her OR about this asset as soon as practical. There's even a chance that she was explicitly asked about such things during an interview and answered no before learning of this one, something that she'd need to correct ASAP.

Insider101

jamesd wrote: »

She can claim even though bankrupt. She can also tell her receiver about the claim so the receiver can make it. She's actually obliged to claim because it is probably currently an undisclosed asset of a bankrupt, so at a minimum she has to tell the receiver.

If she dies they can claim as executors or administrators of her estate. The money will need to be declared to the receiver so that the receiver can use it to pay off creditors. If anything is left the children will get it. Might as well get the receiver to do the work instead.

And she is currently hiding assets from her official receiver and could even conceivably get prosecuted for it, though a bankruptcy restriction order and extended time until discharge are more likely outcomes.

She needs to tell her OR about this asset as soon as practical. There's even a chance that she was explicitly asked about such things during an interview and answered no before learning of this one, something that she'd need to correct ASAP.

One slight problem with this. The OP has not to this point given any indication that the product was missold.

There is not something inherently wrong with having PPI and people are not entitled to money just because they had it. The product has to have been missold for a complaint to be justifiable. Whilst the original question has been answered on an "in theory" basis, there is no indication so far of any wrongdoing by LLoyds in this matter.

The OR is currently going through the histories of previously bankrupt individuals to establish whether they may have been missold PPI prior to their bankruptcy and compelling them to cooperate so depending on when the mother went bankrupt they may end up proactively contacting her in any case (the banks and the OR are negotiating a "back stop" date for this in return for cooperation). However, on top of the above, my previous point still stands that there is no clear cut proof that the mother even has the right to make a complaint unless she is granted letters of administration.

addedvaluebob

Insider101 wrote: »

One slight problem with this. The OP has not to this point given any indication that the product was missold.

There is not something inherently wrong with having PPI and people are not entitled to money just because they had it. The product has to have been missold for a complaint to be justifiable. Whilst the original question has been answered on an "in theory" basis, there is no indication so far of any wrongdoing by LLoyds in this matter.

The OR is currently going through the histories of previously bankrupt individuals to establish whether they may have been missold PPI prior to their bankruptcy and compelling them to cooperate so depending on when the mother went bankrupt they may end up proactively contacting her in any case (the banks and the OR are negotiating a "back stop" date for this in return for cooperation). However, on top of the above, my previous point still stands that there is no clear cut proof that the mother even has the right to make a complaint unless she is granted letters of administration.

Ignore all of this post and put in a complaint either as the administrator of the estate or on behalf of your mother as the beneficiary. The bankruptcy is a red herring in this case as the mis-sale was for your now late father. Any redress becomes an asset of the estate not the OR in the first instance.

As for the 'no evidence that Lloyds did anything wrong, given their uphold rate of normal complaint and the high turnover of rejections by FOS the balance of probability is firmly on the side of the consumer so lets 'assume' that Lloyds are guilty of mis-selling. The OP does not have to justify their case on this forum.

welshgasman

Who says there was a mis sale?
If the claim is upheld, Lloyds will want proof of executor/probate. Whoever it is, then they will check for IVA/Bankruptcy. They will even check on the deceased as well. If bankruptcy is found, they WILL contact the OR and as stated the OR will state they require the refund.

The OP appears to think there will be a large sum if upheld. That might not be the case.
Furthermore the OP has not stated the bank is lloyds, that was just mentioned by Insider101

-taff

addedvaluebob wrote: »

The bankruptcy is a red herring in this case as the mis-sale was for your now late father. Any redress becomes an asset of the estate not the OR in the first instance.

But as the mother inherited everything, then it isn't a red herring, and if the case is successful, she needs to declare it to the OR.

Insider101

welshgasman wrote: »

Who says there was a mis sale?
If the claim is upheld, Lloyds will want proof of executor/probate. Whoever it is, then they will check for IVA/Bankruptcy. They will even check on the deceased as well. If bankruptcy is found, they WILL contact the OR and as stated the OR will state they require the refund.

The OP appears to think there will be a large sum if upheld. That might not be the case.
Furthermore the OP has not stated the bank is lloyds, that was just mentioned by Insider101

True, don't know where I got that from :doh::doh::doh:

If the CMC make the complaint then they will probably proceed as they will have a signed authority from the deceased. If, however, the OP tries to make one on behalf of the estate then they are likely to ask for one before they are willing to investigate any complaint.

The process above is broadly accurate and if the OR state that they require the funds the bank will pay to them. It would then fall to the beneficiaries to dispute the matter in court if they felt that this was not correct. As I stated above, there is an argument to be had over it.

jamesd

Insider101 wrote: »

One slight problem with this. The OP has not to this point given any indication that the product was missold. ... There is not something inherently wrong with having PPI and people are not entitled to money just because they had it.

The OP mentioned the father making a claim so I think we can presume that the father believed that there was a mis-sale and made some sort of allegation about it. Beyond that I agree with you that there should be some actual mis-sale before making a claim.

Insider101 wrote: »

The OR is currently going through the histories of previously bankrupt individuals to establish whether they may have been missold PPI prior to their bankruptcy and compelling them to cooperate so depending on when the mother went bankrupt they may end up proactively contacting her in any case (the banks and the OR are negotiating a "back stop" date for this in return for cooperation).

Thanks, all the more reason for the mother to contact the OR to let them know about the existing claim.

Transformers

Any money due would be paid to the 'estate' of the deceased.

This would then first need to be used to offset any debts owed by the deceased at the time of his death (or subsequently written off because of a lack of a large enough estate).

I find it incredible that the 'children' feel that they are due a 'windfall' for a property deposit from a third party even though the deceased's spouse has declared bankruptcy leaving creditors out of pocket.

Still - as JR Ewing said: "there's nothing like the smell of money to bring the relatives out of the woodwork".