Have you accessed "bereavement benefits"?

mumps

Are people less likely to have insurance now? One of the first things I did when I had children was take out a policy so that my husband would have money to replace my income if anything happened to me and to ensure he could afford paid help. We also had insurance to pay off the mortgage if either of us died. My parents and grandparents always had insurance, for my grandparents generation it was a big thing to make sure you had money for a "decent" funeral, a paupers funeral was something to be feared.

I have a policy now that pays out £10k which means I know there will be money for the funeral without family having to worry about selling the house to raise capital.

I don't hear people talking about insurance now and thinking about it I don't know if any of my kids have insurance or how there mortgages would be paid if anything happened to them. Maybe I need to have a chat with them.

missbiggles1

mumps wrote: »

Are people less likely to have insurance now? One of the first things I did when I had children was take out a policy so that my husband would have money to replace my income if anything happened to me and to ensure he could afford paid help. We also had insurance to pay off the mortgage if either of us died. My parents and grandparents always had insurance, for my grandparents generation it was a big thing to make sure you had money for a "decent" funeral, a paupers funeral was something to be feared.

I have a policy now that pays out £10k which means I know there will be money for the funeral without family having to worry about selling the house to raise capital.

I don't hear people talking about insurance now and thinking about it I don't know if any of my kids have insurance or how there mortgages would be paid if anything happened to them. Maybe I need to have a chat with them.

Life assurance is really cheap - I think that people who have children and don't have both parents insured are being really irresponsible.

All 4 of our parents had funeral insurance, as did my husband. It was the only insurance he could get because of his health issues but we knew I'd get nearly 50% of his pension. I've got life assurance that would've repaid the mortgage if I'd died first as my occupational pension was rather less than his and he wouldn't've got such a high percentage of it after I died anyway.

Munnypenny

My husband passed away in March 2014 leaving me with two teenage children. The funeral directors were brilliant, a wonderful female funeral director came to the house to make all the arrangements and brought a booklet with her about all the benefits which otherwise I wouldn't have known about, I think it was published by a national funeral directors group. As others have mentioned I was entitled to and still receive the widowed parents allowance. This is a great help but is in fact only the state pension my late husband would have received and only until the youngest child reaches 18. So what happens to all the rest of his contributions from his 30 year working life? Also many bereaved parents wrongly understand it is a means tested benefit, which it isn't. From what I remember the application process was straightforward and I received the payments pretty quickly

I think all this goes to show that this is still one of the unspoken 'taboos' most people are simply uniformed about what to do and what you are entitled to when someone dies. Come on Martin & team, bring this out in to the open.

Another thing, I would urge everyone in this situation to also go and draw up a will & POA, it's hard going but essentail

missbiggles1

Fourteen complete newbies making their first and only post on this thread. Almost unbelievable.....

LydiaJ

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Fourteen complete newbies making their first and only post on this thread. Almost unbelievable.....

That doesn't mean they're not real. I've had all sorts of thoughts about my own and other bereaved parents' circumstances, but I've never made much of a song and dance about it - either on MSE (where I've been a member for years but mostly not on the boards where benefits are discussed) or IRL. I did consider a little while ago whether I might write to my MP, but I felt one letter among so many constituents wouldn't be worth the time and effort to write it - or not considering the many other pressures on my time and effort at the moment. I'm only sorry I didn't know this thread was here until after the deadline for responses to be sent to MPs.

I was married at 22, separated at 36 (although still legally married) and widowed at 40 when my children were 9 and 6. It was sudden and unexpected - he died in a road accident with both our children in the car with him, although their physical injuries were comparatively minor. Their psychological injuries, on the other hand, have not been minor at all. The six year old described trying to wake Daddy up, but he wouldn't wake up because he was dead. As you can imagine, that isn't easy to "get over".

At the time my husband was working full time and earning a good salary, while I had the major share of responsibility for care of the children, and was therefore only earning part-time but receiving a significant amount of maintenance from him. I applied for, and got, bereavement payment and widowed parents' allowance. I also got a payout from a life insurance policy that I held on his life and a lump sum "death in service" payment from his NHS pension.

Now I get a widow's pension from the NHS, and my kids get survivors' pensions from the NHS too, which are currently payable to me to spend on looking after them, but will become payable to them when they're older, and will continue to be paid, I think, until they leave full time education. Nearly five years after his death, I also finally got a compensation payout for the accident that killed him. Between all those sources of money, I'm now financially comfortable, and able to continue working only part time, for which I am more grateful than I can say.

I feel very strongly that widowed parents' allowance should be payable for a lot longer than a year. While it may or may not be the case that an adult should be back on their feet and able to work after a year, it's wildly over optimistic to expect bereaved children to be fine after a mere year. My kids still need a great deal more from me than they did before they were bereaved. Both have developed significant psychological issues, not only in the immediate aftermath, but worsening in the several years following, and it is only in the last year since I got compensation for the accident that I've been able to access psychological help for them that's specialised enough to deal with their problems. Supporting them through this has been a huge strain on me, and I am certain that I would have ended up in some kind of break-down if I had had to work full time to support us while all of this was going on.

It's all very well for me - my husband died before the rules changed, and I'll still get WPA until my children are financially off my hands. Those people who end up in my situation now and in the future deserve the same.

GwylimT

mumps wrote: »

Are people less likely to have insurance now? One of the first things I did when I had children was take out a policy so that my husband would have money to replace my income if anything happened to me and to ensure he could afford paid help. We also had insurance to pay off the mortgage if either of us died. My parents and grandparents always had insurance, for my grandparents generation it was a big thing to make sure you had money for a "decent" funeral, a paupers funeral was something to be feared.

I have a policy now that pays out £10k which means I know there will be money for the funeral without family having to worry about selling the house to raise capital.

