# CU set shares agains loan for terminally ill member, and now won't pay death benefits



## Alwyn

My Wife's Brother passed in June of this year.  He had death insurance policy with his local credit union.  

He paid the policy at the beginning of the year but when his illness became terminal his finances went into disarray and he did not pay his Credit Union loan for 3 to 4 months.  

The Union was informed but they declined his offer of a small repayment token each month and subsequently used all his shares to pay off his loan.

Sadly my Brother - In - Law passed away and the Credit Union will not release his death policy to his Partner because his share account was void of funds.

His Partner meet with the CU and was informed it was CU policy once there was zero funds in the account.  At no time did he or his partner ever ask the CU to use his shares against his loan account.

Have you been in a similar position?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi 

Can we clarify things here. There are three potential death benefits. I think that they vary from Credit Union to CU.  This is what Sandymount Credit Union offers for example: 

[broken link removed]

1) Loan protection
The loan balance is paid off 

2) Life savings 
The amount of shares is doubled. 

3) Death benefits 
This is a separate life insurance policy which is offered by some credit unions

Let's say your Brother in Law had €10,000 of a loan and €10,000 of shares.

On his death, the loan would have been paid off in full. He would have got €10,000 in shares back and an additional €10,000 of cover.   So his partner would now have €20,000. 


A Credit Union does have the right so set shares against a loan, when it is in arrears. 

Did the CU know he was terminally ill? If they did know this, and set the shares against the loan to avoid  two separate insurance payouts, then it is sharp practice.  Using the above figures, they have saved themselves €20,000. 

It sounds from your account, that your brother in law was treated very badly. You should complain to the Manager and then to the Board. Go to the AGM and kick up a fuss about this. 

Make sure to collect some brochures and advertising from the CU involved. Most of them parade their "free" insurance as one of the benefits of membership.


If you get nowhere,  take a complaint to the Financial Servcies Ombudsman. 

Brendan


----------



## Slim

Boomtobust said:


> ....
> He paid the policy at the beginning of the year but when his illness became terminal his finances went into disarray and he did not pay his Credit Union loan for 3 to 4 months.
> 
> The Union was informed but they declined his offer of a small repayment token each month and subsequently used all his shares to pay off his loan.


 
Firstly, condolences to you and your wife on the death of your brother-in-law. Your post needs clarifying. You say your BIL "..paid the policy at the beginning of the year..". This sounds more like payment protection insurance, PPI, than DBI to which Brendan refers(with DBI there is no need to make a payment to activate the policy). If your BIL fell into arrears and was unable to reach agreement with the CU regarding his repayments, then the PPI part of his loan repayment would also be in arrears and the insurance company would probably be within their rights not to pay out. Usually, a credit union only sets shares off against a loan in the last resort, after all attempts at negotiating repayments have been unsuccessful. Perhaps there was a lack of communication with the CU?


----------



## Alwyn

Thank you both for your information on this thread.

I have spoken to B-I-L's partner and can confirm the following.

There will be no payout on PPI Insurance which she can totally understand

Debt Insurance Policy will not be released due to the fact that there was zero shares in her partners CU share account.  As mentioned previously, there were shares in the account but these shares were deducted and placed off his loan account without his knowledge.

She has been informed by CU that a member must have X amount of shares for a Death Benefit Insurance payout.  As all shares have been removed from his account there can however be no payout.  

The CU were informed that the member was under financial difficulty and could only pay X amount per week.  The revoked this offer and immediately emptied his share account.  

At no time were they informed of his illness as he passed away rather suddenly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Boom

Could you edit this please as it's confusing 



> The revoked this offer and immediately emptied his share account.



I don't know what offer and who you are talking about.

Is "The" , They (The CU) or he (The borrower)? 

Brendan


----------



## Alwyn

Hi Brendan,

The borrower offered the CU a reduced payment schedule because he was no longer in full time employment and could not meet the required loan repayment.  He asked for a temporary reschedule of his loan payments.

The CU declined to offer a payment reschedule and subsequently emptied the borrowers share account, without his say so, and placed it against his loan.

During a very short period of time (the borrower's health deteriorated much quicker than expected) communication with CU became less so.  But from what we gather, he did write to them explaining that he was unable to meet his commitment fully for X amount of weeks but the CU began to act quickly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

OK

Can you give us the numbers? Had he shares to match the loan? 

He probably should have withdrawn shares to the value of each month's repayment. 

It is a members' organisation and his partner should complain.  They may have been entitled to set the shares against his loan, but they probably should have advised him that they were doing it. 

Brendan


----------



## Bronte

Boomtobust said:


> The CU declined to offer a payment reschedule and subsequently emptied the borrowers share account, without his say so, and placed it against his loan.


 
Have you seen the actual correspondance from the CU, I'd be very surprised that they didn't inform him of what they would do if he didn't keep up his loan repayments and they had declined his modified payment schedule.  What did he think would happen once they declined his offer?  Does his wife know?  

Obviously this is a tragic time for all involved.  But it doesn't look like the CU did this so he would lose the life insurance.


----------



## Slim

Boomtobust said:


> Hi Brendan,
> ..The CU declined to offer a payment reschedule and subsequently emptied the borrowers share account, without his say so, and placed it against his loan..


 
There is usually quite a lot of time and correspondence in between rejecting an offer to make payment and the decision to set shares off. If the period of time was indecently brief then I think his partner has cause for complaint.

Was the share balance adequate to pay off the loan? Anything left to pay? Normal expectation would be that Loan protection insurance would clear the loan and Death Benefit would pay out to the nominee (your BIL's partner _was_ nominee, wasn't she?). 

If the payments were missed and no realistic repayment schedule was possible and the CU was unaware that your BIL was ill, then over the period of up to 1 year, the CU may take the decision to write off and set off.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Slim 

Say a member has a loan of €10,000 and shares of €10,000 and advises you that they are terminally ill. 

What would the CU attitude in general be? 

Do you remind them of the benefits of the insurance and tell them to make sure that they don't pay off their loan quicker than the schedule and that they try to keep their shares?  Or do you encourage them to clear both as it saves you paying out on insurance? 

Brendan


----------



## ontour

Credit Unions get much abuse about continuing to charge high interest on loans when the shares that are earning very little dividend could pay off the loan.  This is seen as sharp practice to earn interest revenue.  In most cases you can see how the credit union's action would benefit the member.  There are always exceptions, like this case.

