Death in service

p00hsticks

GrumpyDil said:

I've always understood that nominations are simply an expressions of the individuals wishes but that schemes can take surrounding information into account and depart from the nomination if they see fit.

Yes, that's also my understanding - for example, if the form nominated a spouse but there had since been a divorce, then that could be seen as legitimate grounds for overruling the nomination ,especially if the person had since remarried. 

LinLui

kimwp said:

Flugelhorn said:

kimwp said:

kev25v6 said:

To be honest it’s basically because he and her are/were selfish people (being very polite). It was probably signed 15/20 years ago when she was a child and he started at his job. He has now died and it’s come out that everything basically goes to her. She hasn’t been around for the last few years of his ill health but has now decided to keep all the payment to herself. 

I'd be upset if I was in that situation, but it sounds like it was his intent and wish that it should all go to her and it was his to decide what to do with.

I sometimes think that funny things can happen with DIS benefits forms and nominations - do many people think through the implications of what they put at the time, do they consider the implications? do they go back and review the decision?

Remember my FA commenting that lots of people in the NHS don't ever put a name on the form and if they do they never seem to renew it hence can be way out of date.  Guess most of the time they just expect it go with intestacy rules or same as the will and much of the time that is OK - eg to surviving spouse.

My memory of completing a DIS years ago was that it was just a name on paper, one question in the midst of many others, not witnessed like a will etc 

My annual statement had a reminder about it, I don't know if this is a new thing or unusual that my pension provider does it. 

Mine does too.

Flugelhorn

LinLui said:

kimwp said:

Flugelhorn said:

kimwp said:

kev25v6 said:

To be honest it’s basically because he and her are/were selfish people (being very polite). It was probably signed 15/20 years ago when she was a child and he started at his job. He has now died and it’s come out that everything basically goes to her. She hasn’t been around for the last few years of his ill health but has now decided to keep all the payment to herself. 

I'd be upset if I was in that situation, but it sounds like it was his intent and wish that it should all go to her and it was his to decide what to do with.

I sometimes think that funny things can happen with DIS benefits forms and nominations - do many people think through the implications of what they put at the time, do they consider the implications? do they go back and review the decision?

Remember my FA commenting that lots of people in the NHS don't ever put a name on the form and if they do they never seem to renew it hence can be way out of date.  Guess most of the time they just expect it go with intestacy rules or same as the will and much of the time that is OK - eg to surviving spouse.

My memory of completing a DIS years ago was that it was just a name on paper, one question in the midst of many others, not witnessed like a will etc 

My annual statement had a reminder about it, I don't know if this is a new thing or unusual that my pension provider does it. 

Mine does too.

that's interesting - perhaps it is a change, in which case it is a good thing.  thinking about it rarely ever got any statements from the NHS pension unless you requested one specially 

kev25v6

There was no cash left to cover the funeral only the death in service was known about so it was to cover the costs then split afterwards as there is no will. Everything was all agreed between the 4 then she got the letter saying it was going to her. She said she would send the funeral payment and then split it, she has kept saying there has been problems with paperwork for a few weeks then a bombshell text that she’s keeping it to herself. You would normally assume if there are four of you you would just share equally but some people are just selfish. If it was known at the beginning that the costs of the funeral wouldn’t be covered he would still be in the morgue. 

Flugelhorn

if there was no cash left at all in the estate then the local authority would have arranged the service and TBH that is what should have happened in this case. 

Probably now a case of accepting that you won't get the money (legally she doesn't have to pay you) and that there will be a permanent rift and 3:1 that may be more of a problem for her 

kimwp

kev25v6 said:

There was no cash left to cover the funeral only the death in service was known about so it was to cover the costs then split afterwards as there is no will. Everything was all agreed between the 4 then she got the letter saying it was going to her. She said she would send the funeral payment and then split it, she has kept saying there has been problems with paperwork for a few weeks then a bombshell text that she’s keeping it to herself. You would normally assume if there are four of you you would just share equally but some people are just selfish. If it was known at the beginning that the costs of the funeral wouldn’t be covered he would still be in the morgue. 