I don't hear people talking about insurance now and thinking about it I don't know if any of my kids have insurance or how there mortgages would be paid if anything happened to them. Maybe I need to have a chat with them.

My wife couldn't get insurance because of a blood disorder she suffered from, well she could, if she paid over twice her income each month for a very small pay out.

mumps

GwylimT wrote: »

My wife couldn't get insurance because of a blood disorder she suffered from, well she could, if she paid over twice her income each month for a very small pay out.

That is a shame, it always gave me peace of mind to know that money would be something my husband wouldn't have to worry about if anything happened to me. It must have been something she considered though or you wouldn't know what it cost so she must have planned ahead thinking of the same issues I considered. It makes it even harder for you I would think, knowing she wanted to spare you that but being unable to. I hope you were able to manage.

Of course most mothers of young children wouldn't be in the difficult position your wife was in.

mumps

LydiaJ wrote: »

That doesn't mean they're not real. I've had all sorts of thoughts about my own and other bereaved parents' circumstances, but I've never made much of a song and dance about it - either on MSE (where I've been a member for years but mostly not on the boards where benefits are discussed) or IRL. I did consider a little while ago whether I might write to my MP, but I felt one letter among so many constituents wouldn't be worth the time and effort to write it - or not considering the many other pressures on my time and effort at the moment. I'm only sorry I didn't know this thread was here until after the deadline for responses to be sent to MPs.

I was married at 22, separated at 36 (although still legally married) and widowed at 40 when my children were 9 and 6. It was sudden and unexpected - he died in a road accident with both our children in the car with him, although their physical injuries were comparatively minor. Their psychological injuries, on the other hand, have not been minor at all. The six year old described trying to wake Daddy up, but he wouldn't wake up because he was dead. As you can imagine, that isn't easy to "get over".

At the time my husband was working full time and earning a good salary, while I had the major share of responsibility for care of the children, and was therefore only earning part-time but receiving a significant amount of maintenance from him. I applied for, and got, bereavement payment and widowed parents' allowance. I also got a payout from a life insurance policy that I held on his life and a lump sum "death in service" payment from his NHS pension.

Now I get a widow's pension from the NHS, and my kids get survivors' pensions from the NHS too, which are currently payable to me to spend on looking after them, but will become payable to them when they're older, and will continue to be paid, I think, until they leave full time education. Nearly five years after his death, I also finally got a compensation payout for the accident that killed him. Between all those sources of money, I'm now financially comfortable, and able to continue working only part time, for which I am more grateful than I can say.

I feel very strongly that widowed parents' allowance should be payable for a lot longer than a year. While it may or may not be the case that an adult should be back on their feet and able to work after a year, it's wildly over optimistic to expect bereaved children to be fine after a mere year. My kids still need a great deal more from me than they did before they were bereaved. Both have developed significant psychological issues, not only in the immediate aftermath, but worsening in the several years following, and it is only in the last year since I got compensation for the accident that I've been able to access psychological help for them that's specialised enough to deal with their problems. Supporting them through this has been a huge strain on me, and I am certain that I would have ended up in some kind of break-down if I had had to work full time to support us while all of this was going on.

It's all very well for me - my husband died before the rules changed, and I'll still get WPA until my children are financially off my hands. Those people who end up in my situation now and in the future deserve the same.

I am sure your children needed alot of support, just losing a parent when you are a child is bad enough but what your children went through must have been awful.

I just wanted to ask about the WPA, I thought you continued to get it while you were entitled to Child Benefit, so that would normally be when they leave school at 16 or 18. Has that changed? If so I agree with you and think a year is far to short a time to expect someone in your situation to adapt.

I hope your children are doing OK, I lost my father when I was 13 and I know it is a terrible loss for a child.

Edited to add, I just looked it up and see it is changing this year. The larger lump sum will be a help when needed most but I agree that 52 weeks isn't long enough. I haven't seen any publicity about this, I normally keep up to date with changes but this seems to have been kept pretty quiet.

I would certainly advise parents of young children to look at the sort of insurance I took out. It was a reducing sum designed to pay out a set sum every month for 18 years i.e. until my new born would reach 18. It was very cheap and we did it for an amount that would top up my work pension. Obviously there would be cases like Gwylim's wife but maybe that needs to be looked at as well.

missbiggles1

mumps wrote: »

I am sure your children needed alot of support, just losing a parent when you are a child is bad enough but what your children went through must have been awful.

I just wanted to ask about the WPA, I thought you continued to get it while you were entitled to Child Benefit, so that would normally be when they leave school at 16 or 18. Has that changed? If so I agree with you and think a year is far to short a time to expect someone in your situation to adapt.

I hope your children are doing OK, I lost my father when I was 13 and I know it is a terrible loss for a child.

Edited to add, I just looked it up and see it is changing this year. The larger lump sum will be a help when needed most but I agree that 52 weeks isn't long enough. I haven't seen any publicity about this, I normally keep up to date with changes but this seems to have been kept pretty quiet.

I would certainly advise parents of young children to look at the sort of insurance I took out. It was a reducing sum designed to pay out a set sum every month for 18 years i.e. until my new born would reach 18. It was very cheap and we did it for an amount that would top up my work pension. Obviously there would be cases like Gwylim's wife but maybe that needs to be looked at as well.

I hadn't realised it either, so thanks for the information.

I agree that it should be for longer than a year although I do think that while someone claimed CB was far too long. Somewhere between 2 and 5 years (depending on the age of the children) would be better.

Mojisola

Munnypenny wrote: »

So what happens to all the rest of his contributions from his 30 year working life?

The state pension isn't a personal plan - the money goes into a big pot and is paid out to whoever is entitled to it.