The various insurances are covered by policies external to the individual credit union so I do not see any financial benefit to a specific credit union by avoiding a claim.

It is still worth collating all of the correspondence to see if the credit union followed their processes or whether their actions were premature


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ontour said:


> The various insurances are covered by policies external to the individual credit union so I do not see any financial benefit to a specific credit union by avoiding a claim.



So is the claims experience of a particular credit union not a factor in the premium they pay the following year?  

If so, then the CU should have definitely explained the consequences to the member as it cost them nothing. They should have done this anyway.


----------



## ontour

Some of the insurance was / is tied to membership of the Irish League of Credit Unions for those credit unions that are part of that organization.  When I last saw it, the 'premium' was a flat charge for each member a credit union had - the varying risk or claims profiles of individuals or individual credit unions were not considered.  

This is not the same for all forms of insurance in the credit union.

I know of a number of cases where people have 'put their affairs in order' due to illness.  Whether it was paying off loans or moving money from the credit union to a current account to pay funeral expenses, the net effect was a financial loss after their death.  They tend not to explain their motivations to the credit union teller so it is difficult for the credit union staff to advise them against their action.  

A teller isn't going to tell everyone withdrawing money or paying off loans that their beneficiaries will lose out if the member dies tomorrow.


----------



## Guinea pig

I dont know if this is any help but I had shares valued at 1/4 of the outstanding loan. I missed repayments and asked for a reschedule. 

It took 6 months for the credit union to offer to use the shares to reduce the amount outstanding. 

I had to sign a letter and return it in person to the CU before the transfer took place. 

Also they would not reduce my shares to zero for some reason that escapes me now, they left about €220.  The loan is for much more.


----------



## Alwyn

The 220.00EUR keeps your Death Benefit Policy standing.  Interesting that it was six months before CU would offset your shares against your loan.  In my B-I-L's case they offset the shares within a period of 9 weeks.  

Borrowers partner meet with the CU today and they are refusing to reinstate the shares.  

Borrower had 5k shares and 8k loan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

She will have to complain to them in writing and see what explanation she gets

Then it's off to the Ombudsman with her, if their explanation is not satisfactory.

They will have to have a well publicised policy on this. 

I fully understand that if a borrower goes into arrears, their savings should be run down to pay off the arrears. But, in a situation like this, the full amount should not be set off against the loan.

There are so many cases on askaboutmoney where the Credit Union refuses to allow the healthy borrower to set their shares off against their loan. In this case, they seem to have done it without asking.

Brendan


----------



## Alwyn

Thanks Brendan.  She wrote to CU and their explanation was simply that it was their rules.  A complaint to the ombudsman is essential as suggested.

Will keep thread updated when I hear more.


----------



## Slim

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Slim
> 
> Say a member has a loan of €10,000 and shares of €10,000 and advises you that they are terminally ill.
> 
> What would the CU attitude in general be?
> 
> Do you remind them of the benefits of the insurance and tell them to make sure that they don't pay off their loan quicker than the schedule and that they try to keep their shares? Or do you encourage them to clear both as it saves you paying out on insurance?
> 
> Brendan


 
Sorry Brendan, didn't pick up on the post til now. Any credit union worth its salt would advise whatever would be in the best interest of the member. The Loan Protection/Life Savings (LPLS) insurance has provision for death and serious illness, so as long as the CU was informed they should advise the member to keep payments up to date and not reduce savings below a certain level so as to optimise the benefit to the member. (of course, there are T&Cs woth every insurance) The payout is from ECCU, a separate insurance company. Insofar as the insurance is mutual, I suppose the CU pays in the end for higher claims, but that kind of calculated cynicism is far from the minds of most CU staff/directors.

I am not directly involved in CU anymore. There is much unknown in this particular thread that needs to be clarified. I think the partner needs to write a formal complaint to the 'Complaints Officer' at the CU(they are obliged to have one) and seek a formal response. Only then should they contact the FS Ombudsman. Slim


----------



## Alwyn

I accompanied my SIL to an arranged meeting with the manager of the CU.  He sympathized with her loss but immediately got down to business, explaining that the CU did inform her partner what there intentions were.  

We asked how they made contact with the the deceased before his passing and we were simply told he had been written too.  

MY SIL does not recall any letter ever been sent from the CU to her Partner as she was looking after his post while he was ill.

I asked the manager to produce a copy of the so called letter that was sent and he printed off a notification correspondence that was sent during my BIL's illness.  This letter was never received.  If it were, she would have obviously dealt with it immediately. 

Having left the CU we contacted the Ombudsman who wrote back stating that they did not believe her issue with the CU had fully concluded and they could find no trace of any complaints made by her to the CU.  Not exactly their wordage as I don't have their letter in front of me but along these lines.    

I am as confused by her responses from the authorities as I was the first day I started this thread.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi boom 

You must make a formal complaint to the Credit Union.
They must issue you what is known as a Final Response Letter. 
The Ombudsman cannot hear your complaint until you get this letter.
In their letter telling you this, they should have told you the name of the person in the Credit Union to whom you needed to make the formal complaint.
Have another read of the letter from the CU and see if that is included.

If not, write to the Manager of the CU, set out your complaint and ask for a Final REsponse Letter. 

As the CU is a members' organisation, I would probably first contact the Chairman and say that this is no way to treat a member. 

Brendan


----------



## Slim

Slim said:


> . I think the partner needs to write a formal complaint to the 'Complaints Officer' at the CU(they are obliged to have one) and seek a formal response. Only then should they contact the FS Ombudsman. Slim



Each credit union is obliged to have a complaints officer to whom a complaint of this nature should be addressed. The credit union will claim that the letter was sent. This will be a difficult issue to resolve. Best of luck with it. Slim


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Slim

Based on Boomtobust's side of the story, I would question the motivation for the CU to set the shares against the loan.

Is this their overall policy? Time and again, we see reports of people struggling with their Credit Union loans trying to get the shares set off against the loan and being refused. 

So I would ask the CU to explain why they did this. 

I would seek evidence that they sent the letter, although it would be difficult for them to produce such evidence. 

