Death in Service and Pension lump sum

PensionTech

I am not sure why you're arguing this. You asked for opinions, and we've given you opinions, and informed opinions at that. Many of those opinions are that your prospects are not good. If you think these snippets will benefit you then go ahead and use them - but I would be astonished to find a trustee who would deprive a bereaved partner with clear financial links to the deceased of all money just because the family are willing to say nasty things about him. I'm sorry. That's how it looks from the outside. Partners get death benefits as standard. Many defined benefit schemes have it explicitly written into the rules that an unmarried partner will be granted the equivalent of a spouse's pension, and the evidence normally used to establish financial dependency is indeed joint bank accounts, cohabitation, joint bills and joint mortgages. This gives you an idea of where trustees place these relationships. Adult children and other relations are second in the queue. You would have to be able to produce absolutely exceptional and totally reliable evidence to convince a trustee that they should pay the boyfriend nothing at all, and in my opinion, nothing you have said meets those criteria.

The only example I have ever seen of a partner being completely overlooked for the death benefit was a case in which the partner actually murdered the person in question. In that case, the partner was of course sent to jail, and the benefit was paid to the deceased member's brother.

Malthusian

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

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?

Exactly the same question applies to the son.

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.

Your mistake is to view this money as if it was the mother's. It wasn't her money, it was her pension fund, held in trust for her benefit. As she is dead, the trustees now have to decide to whom it should be paid instead. As PensionTech says, it is normal for pension arrangements to make provision for the partner. Even if they weren't married.

"Dependant" does not necessarily mean the recipient has to be in financial hardship as a result of their spouse's death. Pension arrangements always consider the spouse to be a "dependant" even if the deceased was a housewife/husband and the "dependant" is CEO of Goldman Sachs.

dunstonh

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.

It is not the employer that decides. The money does not belong to the mother. It is held within a trust. The trustees now need to decide on the beneficiary as no nomination was made.

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.

If you want to put odds on it, then its likely some or all of the money will go to the partner who had interlinked finances and joint liabilities rather than a non-dependent child.

cte1111

Not quite the same situation, but you asked for other people's experiences in similar matters. My late Aunt left a will naming my sister and I as her beneficiaries. She did not leave a statement of wishes for her pension. She was survived by both her Mum and sister (my Gran and Mum). I made sure that the trustees were aware of all of these facts.

The pension trustees decided to pay out in accordance with her will, e.g. to my sister and I, rather than to her 'next of kin', e.g. my Gran. As I said this is not the same, as none of us were in any way dependent on my Aunt, but it is one example that might help.

dunstonh

cte1111 wrote: »

Not quite the same situation, but you asked for other people's experiences in similar matters. My late Aunt left a will naming my sister and I as her beneficiaries. She did not leave a statement of wishes for her pension. She was survived by both her Mum and sister (my Gran and Mum). I made sure that the trustees were aware of all of these facts.

The pension trustees decided to pay out in accordance with her will, e.g. to my sister and I, rather than to her 'next of kin', e.g. my Gran. As I said this is not the same, as none of us were in any way dependent on my Aunt, but it is one example that might help.

A will is useful where there is no nomination as it gives the thoughts and wishes of the individual. It is not binding on the trustees but helps them make their decision.

There is no Will in this case though.

DISPension

If just spoken to my mothers best friend and she has told me that my mother told her a month before she died that they were no longer an item, and reiterated that my mother specifically said to her as her health deteriorated than she wanted me to have this money.

Surely this information coming from her would have some influence on the trustees? 0

Kynthia

DISPension wrote: »

If just spoken to my mothers best friend and she has told me that my mother told her a month before she died that they were no longer an item, and reiterated that my mother specifically said to her as her health deteriorated than she wanted me to have this money.

Surely this information coming from her would have some influence on the trustees? 0

How do they know she was your mother's best friend and that your mother actually said that? Facts with evidence are what's needed such as things in writing, paperwork or correspondence showing she was leaving her partner, a will, a solicitor confirming she was enquiring about changing the ownership from joint tenants to tenants in common, etc.

dunstonh

DISPension wrote: »

If just spoken to my mothers best friend and she has told me that my mother told her a month before she died that they were no longer an item, and reiterated that my mother specifically said to her as her health deteriorated than she wanted me to have this money.

Surely this information coming from her would have some influence on the trustees? 0

Evidence of this?

it is a month before. So, did she change her address on the bank accounts? driving licence? Where was she living?

Why was no nomination of beneficiary made if she felt this whilst her health was deteriorating? Seems a strange thing to tell a friend without telling you and not doing anything about it.

OldBeanz

I think from previous replies you already know the answer to your own question.
You say that they were no longer an item but then blame the partner for not looking after your mother which could be construed as contradictory.
While I would want my children to inherit my estate in the first instance all my money goes to my wife, their mother. She is likely to live longer than me so may well have other plans for when I am not here although we have mirror wills.
Pensions are devised for an individual then partners and dependant children.

Malthusian

I find it hard to believe that someone could repeatedly tell their son about their pension fund and their desire to leave it to them yet not take any steps to find out how they would actually do this. Not impossible, just difficult. As somone savvy with the pension system it is easy to say "she should have filled in an expression of wish form". But even with empathy switched on I can't understand why you would repeatedly tell your son about leaving the pension fund to him yet do nothing to make sure this is actually going to happen. Even if you don't know about expressions of wish, if you really wanted a particular person to receive the death benefits, wouldn't you find out? I think the trustees will ask the same question.

When people are in the last few months of their life it usually focuses their mind dramatically, on making sure their arrangements are in place as they wish. Or they go into total denial. But denial doesn't fit with "my mother specifically said to her as her health deteriorated than she wanted me to have this money".

The standard rule with inheritances is to assume you will receive nothing and treat anything you do receive as a bonus. Even if you are the only child of two happily married parents, there is nothing to guarantee that one of them won't be widowed or divorced and marry a new husband/wife and adopt some Romanian orphans. Or go bats and leave all the money to the cats home. Or live to 110. People live a long time (usually) and stuff happens. That rule applies in this case. The OP may receive something but I think it is very doubtful the trustees will regard the long-term cohabiting financially intertwined partner as having no claim. Historically, pension death benefits were for widows and dependent (i.e. young) children. "Next of kin" got zip if next of kin meant a grown up son or daughter. This is a different kind of pension / benefit but there is still a presumption in favour of the partner.

Assuming that you have put the provable facts to the trustees I think there is very little you can do to increase your payout. Which is why I think it would be a better idea to manage your expectations.