Death in service lump sum

Marcon

Type your comment

Mousey66 said:

Hi everyone, thank you for all your replies. My husband worked in retail for a major chain. I have been advised that it will be a lump sum only which will be paid out. I’m assuming his daughter was sent forms as I had to name any direct family members on the forms they sent to me last July. The expression of wish form was named as myself before we married almost 2 years ago, and my husband filled another stating the same after we married. It also asked if there was a will on the forms which I had to say there was but as it was made out before we married it wasn’t relevant anymore, however they still requested I sent it to them, which I did.
So is it worth me trying to argue that my husbands wishes haven’t been fulfilled as he didn’t want his daughter to receive any monies? Also would she be likely to receive half or more of the lump sum? I have asked Hymans, who are the company liasing everything but they say they can’t tell me what the amounts will be, I will receive confirmation in writing once they’re happy they have all the information they’ve requested.

Hymans are pension scheme administrators, which makes me think the lump sum results from his membership of a pension scheme, rather than being some sort of life cover provided by his employer. There isn't enough information in your post to be certain, though - and I realise you may not be quite sure yourself.

I get the feeling that if you don't at least make a complaint, you're going to go on dwelling on the issue, so for that reason alone it's worth complaining. Having said that, you need to be aware that there is no requirement to fulfil your husband's wishes - they are just that: wishes, not a binding nomination. Given the length of time this has all taken, and the fact you have been told you won't receive 100% of the payment, suggests that this is a lot more complicated than it might appear, and I can only wonder what information they have on file which is causing the problem.

Your starting point is to ask Hymans for details of the relevant complaints procedure, and you would normally need to complete that before the Pensions Ombudsman would consider your complaint (hopefully it won't get that far).

SVaz

I have a feeling that your (relatively) short marriage is at the root of all this.    

DRS1

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Silvertabby

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Unless the pre marriage Will left something/everything to the daughter.

poseidon1

Silvertabby said:

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Unless the pre marriage Will left something/everything to the daughter.

More to the point, since the will in favor of the OP,  later became invalid due to the subsequent nuptials it would appear husband may well have died intestate.

 If his estate exceeded in value the statutory  legacy of £322,000 otherwise due to widow on intestacy, OP ( if she is not careful) could be looking at the daughter making a claim against the father's estate.

Hopefully the house was held as joint tenants and automatically accrues to widow by survivorship and fell outside the ambit of an intestacy.

But a question for Macron, would pension scheme trustees have sufficient discretion to take account of intestacy rules to benefit children who might ( for whatever reason ) miss out on benefiting from the intestate estate? Could that be a plausible interpretation of what has occurred here? If so, would  it be wise for OP to  pursue her grievance if this shines an unwelcome spotlight on the technical intestacy situation?

DRS1

Silvertabby said:

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Unless the pre marriage Will left something/everything to the daughter.

I thought the pre-marriage will left everything to the OP.

Presumably it was not made "in contemplation of marriage" which is why it was revoked by the marriage.

Marcon

poseidon1 said:

Silvertabby said:

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Unless the pre marriage Will left something/everything to the daughter.

More to the point, since the will in favor of the OP,  later became invalid due to the subsequent nuptials it would appear husband may well have died intestate.

 If his estate exceeded in value the statutory  legacy of £322,000 otherwise due to widow on intestacy, OP ( if she is not careful) could be looking at the daughter making a claim against the father's estate.

Hopefully the house was held as joint tenants and automatically accrues to widow by survivorship and fell outside the ambit of an intestacy.

But a question for Macron, would pension scheme trustees have sufficient discretion to take account of intestacy rules to benefit children who might ( for whatever reason ) miss out on benefiting from the intestate estate? Could that be a plausible interpretation of what has occurred here? If so, would  it be wise for OP to  pursue her grievance if this shines an unwelcome spotlight on the technical intestacy situation?

I'm still not 100% sure if this was truly a DIS lump sum arising from a group life scheme, or a lump sum being paid out from a defined contribution scheme. I'm uncomfortable about speculating too much (and publicly) in case it further distresses OP, so I'll stick to the facts in terms of what trustees are expected to do when deciding who should receive a lump sum arising from a death in service payment - which is what the title of this thread refers to.

When reaching a decision, trustees must undertake reasonable due diligence (posh term for fact checking) even if there is a recent, valid Expression of Wish form and when reaching their decision must:

• follow the rules of their particular scheme, especially in terms of who can be a beneficiary of the lump sum
• act in accordance with any 'over-riding' legislation (generally bits of law that conflict with their scheme rules, or were brought into force after the rules were written and nobody saw the need to update those rules because they knew the legislation would over-ride their rules)
• take into account all relevant factors
• disregard factors which are not relevant
• not reach a decision which is so perverse that no reasonable body of trustees could reasonably reach such a conclusion
• not allow personal matters (main one being conflict of interest) to cloud their judgement.