Brendan


----------



## Slim

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Slim
> 
> Based on Boomtobust's side of the story, I would question the motivation for the CU to set the shares against the loan.
> 
> Is this their overall policy? Time and again, we see reports of people struggling with their Credit Union loans trying to get the shares set off against the loan and being refused.
> 
> So I would ask the CU to explain why they did this.
> 
> I would seek evidence that they sent the letter, although it would be difficult for them to produce such evidence.
> 
> Brendan


 
Sure, but I would also say that credit unions are very slow to take this option as evidenced in many other posts. There may have been a lack of communication in the process that we are not aware of. The whole timeline of communication needs to be looked at. Most credit unions, in my experience, act with great empathy for the member if they become aware that the member is seriously ill, and would try to ensure that all insurance is availed of. In your example, by the way, doubling of shares is usually capped so may not amount to €20,000 in that example. In my CU, it would be capped at €13,000 approx plus Death Benefit Insurance of €1,300.


----------



## Alwyn

This case went in front of the board of directors and they upheld the managers sentiments. 

SIL has been given the option to contest their decision by bringing the case in front of the very same board of people, yet again.

We feel this is a pointless exercise and wonder is it possible to go to the Ombudsman as of now?


----------



## Time

Have you a written final response from the CU?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

To complain to the Ombudsman, you have to have what is known as a "Final Response Letter". 

If your sister has the option of going to them again, then you should ask again for them to do so but also ask for a Final Response Letter to follow the meeting. 

Brendan


----------



## Alwyn

An update on this very long running saga.

The CU have desided to make a payment on my BIL's death benefit policy.

We  simply could not get the CU to issue us with a final response letter to  bring our case to the Ombudsman.  Everytme the response letter was  requested the CU merely ant danced around the issue.  When we threatened  media intervention   my SIL received a letter telling her there was a cheque available for  her to collect; releasing the full repayment of her partners death  benefit policy.

No mention of her partners loan or shares have been mentioned by the CU.


----------



## Slim

Boomtobust said:


> An update on this very long running saga.
> 
> The CU have desided to make a payment on my BIL's death benefit policy.
> 
> We simply could not get the CU to issue us with a final response letter to bring our case to the Ombudsman. Everytme the response letter was requested the CU merely ant danced around the issue. When we threatened media intervention my SIL received a letter telling her there was a cheque available for her to collect; releasing the full repayment of her partners death benefit policy.
> 
> No mention of her partners loan or shares have been mentioned by the CU.


 
I am pleased for your sister-in-law that she has got something out of this. I guess what they have done is restore your BIL's account to 'qualifying' status, thereby entitling it to DBI. It does not address how the loan arrears/shares was handled. If you still feel she has a case, I would press them, in writing, to issue a final response letter. Tell them it is needed to advance the case with the Ombudsman. In tandem, write to the Irish League of Credit Unions, monitoring department and make your complaint to them. This may put some pressure on your SIL's CU to resolve the issue.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Boomtobust

That is some progress. 

You have succeeded in one out of the three claims, if I follow all this correctly. 

If you do not get a Final Response Letter on the other claims,  make a complaint to the Ombudsman anyway and point out the problem. 


Brendan


----------



## CU Manager

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Boomtobust
> 
> That is some progress.
> 
> You have succeeded in one out of the three claims, if I follow all this correctly.
> 
> If you do not get a Final Response Letter on the other claims,  make a complaint to the Ombudsman anyway and point out the problem.
> 
> 
> Brendan


Seems like the credit union made a gesture of goodwill.
We only have one side of the story and I find that many such "stories" are embellished in favour of the complainant. In practice, many efforts will usually have been made on a delinquent account and, as a last resort, when no meaningful engagement is forthcoming from the borrower, a share to loan transfer will be done (but only after informing the member of the consequences of continued non engagement).
It never ceases to amaze me how people expect the best of both worlds (i.e. don't pay their way but expect all the benefits).
And it absolutely amazes me how some people think its ok to leave their deceased loved one without putting their affairs in order - I know, blame everyone else and complain to the ombudsman that the deceased didn't pay their way but shure the CU should have used their crystal ball to see what was going to happen


----------



## Brendan Burgess

> We only have one side of the story and I find that many such "stories" are embellished in favour of the complainant.



Agree. This often happens. And given that boomtobust is reporting his sister's story, this is quite possible. 

However, we can judge only on the story told. But you are right to question it.



> when no meaningful engagement is forthcoming from the borrower, a share  to loan transfer will be done (but only after informing the member of  the consequences of continued non engagement).



The problem with this is that I have often suggested to people in difficulty that they ask/insist that their shares are set off against the loan and in every single case, the CU has refused to do it. So they end up paying a very high interest rate on the net loan.   

I found this story odd that the CU did it off their own bat, fairly early on in the story.



> We  simply could not get the CU to issue us with a final response letter  to  bring our case to the Ombudsman.  Everytme the response letter was   requested the CU merely ant danced around the issue.



That is fairly specific.  Either the CU has issued a final response letter or they have not.  Had they issued this letter, presumably BoomtoBust would ask us our opinion on it. So I think it's fair to assume that B2B is not lying about this. 

If the CU has acted correctly, why have they not issued the Final Response Letter? 

Financial institutions know that if they resist complaints and mess the complainant around, many of them will just not persist.  I suspect that is what the CU is doing in this case.


----------



## WizardDr

Here is the Law:

20.—  (1) All money payable to a credit union by a member of it shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt by the credit union from the member.
     (2) A credit union shall have a lien on the shares, deposits, dividends and interest of any member for any debt due to the credit union from that member, and may set off any sum credited to the member on those shares, deposits, dividends and interest in or towards the payment of that debt.

Opinion:

The CU have the ability in law to set off shares against a loan balance.

The situation that appears to arise here is that all the CUs have 'savings and loan insurance' and it is one of the biggest costs in a Credit Union.

By taking the action, and the member died then his estate was deprived of the benefit of the loan being written off and by doing so has the Credit Union been improving is arrears position - pressure from Central Bank on figures?

The matter of Customer Protection Codes appears to arise as Credit Unions are not immune from being required to follow best practices.

Therefore if it was established that :

1. There was no notice of what was going to happen (reasonable notice)
2. There was a lack of fair procedures in that it was arbitrary and capricious;
3. That it is not a generally accepted practice of CUs

Then there is a good case here.

What is to be done:

You need a strong individual to represent you against the Credit Union.
I would not waste my time with the FSO - yet.


