CU set shares agains loan for terminally ill member, and now won't pay death benefits
- Thread starter Alwyn
- Start date
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 108
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.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?
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 108
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
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!
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!
CU Manager
Registered User
- Messages
- 108
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 108
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 108
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 108
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
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