Death in Service and Pension lump sum

DISPension

I've applied and received probate, and her work have received the grant

jamesd

Silvertabby wrote: »

if you are the legal Executor, then the trustees may take the easy way out and pay the money to you for you to 'distribute in accordance with the law'.

The executor has no role in law in the distribution of money from pensions and life insurance. So the trustees can't do anything that has the executor do it in accordance with law because that is the responsibility of the trustees.

As a potential beneficiary the trustees would also have to take care in simply trusting what the executor says in relation to claims made by another party who has clearly linked finances.

NordicNoir

jamesd wrote: »

The executor has no role in law in the distribution of money from pensions and life insurance. So the trustees can't do anything that has the executor do it in accordance with law because that is the responsibility of the trustees.

As a potential beneficiary the trustees would also have to take care in simply trusting what the executor says in relation to claims made by another party who has clearly linked finances.

If there is no one nominated to receive the death in service payment, the trustees are free to choose someone to receive the payment (they do not even have to follow the nomination if it did exist) If they prefer, they can pay the amount directly to the estate. The sum then is subject to any IHT, if applicable.

PensionTech

The executor has no role in law in the distribution of money from pensions and life insurance. So the trustees can't do anything that has the executor do it in accordance with law because that is the responsibility of the trustees.

As a potential beneficiary the trustees would also have to take care in simply trusting what the executor says in relation to claims made by another party who has clearly linked finances.

I think it's relatively common for schemes to default to paying the LPR, though like you I don't think it would be normal (or sensible) to state that the LPR then has to distribute the money in any particular way. So there is a possibility there. But where there's cohabitation and a joint mortgage I would expect most trustees to take this seriously into account.

I agree with the many people on here who think that the trustees are likely to consider giving at least some money to the boyfriend. I myself have lived with my boyfriend for a relatively short time (three years) and we are not yet married. We have a joint mortgage and a joint bank account and although my relationships with family and indeed many friends have lasted much longer, I have directed my pension schemes to pay 100% to him on my death. He is (currently) the only person who depends on any financial contribution from me at all, and vice versa, so I don't think any other people in my life have an expectation or a right to my death benefits.

Now, I say this only as an example of a relationship that may appear the same on paper, bar the fact that I have taken the time to actually nominate him as my beneficiary. I'm aware your mother may not have had the same intentions towards her boyfriend that I have towards mine. But unfortunately you don't have any solid evidence of that, and it isn't unusual for there to be a dispute between the partner and the family on death. The trustees are not judges in a family court. They can't take your claims of his negligence towards her and convert that into a financial penalty. They aren't in a position to judge which of you is lying or exaggerating or just plain mistaken, and giving them a bundle of cherry-picked anecdotes about how the relationship seemed to other people isn't likely to count for much. It wouldn't be appropriate for the trustees to discount what appeared (at least on paper) to be a very significant relationship between your mother and her boyfriend, and they can't stick their necks on the line by deciding that your account of what your mother would have wanted is more accurate or truthful than the hard evidence she left behind.

jamesd

MichelleUK wrote: »

If there is no one nominated to receive the death in service payment, the trustees are free to choose someone to receive the payment (they do not even have to follow the nomination if it did exist) If they prefer, they can pay the amount directly to the estate. The sum then is subject to any IHT, if applicable.

The trustees could try to do that and the likely result is them being taken to their regulator then the courts by the beneficiaries who they denied paying. Blowing lots of the benefit value on avoidable inheritance tax would also not be a great move for pension trustees and I expect that the scheme would face a demand to pay the tax that was unnecessarily paid due to the reckless lack of care of the trustees.

DISPension

One question I would ask to you PensionTech is do you have any children?

My mother raised me on her own, at some points working two jobs. She did everything she could to provide for me, she told me specifically that she wanted me to have this money which is why I'm so determined to honor that and get the money.

I live in Lancashire so that money would pay off my house twice over and would set me up for life, to me it's as cut and dry as a son she raised or a boyfriend of two years?