----------



## Bronte

CU Manager said:


> I know, blame everyone else and complain to the ombudsman that the deceased didn't pay their way but shure the CU should have used their crystal ball to see what was going to happen


 
The exact same situation was discussed recently, the case of the life insurance policy lapsing because the deceased had stopped paying it a couple of months before, (suicide was cause of death if I remember correctly) case taken to the ombudsman, reminders sent by insurance company and we had debates on whether they should be registered post or not, but ombudsman ruled the insurance company did nothing wrong. 

I agree with your point that people should put their affairs in order, that would be the ideal.


----------



## CU Manager

WizardDr said:


> Here is the Law:
> 
> 20.— (1) All money payable to a credit union by a member of it shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt by the credit union from the member.
> (2) A credit union shall have a lien on the shares, deposits, dividends and interest of any member for any debt due to the credit union from that member, and may set off any sum credited to the member on those shares, deposits, dividends and interest in or towards the payment of that debt.
> 
> Opinion:
> 
> The CU have the ability in law to set off shares against a loan balance.
> 
> The situation that appears to arise here is that all the CUs have 'savings and loan insurance' and it is one of the biggest costs in a Credit Union.
> 
> By taking the action, and the member died then his estate was deprived of the benefit of the loan being written off Central Bank and by doing so has the Credit Union been improving is arrears position?
> 
> The matter of Customer Protection Codes appears to arise as Credit Unions are not immune from being required to follow best practices.
> 
> Therefore if it was established that :
> 
> 1. There was no notice of what was going to happen (reasonable notice)
> 2. There was a lack of fair procedures in that it was arbitrary and capricious;
> 3. That it is not a generally accepted practice of CUs
> 
> Then there is a good case here.
> 
> What is to be done:
> 
> You need a strong individual to represent you against the Credit Union.
> I would not waste my time with the FSO - yet.



That all looks very comprehensive but I think its a little early to be doing in with a "strong individual". Now is the time for information gathering.
 The key issue is how much correspondence was sent by the CU to the member regarding the share to loan transfer and what documentary evidence exists of the member (or member's partner) communicating the members situation with the CU - if its just verbal then its not going to work


----------



## WizardDr

I would have a view that the tactics of the Central Bank with regards to Credit Unions reminds me of what one CEO of AIB said about his staff - we are having a war of attrition with our staff. Substitute Credit Union for staff and Central Bank for AIB.

Are Credit Unions so focused now on avoiding Regulatory scrutiny that matter like this action simply would not have taken place the way our party here has said. There is the possibility that when we hear the other side that the actions may be justified,

However, I only have a gut feeling, but that this story is reasonably accurate.

When Credit Unions simply cannot work together to rescue even the Newbridge of this world it is a matter of concern.


----------



## Alwyn

Hi,

Thank you all very much for the time given on this thread.

I can so far report that the Credit Union released the death benefit and also the loan protection has cleared off the existing debt. 

The CU made the payment as a gesture..  

The CU have still refused to reinstate the account.  

We are still struggling to receive the final letter.


----------



## Time

I would give them one last chance to issue a final response saying you will complain to the FSO anyways stating that the CU refused to issue a final response.


----------



## CU Manager

Boomtobust said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thank you all very much for the time given on this thread.
> 
> I can so far report that the Credit Union released the death benefit and also the loan protection has cleared off the existing debt.
> 
> The CU made the payment as a gesture *of Goodwill*
> 
> .



Fixed your post ... I don't have both sides of this story but going on instinct I suspect that the CU knows they are on solid ground legally but there's no publicity like a row with a grieving widow (regardless of how unreasonable they might be)


----------



## Time

If their ground is sound why delay on the final response letter?


----------



## Slim

CU Manager said:


> Fixed your post ... I don't have both sides of this story but going on instinct I suspect that the CU knows they are on solid ground legally but there's no publicity like a row with a grieving widow (regardless of how unreasonable they might be)


 
How can you 'fix' his post?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Its slang for rephrased. He changed what he quoted.


----------



## Alwyn

Slim said:


> How can you 'fix' his post?



Slim , he/she means that I changed the word I'd previously written to simply read "goodwill".  The word I had previously written meant the same thing but I was unsure of it's spelling so I changed it

CU Manager, there was no big mystery behind the change of word.  I could write a lot more about this case, since I first began this thread, but I wont because I don't want the identity of my SIL known.  If the CU were on solid ground why haven't they issed the letter?


----------



## CU Manager

Boomtobust said:


> Slim , he/she means that I changed the word I'd previously written to simply read "goodwill".  The word I had previously written meant the same thing but I was unsure of it's spelling so I changed it
> 
> CU Manager, there was no big mystery behind the change of word.  I could write a lot more about this case, since I first began this thread, but I wont because I don't want the identity of my SIL known.  If the CU were on solid ground why haven't they issed the letter?


I suspect they are scratching their heads wondering why their goodwill gesture of paying the death benefit to your SIL has not settled the matter - I would have made such a payment on a "full and final" basis.

My suspicion is that the CU tried to contact the account holder many times before transferring the shares against the loan but got no response. This inaction by your SIL's partner caused the action taken on the account not some sinister plot by the CU to swindle his benefits.
Sometimes I despair that personal responsibility seems to be for a bygone age - everyone seems to think they have a "case".
Personally I think it is distasteful to settle the deceased affairs in such a manner - there is a certain dignity in discharging the deceased affairs honourably


----------



## Alwyn

CU Manager said:


> I suspect they are scratching their heads wondering why their goodwill gesture of paying the death benefit to your SIL has not settled the matter - I would have made such a payment on a "full and final" basis.
> 
> My suspicion is that the CU tried to contact the account holder many times before transferring the shares against the loan but got no response. This inaction by your SIL's partner caused the action taken on the account not some sinister plot by the CU to swindle his benefits.
> Sometimes I despair that personal responsibility seems to be for a bygone age - everyone seems to think they have a "case".
> Personally I think it is distasteful to settle the deceased affairs in such a manner - there is a certain dignity in discharging the deceased affairs honourably



The deceased was very much loved by all so I find your posts in this thread insensitive to say the least.  If all families did not follow up their deceased relatives affairs why would the deceased bother with insurance policies to begin with.

Anyway, I will make this as clear as possible. 

*1. My BIL Did Not receive any written communication from the CU.  We can confirm this via a list of transcripts that were ordered from the CU.  

However, it was noted that the CU contacted my BIL and he informed them that he was ill and would contact them as soon as he left resbite.  

We had been previously told they did not know he was unwell so how come all of a sudden they say he had told them he was sick.    