As you will see, that gives them quite a lot of leeway for taking a reasoned decision, but without knowing the background - and in particular the full details of what might be on file, which nobody here can know and probably OP doesn't either - I don't think it is helpful to mull over what might or might not have been the driver in this case, or whether OP should pursue the matter. Confidentiality is paramount in this sort of case, for obvious reasons, so I would not expect trustees to disclose their reasons to her, but merely confirm in general terms the factors they took into account when reaching their decision.

DRS1

poseidon1 said:

Silvertabby said:

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Unless the pre marriage Will left something/everything to the daughter.

More to the point, since the will in favor of the OP,  later became invalid due to the subsequent nuptials it would appear husband may well have died intestate.

 If his estate exceeded in value the statutory  legacy of £322,000 otherwise due to widow on intestacy, OP ( if she is not careful) could be looking at the daughter making a claim against the father's estate.

Hopefully the house was held as joint tenants and automatically accrues to widow by survivorship and fell outside the ambit of an intestacy.

But a question for Macron, would pension scheme trustees have sufficient discretion to take account of intestacy rules to benefit children who might ( for whatever reason ) miss out on benefiting from the intestate estate? Could that be a plausible interpretation of what has occurred here? If so, would  it be wise for OP to  pursue her grievance if this shines an unwelcome spotlight on the technical intestacy situation?

I know that is a question for @Marcon but the trustees can take into account all the circumstances they think relevant.  I believe they have absolute discretion what to do with the lump sum death benefit.  But it is not clear that they have asked about the size of the deceased's estate and it is still very unusual for them not to follow the deceased's wishes.  Maybe they thought he ought to have provided for his daughter and that her financial circumstances merited a share of the payment.

poseidon1

Marcon said:

poseidon1 said:

Silvertabby said:

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

Unless the pre marriage Will left something/everything to the daughter.

More to the point, since the will in favor of the OP,  later became invalid due to the subsequent nuptials it would appear husband may well have died intestate.

 If his estate exceeded in value the statutory  legacy of £322,000 otherwise due to widow on intestacy, OP ( if she is not careful) could be looking at the daughter making a claim against the father's estate.

Hopefully the house was held as joint tenants and automatically accrues to widow by survivorship and fell outside the ambit of an intestacy.

But a question for Macron, would pension scheme trustees have sufficient discretion to take account of intestacy rules to benefit children who might ( for whatever reason ) miss out on benefiting from the intestate estate? Could that be a plausible interpretation of what has occurred here? If so, would  it be wise for OP to  pursue her grievance if this shines an unwelcome spotlight on the technical intestacy situation?

I'm still not 100% sure if this was truly a DIS lump sum arising from a group life scheme, or a lump sum being paid out from a defined contribution scheme. I'm uncomfortable about speculating too much (and publicly) in case it further distresses OP, so I'll stick to the facts in terms of what trustees are expected to do when deciding who should receive a lump sum arising from a death in service payment - which is what the title of this thread refers to.

When reaching a decision, trustees must undertake reasonable due diligence (posh term for fact checking) even if there is a recent, valid Expression of Wish form and when reaching their decision must:

• follow the rules of their particular scheme, especially in terms of who can be a beneficiary of the lump sum
• act in accordance with any 'over-riding' legislation (generally bits of law that conflict with their scheme rules, or were brought into force after the rules were written and nobody saw the need to update those rules because they knew the legislation would over-ride their rules)
• take into account all relevant factors
• disregard factors which are not relevant
• not reach a decision which is so perverse that no reasonable body of trustees could reasonably reach such a conclusion
• not allow personal matters (main one being conflict of interest) to cloud their judgement.

As you will see, that gives them quite a lot of leeway for taking a reasoned decision, but without knowing the background - and in particular the full details of what might be on file, which nobody here can know and probably OP doesn't either - I don't think it is helpful to mull over what might or might not have been the driver in this case, or whether OP should pursue the matter. Confidentiality is paramount in this sort of case, for obvious reasons, so I would not expect trustees to disclose their reasons to her, but merely confirm in general terms the factors they took into account when reaching their decision.

Macron thanks for this insight into the scope and extent of pension scheme trustees' discretionary powers in matters such as these and the need for them to be circumspect in excercising those powers.

 Also take on board your comment on there be no  further unnecessary speculation in this particular case. 

Mousey66

DRS1 said:

Did your husband set down in writing why it was he did not want his daughter to benefit?  If so might it be worth sending that to the trustees?  Of course that might be in the will so they would have seen it already.

No he didn’t unfortunately. He had terminal lung cancer and we had so many other things going on at the time, scans appointments and treatments etc he probably didn’t think he needed to. He thought the will then is being married, and his expression of wish form would be adequate to ensure I was ok financially when he passed away. We were together 11and a half years.