I know that I need to be prepared for the worst but what would be the best route of appeal, court or the ombudsman.

PensionTech

One question I would ask to you PensionTech is do you have any children?

No, and of course I am not claiming that my situation is the same as your mother's or that your mother had the same priorities as I do - only that there are different ways of interpreting these things to onlookers. If I had dependent children, certainly my financial duty would be to them. If I had adult children... I don't know. It's certainly the normal thing for parents to leave money to their kids but that becomes muddier if there are other financial dependants. As I say, my partner and I have joint financial commitments and I would not leave him high and dry. I think you've taken offence at my comment here when none was intended. I have no reason to dispute your account of your mother's circumstances, but I am trying to show you that your mother's situation and mine do not appear so different on paper, and although this is clearly a very emotive issue for you, you must see that a trustee will find it difficult if not impossible to responsibly verify your story and cut off the boyfriend.

I know that I need to be prepared for the worst but what would be the best route of appeal, court or the ombudsman.

You would have to go through an internal dispute procedure first, and then I would suggest the Ombudsman, as it's free. But I would not hold out much hope for success. In order for the Ombudsman to order the Trustees to reconsider (let alone overturn) their decision, he would have to be satisfied that they exercised their discretion improperly and came to a decision that no reasonable person could come to. From the responses here, you can probably see that many reasonable people could award the bulk or even the whole of the money to the boyfriend. I'm afraid it's quite common for pension schemes to prioritise dependent partners above non-dependent children.

I do hope this works out well for you, but I think the best you can hope for is probably a share of the money; it's unlikely you'll get all of it.

Malthusian

DISPension wrote: »

She did everything she could to provide for me, she told me specifically that she wanted me to have this money

But she didn't take five minutes and the cost of a stamp to write a letter to the pension company nominating you as her beneficiary. Words are wind. Sadly, I think it may be easier for you if you resign yourself to the fact that your mother was not as concerned about you inheriting the money as you wish to think she was.

I live in Lancashire so that money would pay off my house twice over and would set me up for life, to me it's as cut and dry as a son she raised or a boyfriend of two years?

Two years is a pretty long time in most people's lives. If I understand correctly you've already set the facts out to the pension trustees. I would stop there because you're unlikely to convince them that your mother's boyfriend was a meaningless fling, if you tell them the same things that you've told us.

It was your mother's money. She could quite easily have made a nomination stating that 100% of the death benefit should be paid to the boyfriend, which the trustees would almost certainly have honoured. If I were you I would assume I would receive nothing and treat anything I did receive as a happy windfall.

DISPension

I'm not trying to say it was a meaningless fling, they were in separate beds and she resented him. However due to depression and heavy drinking she didn't have the strength to leave him.

Courts have stated several things that I think will benefit me

“the person in question must be dependent in the proper sense of that term and it is not
sufficient if he was merely deriving benefit from the earnings of the deceased; he must
be to some extent dependent upon him for the ordinary necessities of life having regard
to his class and position in life.”

Also that

“the relationship is an emotional one of mutual lifetime commitment rather than simply
one of convenience, friendship, companionship or the living together of lovers…subject
to the qualification that the relationship must be openly and unequivocally displayed
to the outside world”

The outside world I.e her family and friends knew that she hated him but didn't have it in her to leave.

enthusiasticsaver

If your mother wanted her boyfriend to have her money would she not have named him as a beneficiary on an expression of wish form or at the very least made out a will? They are not married so I cannot see why the employers would not pay out to her LPR or next of kin, namely her son. Even if the mortgage and house are in joint names if they are set out as joint then they were perfectly at liberty to take out mortgage protection for this and presumably the house will go to the surviving owner, namely the boyfriend.

I would hope that this is the decision the employers will come to as well as there is no legal relationship between your mother and boyfriend. They will not want to get involved in assuming the relationship extends beyond the house which is already sorted.