Two weeks later he was dead.  Within that timeframe the CU wrote the loan off by using his shares.  Up until recently, we were entirely unaware of this information.  

2.  We were also informed that the CU wrote to him on numerous occassions.  There was Never any sign of written communication.  

*The CU did not close the matter off with a full and final settlement.


----------



## Time

CU Manager said:


> I suspect they are scratching their heads wondering why their goodwill gesture of paying the death benefit to your SIL has not settled the matter - I would have made such a payment on a "full and final" basis.
> 
> My suspicion is that the CU tried to contact the account holder many times before transferring the shares against the loan but got no response. This inaction by your SIL's partner caused the action taken on the account not some sinister plot by the CU to swindle his benefits.
> Sometimes I despair that personal responsibility seems to be for a bygone age - everyone seems to think they have a "case".
> Personally I think it is distasteful to settle the deceased affairs in such a manner - there is a certain dignity in discharging the deceased affairs honourably


So that makes it all OK not to comply with financial laws of the land? There is no excuse for failing to issue the final response letter as requested numerous times. 

It is no wonder that few trust banks and credit unions where they are run for the benefit of the management like a fiefdom rather than the benefit of members.


----------



## CU Manager

Boomtobust said:


> The deceased was very much loved by all so I find your posts in this thread insensitive to say the least.  If all families did not follow up their deceased relatives affairs why would the deceased bother with insurance policies to begin with.
> 
> Anyway, I will make this as clear as possible.
> 
> *1. My BIL Did Not receive any written communication from the CU.  We can confirm this via a list of transcripts that were ordered from the CU.
> 
> However, it was noted that the CU contacted my BIL and he informed them that he was ill and would contact them as soon as he left resbite.
> 
> We had been previously told they did not know he was unwell so how come all of a sudden they say he had told them he was sick.
> 
> Two weeks later he was dead.  Within that timeframe the CU wrote the loan off by using his shares.  Up until recently, we were entirely unaware of this information.
> 
> 2.  We were also informed that the CU wrote to him on numerous occassions.  There was Never any sign of written communication.
> 
> *The CU did not close the matter off with a full and final settlement.


You seem so certain that there was no written correspondence from the CU. I have doubts as to how certain you can be on this matter - your certainty is self serving so I have doubts about the accuracy of your version of events.
How long was the loan in default prior to the share to loan transfer - my suspicion is that the loan was not being paid for quite some time, the borrower was not engaging with the CU and when they did manage to make contact the borrower was not offering to make payment. The CU rightfully uses the shares against the loan.
The deceased's lack of payments created this problem and his memory is not being well served by this complaint. The CU were generous to pay the death benefit on a defaulters account. I find this issue distasteful - its dragging your BIL's name through the gutter


----------



## WizardDr

Steady on CUManager - you are beginning to even sound like the Central Bank there - righteous and critical.

Particularly the use of the term 'defaulter' and the generosity of the Credit Union.

I think the heat from the Central Bank - though misplaced - is getting to you guys.

Though there is the other side - i don't think you have any better view of it than any of us - and as I waded through more breaches of the CPC from a well known bank in another case  - I wonder just who is compliant these days!


----------



## Time

> I find this issue distasteful


I finds it distasteful that a credit Union can choose to simply ignore the law and it's legal obligation to issue a final response.


----------



## CU Manager

WizardDr said:


> Steady on CUManager - you are beginning to even sound like the Central Bank there - righteous and critical.
> 
> Particularly the use of the term 'defaulter' and the generosity of the Credit Union.
> 
> I think the heat from the Central Bank - though misplaced - is getting to you guys.
> 
> Though there is the other side - i don't think you have any better view of it than any of us - and as I waded through more breaches of the CPC from a well known bank in another case - I wonder just who is compliant these days!



You object to the term "defaulter"? Do you have a more PC description of someone who isn't paying their contractual obligation?
 I used the term in a very measured way - it gives the right context to this issue, at the end of the day we are talking about a loan defaulter whose shares were applied against his loan and now his next of kin is complaining because if the CU had used their crystal ball they would have known what was coming down the tracks and should have left everything alone and the next of kin would now have benefitted from a higher insurance payout.

 The insurance payout is not free - its paid for by all the interest earned from borrowers who actually pay their loans - not the defaulters who don't.

 From a simple contract law point of view the CU is fine. But as I said before who wants the bad publicity of a grieving widow


----------



## Slim

Originally, I was of the view that the BIL/SIL had ignored, or been unable to deal with, correspondence from the CU. hat would have been understandable given the traumatic situation involved. Now, it seems that my faith in the good intentions of all CU personnel has been dented somewhat by Boomtobust's revelations.

I think you should pursue this to the end with the CU complaints process, the ILCU monitoring department and the Financial Services Ombudsman. Your SIL deserves better from the C movement. Best of luck with it. 

I don't think it is fair to criticise the OP as s/he is merely trying to resolve an issue for a grieving relative. Slim


----------



## Bronte

The borrower in this case was a defaulter, just because he is not still here doesn't make it untrue. If you don't pay your loan back as agreed then you are a defaulter. It is not about insulating anyone or insulting the memory of anyone. 

Emotions are high in this case. But neither BtoB nor the SIL actually know what corresspondance, either written or verbal occured.

The facts we have so far

Post 1

1. No repayment for 3 to 4 months
2. An offer to repay a lessor amount
3. This was declined by the CU, as is their right, and that's even though nobody asked them to do so, but they are legally entitled to do so - is that correct?
4. The borrower knew then he was defaulting, and that he was putting at risk other 'benefit's. Because he knew that they were going to or could use the shares to pay off the loan, this mean the death benefit was now cancelled as there were zero funds in the share account

Post 4

1. It is stated that the borrower did not know the shares would be offset against the loan. Well what did he think would happen? What else would a CU or bank do. It's the most logical thing to do, it means the loan stops increasing and is of benefit to the borrower.
2. If however he knew his illness was terminal, not clear yet on this thread, then he or the SIl should have stuck to the loan terms and conditions
3. The borrower in post 1 'offered' a reduced payment, and in post 4, this offer was 'revoked' by the CU. That is incorrect, what happened is that the CU declined the part payment offer. It would be incredible at that time that the borrower was not informed or did not previously know that he would then be in breach of the loan terms and conditions, and that there would be repercussions.

Post 19 - credit union meeting
1. They stated that they informed the borrower
2. That is was in writing also
3. SIL states she never received a letter, but it's entirely possible the borrower was hiding the reality from her, people do things like this
4. Odd that the Ombudsman has also no written record - didn't understand this part?

