Pre paid funeral plan with Safe Hands

Marcon

Really interesting report on this in today's You & Yours on Radio 4, which I think you'll find reassuring. You can listen on BBC Sounds: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001680t

[Deleted User]

I have just checked who my prepaid funeral plan is with, thankfully not Safe hands! The one Im with is fully covered. I do hope you get your money back.

For future reference:
 Funeral Plan Providers will need to apply to be authorised by the FCA. Any firm not authorised, will need to cease selling and managing funeral plans from 29 July 2022, as it will become a criminal offence to continue to operate without FCA authorisation.

Me_2

Following the recent news that Safe Hands went bump because their Trust fund was a mess - in so much as not all the funds went in to it and weren't safe from withdrawals for other purposes as promised to many customers. Can anyone pick holes in this theory?

Any part of the plan paid on a Credit Card can be claimed by under a Section 75.

Any part of the plan paid by Direct Debit can be claimed back under the Direct Debit Guarantee.

Both on the grounds of mis-selling. Specifically that not all your money was kept at all safe in an independent Trust fund.

sargentchris

Credit card yes, DD no

maryshoo

Both my husband and I had prepaid funeral plans with Safe Hands - now there is a misnomer! I have today written to our MP and provided a template letter for others in a similar situation. We intend to claim via the Administrators when instructed, but expect a minimum - if any - refund. It seems clients come at the bottom of the pecking order for refunds. The whole affair is a scandal as Safe Hands was clearly still taking money knowing it was unable to fulfil the contracts. 

sargentchris

So writing to your MP is a good idea and many already have. 
SH were in a position to fulfill all plans until the FCA decided to regulate the industry. This is  because not all plans would  need to be paid at the same time and so the investments would have time to grow and provide.
Having said that, the promise of funds being ring fenced and protected was obviously a mis-selling.

Me_2

sargentchris said:

Credit card yes, DD no

For Safe Hands in particular - the argument would be obtaining money by deception, i.e. being told money is safe in a Trust, which has not turned out to be the case - this was a big selling point for funeral plans in general. So the fact that this statement turned out to be a lie would fall within the definition of fraud, surely?

I know the DD Guarantee covers payments that weren't supposed to be taken - or were taken in error - but I'm sure there something also covering fraud.

lincroft1710

Me_2 said:

sargentchris said:

Credit card yes, DD no

For Safe Hands in particular - the argument would be obtaining money by deception, i.e. being told money is safe in a Trust, which has not turned out to be the case - this was a big selling point for funeral plans in general. So the fact that this statement turned out to be a lie would fall within the definition of fraud, surely?

I know the DD Guarantee covers payments that weren't supposed to be taken - or were taken in error - but I'm sure there something also covering fraud.

See if your bank agrees with you

Malthusian

sargentchris said:

So writing to your MP is a good idea and many already have. 
SH were in a position to fulfill all plans until the FCA decided to regulate the industry. This is  because not all plans would  need to be paid at the same time and so the investments would have time to grow and provide.

That sounds suspiciously like the Ponzi defence to me, aka "everything would have been fine if the greedy investors hadn't wanted their money back".

If they needed speculative investment returns to fulfill their contracts then they weren't in a position to fulfill all contracts. If those future returns were guaranteed, Safe Hands would have been able to borrow money to meet their outgoings in the present, or sell their book to an insurer.

Me_2 said:
I know the DD Guarantee covers payments that weren't supposed to be taken - or were taken in error - but I'm sure there something also covering fraud.

The Guarantee itself doesn't even explicitly mention fraud - fraudulently taken payments are covered under "if an error is made". I agree with sargentchris; to me it seems to cover only payments taken without authority, not where the consumer did give authority but the product was not as described.

By contrast section 75 for credit cards says "any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract... [the creditor] shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor" which gives those who paid with credit cards a much stronger argument.

Me_2

I suppose this leaves Planholders with what, Trading Standards? The Police? As avenues to try and get all their money back if the providers don't play ball.