It would be nice and also reasonable if she paid the others back for the funeral costs, given that they would normally come out of the estate (which this doesn't count towards). But it was the father's choice to leave the benefit to her. As I said before, I would be upset, but she's not obliged to give you the money and life is rarely fair. If you were to win £10,000 on a raffle, would you split it between the four siblings? 

DullGreyGuy

In most cases it's the trustees that decide who the monies should go to but the general guiding principle is that it should follow the nomination form unless there is significant evidence otherwise. 

A former boss died relatively young, he'd nominated his wife when he joined the company but they divorced very shortly afterwards after he found she'd been having long term affairs with two other men and had been syphoning money out to fund these relationships. He'd remarried later and was going through IVF with his new wife when he died but had failed to update the forms. In this case the trustees decided to go against the nomination form and award it to his new pregnant wife but only after a lot of evidence gathering. Had they not written to his address about the ex then the current wife may not have known and it be paid out and gone before she had time to challenge it. 

In the OP's case there doesn't seem to be any evidence that their father's intent was anything but what was on the nomination form. It simply being "unfair" is irrelevant. 

p00hsticks

DullGreyGuy said:

In the OP's case there doesn't seem to be any evidence that their father's intent was anything but what was on the nomination form. It simply being "unfair" is irrelevant. 

I think one possibility that may have been hinted at earlier is that perhaps at the time of the nomination the youngest was still under age and the older three were adults, so the father may have wanted to ensure that they were taken care of in the event of his death - but  as you say, without any firm evidence as to their motivation at the time it is all conjecture. 

Marcon

LinLui said:

Marcon said:

p00hsticks said:

It's worth a try, but I suspect that the insurance company involved will say that with the presence of a valid nomination form their hands are tied.

As this was a death in service, it's likely the decision will have been taken by whoever has been appointed by the employer to act as trustee of the DIS scheme - which almost certainly won't be the insurer.

Having a valid nomination form doesn't mean it can't be challenged - especially if no due diligence has been done. Simply relying on a form, particularly one signed many years ago (if that's the case), is asking for trouble.

So yes, it is worth querying. You need to ask what factors were taken into consideration, especially as the funeral payment was made on the basis that all four children would inherit equally. 

Was it though? Did they actually agree that they would split the funeral payment four ways because they would all inherit equally - or was that an assumption? And is there any evidence of that agreement and the terms of it?

From what OP said it sounds as though that was what the trustees said. Edit - seen a later post which clarifies that wasn't the case. Whoever engaged the funeral director/booked the funeral is therefore going to be on the hook for costs.

LinLui said:

If this is anything like our death in service scheme, it is the pension fund provider who makes the decision. In the event of a dispute such as this, what they do is suspend the payment subject to a court ruling. You then get the opportunity to spend the lot and even more on fights in court, so the only people who inherit are the lawyers. It won't cost the younger sibling anything, because the action isn't against them - has to be against the pension fund holder - to force them to vary the person's nomination. So the costs will be funded by the three older siblings. 

Always dangerous to make assumptions based on just one personal experience. Sounds as if you are talking about a refund of the value of a personal pension plan rather than an actual death in service benefit.

It would be extremely unusual for an employer to take out life cover (which is what a true DIS plan normally is) and then let the insurer take the decisions on that. It would also be difficult to find an insurer who was willing to take that responsibility!

kev25v6

With it being a large family, it never entered the mind to just leave the funeral to the council. There was going to be money to cover it eventually so it was taken on to cover the cost in the interim to at least get him buried. The same with clearing up the council house etc. none of the 3 would ever dream of keeping any of it to themselves no matter how it was written down, it would just be equal, it just had to end up going to the only one that couldn’t be trusted.  It’s worthwhile double checking your own policies at work etc or any wills if you want to avoid things like this happening to your own kids and make sure it’s explicit in your instructions on how you want things to happen, don’t leave anything open to interpretation on one side or the other. This will definitely separate the family but with her attitude already she won’t care. Thank you to all who have posted, it’s been helpful. I’ll keep updating in the future of any other outcome.