Post 44
1. SIl states there was no written correspondance
2. Confirmation that there was some oral discussion between borrower and CU
3. CU stated that they sent numerous correspondance - but OP states 'transcripts' prove otherwise - don't get this part either?
4. The CU after hearing the BIL was leaving respite suddently took the share to pay the loan

You cannot default on a loan, keep your savings and keep your death benefit. Otherwise why would anybody have any rules or terms and conditions. It's a sad case but that shouldn't colour things. So unless the CU was malicious and knew he was dying and decided to therefore offset the shares in order to prevent a payout of a) the shares, b) loan write off and c) death benefit, I would find this incredible behaviour by a CU. But in post 4 BtoB stated that the CU did not even know he was ill, which contradicted in post 44, when the borrower told them he was leaving respite.  

So could the CU manager have been 'clever' in preventing the payouts by using the shares against the loans.  That's the only conclusion if BtoB posts are correct.


----------



## Wishes

CU Manager . . . you leave me flabbergasted.

When oh when will our financial institutions use registered post?  A simple registered letter would have nipped this case in the bud a long time ago.  The CU could have proved the BIL received their corrospondences in the post. Simple as.


----------



## CU Manager

Wishes said:


> CU Manager . . . you leave me flabbergasted.


eh....OK then, care to elaborate on how I flabbergasted you?


----------



## Wishes

CU Manager said:


> eh....OK then, care to elaborate on how I flabbergasted you?



Don't you think no final response smells?  Sure sounds odd from were I'm sitting.


----------



## CU Manager

Wishes said:


> Don't you think no final response smells? Sure sounds odd from were I'm sitting.



I don't know to be honest ... there are some holes in the story and I'm not sure we are getting all the facts on this one.
 Personally speaking I think the CU should just issue a final response and stick to their guns - this might not be a popular opinion but I think it is justified. Why would anyone do the right thing if doing the wrong thing was rewarded


----------



## Wishes

I agree that some aspects of this story are not waying up but I am wary of the CU's  motives to offset the savings against the loan.  I had a loan with the CU that was in difficulty but they refused time and time again to offset my shares against it so I find them a bit trigger happy in this case.

As a CU Manager could you please answer . . . why the CU did not make the death payment a full and final settlement - why would they leave themselves wide open for the OP to seek further payment?  This sounds more than odd.


----------



## AlbacoreA

You have to consider is the CU behaviour here usual in a situation of someone defaulting a loan. In my limited experience CU are very reluctant to offset shares against a loan. I find it very surprising they acted as they did, and their general reluctance to provide the documentation when requested.


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> ...The insurance payout is not free - its paid for by all the interest earned from borrowers who actually pay their loans - not the defaulters who don't...



What do you think happened when the CU appropriated the Members shares?
What would your CU have done with the Members shares?

I have a hand, act and part to play in my CU!


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> What do you think happened when the CU appropriated the Members shares?
> What would your CU have done with the Members shares?



The shares would have been paid off the loan with the remaining loan balance charged off as a bad debt (and effectively paid by all the good members). Such charges endanger the safeguarding of members savings in general



Crugers said:


> I have a hand, act and part to play in my CU!


I'm not sure what this part of your post is about. However, I hope you realise that if you are an officer of your credit union that your *primary *responsibility is the safeguarding of members savings - some credit union folk don't seem to grasp the fact that such responsibility means you can't be a branch of the st vincent de paul


----------



## AlbacoreA

Not much different to a bank with shareholders bondholders either.....it seems


----------



## CU Manager

AlbacoreA said:


> Not much different to a bank with shareholders bondholders either.....it seems


Vastly different , not for profit being the primary difference.


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> ...The shares would have been paid off the loan...


 I’m fairly certain that most if not all credit unions don’t operate that way.  The first/initial call on the shares would be to pay the outstanding interest due.


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> I’m fairly certain that most if not all credit unions don’t operate that way.  The first/initial call on the shares would be to pay the outstanding interest due.


That makes sweet fanny all difference - the loss to the credit union is the same either way. To suggest that applying the shares against outstanding interest somehow makes the situation more favourable for the CU is nonsense. The critical issue is that the balance outstanding becomes a bad debt and a cost to the CU. The account remains in default


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> ...That makes sweet fanny all difference...



It now appears that the alleged "defaulter" paid, like all the other members,  for the free insurance.



CU Manager said:


> The insurance payout is not free - *its paid  for by all the interest  earned* from borrowers who actually pay their  loans - not the defaulters  who don't.





CU Manager said:


> ...The critical issue is that the balance outstanding becomes a bad debt and a cost to the CU...





Boomtobust said:


> ...I can so far report that the Credit Union released the death benefit and *also the loan protection has cleared off the existing debt*...





CU Manager said:


> ...The account remains  in default...



It appears not!


----------



## AlbacoreA

In my opinion, the behaviour described here (and the defence of it) is more typical of a bank, or a insurance company, than a credit union. But perhaps this is a reflection that CU's are as over extended if not more than similar organisations. So will will act similarly to try and recover. 

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-credit-unions-fear-huge-losses-30154288.html


----------



## AlbacoreA

As someone mentioned earlier, he CU may have been technically correct, and perhaps acting on pressure due to the general situation around CU's. But realised that in acting so hastily, it would be very negative PR which might even effect membership.


----------



## Crugers

AlbacoreA said:


> ...will act similarly to try and recover...



I know that we now have the benefit of hindsight and can see that the CU had no need to act so drastically and deprive the member and his nominee of any benefits *AND the Members Savings*.
If they had worked in the best interest of their member they could have come to a *mutual*ly beneficial outcome!


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> I know that we now have the benefit of hindsight and can see that the CU had no need to act so drastically and deprive the member and his nominee of any benefits *AND the Members Savings*.
> If they had worked in the best interest of their member they could have come to a *mutual*ly beneficial outcome!


Yes, the benefit of hindsight
The logical conclusion to your suggestion is that, considering we will all die at some stage, and all the loans and savings are covered, is for everybody to stop paying in the sure and certain knowledge that the loan will be paid off and the savings increased when we die (and after all who knows when their time is up!). Just leave it to the less clued in to make the mistake of actually paying

I have little doubt that the CU had no knowledge of the members terminal condition (regardless of what the OP is saying) as they would have had no incentive to act as they did.
A much more likely scenario is that they tried in earnest to contact the member to no avail for months and may or may not have eventually had contact but the member did not inform the CU of his terminal condition and offered no payments on the loan leaving the CU with no choice but to do a share to loan transfer


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> It now appears that the alleged "defaulter" paid, like all the other members,  for the free insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears not!


Clearly you didn't follow my post - the members actions while alive put his account into default causing the CU to transfer his savings off his loan and write off the rest as a bad debt resulting in a loss for the credit union. You seem to think that, in such a situation the defaulting borrower should be considered the same as a regular payer just because interest arrears were cleared with savings despite the fact that the remainder of the loan has to be charged off as a bad debt?

*Simple example with two choices*
Loan €10,000
Savings €4,500
Interest accrued €500

*Choice 1*
Write off loan and leave interest accrued
Bad Debt Loan €5500
Savings €0
Interest Accrued €500
Loss to CU = €5500
CU pursues defaulter for €5500 plus €500 = €6000

*Choice 2*
Write off loan but take interest first
Bad Debt Loan €6000
Savings €0
Interest Accrued €0
Loss to CU = €5500 (€6000 bad debt less €500 interest earned)
CU pursues defaulter for €6000

I take it that the above is simple enough for you to see that either choice is essentially the same


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> ...Clearly you didn't follow my post...


SNAP! 

I think you accepted that the member’s savings were used to pay all outstanding interest due and a significant portion of the loan. That would be standard practice in all credit unions.

Where exactly is this 


CU Manager said:


> ...loss for the credit union...


 
When the CU met the next of kin they would have mentioned that there was an outstanding debt - if there was any outstanding debt!

Would you not agree that the most likely scenario is/was that the CU claimed on its insurance and was reimbursed for the outstanding loan amount that they had previously written off?

After all that is exactly what Boomtobust has told us 





Boomtobust said:


> and also the  loan protection has cleared off the existing debt.


----------



## AlbacoreA

It doesn't make a lot of sense that a CU would clear down shares off a loan, after only 3 or 4 months on what is probably a 3yr or longer loan.  If they did there would be flood of people doing the same thing. Certainly a reason why they'd consider it, would be if they knew for certain a member wouldn't be continuing with them, ever.


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> SNAP!
> 
> I think you accepted that the member’s savings were used to pay all outstanding interest due and a significant portion of the loan. That would be standard practice in all credit unions.
> 
> Where exactly is this
> 
> 
> When the CU met the next of kin they would have mentioned that there was an outstanding debt - if there was any outstanding debt!
> 
> Would you not agree that the most likely scenario is/was that the CU claimed on its insurance and was reimbursed for the outstanding loan amount that they had previously written off?
> 
> After all that is exactly what Boomtobust has told us


You have all the answers with the benefit of hindsight Meanwhile back in the real world, real decisions have to be made based on real life (the hindsight button doesn't work for future decisions)

The actions of the CU were clearly based on the actions of the borrower and the non payment of the loan.
A loss was incurred by the CU when writing off the loan (I am assuming the loan was written off)
The loss, being the net loan, was recovered by the CU by claiming on the LP insurance for the loan.
The insurance company will only pay based on the loan and share balance at time of death so net loan was paid off but borrower has no savings so no top up insurance claim) The OP's SIL is looking for the amount that would have been payable if the loan had been in good order and no share/loan transfer had occurred.
In that case the gross loan would have been cleared and the savings doubled (up to a limit and age dependant).
The insurance company will not pay out the larger amount now - as they are only bound to pay based on the account status at time of death.
The OP and her SIL appear to be seeking for the CU to make up the difference - this could be €20K, €30K or higher (we don't know the figures)
The CU would have to fund such a payment from the income earned from good paying members to effectively gift the amount to the estate of the defaulting borrower - clearly such an outcome would be perverse! Moral hazard, how are ya?


----------



## Crugers

So there was no loss incurred by the credit union?



CU Manager said:


> The critical issue is  that the balance outstanding becomes a bad debt and a cost to the CU.  The account remains in default


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> So there was no loss incurred by the credit union?



I presume your question is rhetorical and you think you're being smart.

A loss was incurred initially in having to write off the defaulting loan.
That loss was recovered by the LP insurance claim. However a new loss was incurred when the borrowers widow pushed to have a death benefit claim paid. The claim would have been paid by the CU not the insurance company so the full cost of the death benefit paid out is a loss to the CU.
A significant further loss will accrue if the CU gives in the the widows current demand for the higher payout


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> ...However a ... gesture *of Goodwill *was incurred when the borrowers widow pushed to have a death benefit claim paid. The claim would have been paid by the CU not the insurance company so the full cost of the death benefit paid out is a ... gesture *of Goodwill *by the CU....



Fixed your post ...


You appear to see this as next of kin trying to hold the credit union to ransom for benefits they are/were not entitled to!
From my point of view I see this as a failure by the credit union. They acted in haste and now, I suspect, are repenting at leisure hence the delay in the “Final Response” letter.


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> Fixed your post ...
> 
> 
> You appear to see this as next of kin trying to hold the credit union to ransom for benefits they are/were not entitled to!
> From my point of view I see this as a failure by the credit union. They acted in haste and now, I suspect, are repenting at leisure hence the delay in the “Final Response” letter.


No repenting required. A defaulter is a defaulter and is not entitled to the benefits when he didnt pay his loan.
Your point of view is not a rational one. I have presented a very rational view on the reality of this situation. Some people have an unrealistic utopian view on life and think that the big bad financial institutions have some sort of magic wand and limitless funds to make everything alright


----------



## Time

It costs 60 cent to post a final response. Hardly going to impact on members.


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> Your point of view is not a rational one.


  What have I posted that was not rational?


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> What have I posted that was not rational?



You have effectively posted that a defaulter should be treated to the same benefits as a paying borrower. That is not rational. I outlined the logical conclusion to your irrational position earlier (we will all die eventually so why pay -it will be paid off by LP insurance eventually when we die). You ignored this (and other posts) because it didn't suit your irrational position.


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> You have effectively posted...


I either posted or I didn't! If I posted then quote me!


----------



## CU Manager

Crugers said:


> I either posted or I didn't! If I posted then quote me!



All yours posts on this thread ignore the substantive issues I raised. Its a little pointless to quote all your non engaging posts. Keep dancing around the issue in an irrational manner I'm done trying to have a rational debate with someone who ignores  the substantive issues but engages in splitting hairs on the small stuff. You must work in academia or the civil service where such pointless waffle passes as productive engagement - I work in the real world


----------



## Crugers

CU Manager said:


> All yours posts on this thread ignore the substantive issues I raised.



Just what do you consider to be the "substantive issues" that you have raised?


----------



## PatrickJ

It would be interesting to have an update on this thread.

I was involved in a very similar case not so long ago.  My girlfriend's father passed away.  He had also been diagnosed with a terminal disease.  His health declined rapidly within a matter of weeks.  It was totally unexpected and of course sadly the inevitable happened.  During the trials and tripulations with hospital visits he missed a couple of his his credit union loan repayments.  There was no warning from the credit union that they intended to offset his shares against his loan.  They just went ahead and did it anyway.  Some may say they had the right to do so but it was all exceptionally hasty from their end.  

My friends father had told her that she was his nominated beneficiary so she had always been well aware of that.  Some months after her fathers passing she approached the credit union but they refused to reinstate her fathers account.  An attendance at the AGM raised some eyebrows but the committee were insistent they were not in the wrong and were looking out for the interests of their current customers and maybe if her father had informed them that he was ill this wouldn't have happened.

Under the freedom of information act she got a copy of her fathers case file.  Ironically her father had informed them he was ill.   Immediately after her fathers phone call they offset his shares against his loan leaving his nominated beneficiary with noting.

The Ombudsman were very helpful throughout this time but unfortunately the Credit Union were not very compliant with them either.  They refused to issue the Ombudsman with a copy of the nominated beneficiary form that the deceased had signed because the credit unions high powered legal team had advised them against issuing a copy of this to the nominated beneficiary or the Ombudsman.

So with the Ombudsman unable to persuade the credit union, my friend was no longer emotionally able to pursue her complaint.  She was simply tired after the long running battle.  She did try seeking a solicitor to take on her case but was turned away by numerous.  She finally let the credit union win because it was very unlikely that the outcome for her would have been successful.  The cu walked away with less than 20k.  Sadly her father did not make a will.  This would have been very helpful for the Ombudsman as it would have established that she was indeed the beneficiary.

I wish the original poster luck with their pursuit and hopefully you are more successful.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Patrick J. 

If you hold on file that CU had noted father was ill , I strongly feel you have a case.
The problem with these Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) type cases is well shown on other ppi threads.
Most solicitors avoid ppi , in that they know that contract law is on Banks side and fairness rarely wins! 
If you ring me on 0872437139 I will give you some advice.

To be clear , I have been on ppi cases for 2 years now and have an interest in them.


----------



## RichInSpirit

Just after reading most of this thread and sympathy to the deceased and their loved ones.
This thread would make me less sympathetic towards the Credit Union movement.  I know they have the strong arm of the central bank leaning on them but they are also local community organisations and should act with compassion and a bit of discretion. Even if that means standing up to the central bank at times.
In Boomtobusts case they ended up making a payment at a later date and in doing so accepted they acted hastily and wrongfully at an earlier date.


----------



## Alwyn

Hello,

While lurking I noticed that this thread was being discussed again.

Apologies for not updating.  It's been a dreadful couple of months.  My S-I-L could no longer handle the pressure and is no longer pursuing this case.  The CU made it very difficult for her.  

Not having letters of administration brought the case down.


----------



## PatrickJ

I'm not surprised.  It can be a bruising affair.  The deceased getting  dragged through the mud.  It can all become overbearing for the people  involved.  As both our cases seem quite similar I wouldn't be surprised  if their were more like it out there.  A colleague is currently going  through a somewhat similar case which I mentioned on these forums too.  I  wonder how many older credit union members have relied solely on the  nominated beneficiary forms being as good as a Will and on their death  the cu wont pay out the beneficiary because no Will was n place?  Is a  persons' estate required to go through probate before a cu will make  good to the beneficiary?  There are so many unanswered questions.  My  gut instinct tells me we are going to see an avalanche of such cases.

Hi  Gerry, thank you.  I will be sure to pass on your contact details.   Unfortunately her dealings with the cu have put her off dealing with  them again.  They played hard-ball big time.  Banks in this country get a  hard time and I've had my own difficulties with them too but never have  I came across such hard-nosed antics.


----------



## CU Manager

Gerry Canning said:


> Patrick J.
> 
> If you hold on file that CU had noted father was ill , I strongly feel you have a case.
> The problem with these Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) type cases is well shown on other ppi threads.
> Most solicitors avoid ppi , in that they know that contract law is on Banks side and fairness rarely wins!
> If you ring me on 0872437139 I will give you some advice.
> 
> To be clear , I have been on ppi cases for 2 years now and have an interest in them.


Gerry, this is not a PPI issue. Its a Life Savings insurance issue which the member does not pay for directly, I'm not sure if your two years of PPI experience will be any use in these circumstances.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Cu Manager. 

The point I was highlighting is that if Cu has accepted father was ill ,yet took funds that meant Fathers Life Insurance was invalidated then Cu have acted poorly.
I know it is not PPI insurance but if policy on Life Savings insurance was sold by Cu then surely the Cu have erred?
I have a very good Solicitor contact who I use who would give good solid legal advice to poster .


----------



## CU Manager

Gerry Canning said:


> Cu Manager.
> 
> The point I was highlighting is that if Cu has accepted father was ill ,yet took funds that meant Fathers Life Insurance was invalidated then Cu have acted poorly.
> I know it is not PPI insurance but if policy on Life Savings insurance* was sold by Cu* then surely the Cu have erred?
> I have a very good Solicitor contact who I use who would give good solid legal advice to poster .


 Gerry,
You specifically mentioned PPI in your post so you will forgive me for assuming that you were treating this as a PPI issue.
There was no sale of a policy, this is "free" cover not part of the credit agreement.
Why not outline the specifics of this case to your solicitor friend and post his thought on the thread for all to see? (Just be sure to remind him that its not a PPI case and the CU did not sell the insurance - just for clarity)


----------



## Gerry Canning

Cu Manager; 

Once the Life Insurance is included in the agreement it becomes part of the contract .
So to {break} it when accepting customer is ill , just seems wrong.
I am around long-nuff to know issues get {fudged} and that is why I gave poster my phone number .
I would want great clarity in case before I would give or get (hard) advice.
In general I have found Cu,s very fair with customers.


----------

