Legality of Internally Used Indemnity Form

AtticusFinch86

Hi All,

Just a question around an internally prepared indemnity form and it's legality.

I work in a company that sometimes holds monies on behalf of elderly persons. If and when these people pass on, we are naturally required to pass these funds on to executors of wills/estates. The value of these payments can range from a few hundred euro to several thousand.

Sometimes, there is no will and no executor of an estate.

In these cases, we're typically contacted by the next of kin and asked what's due/payable and how they should proceed. I usually perform a few checks to confirm that they are next of kin and then request that they send in a signed letter stating that they are the next of kin, that there is no will in place, that there are no solicitors dealing with the estate and that they are responsible for the financial affairs of the deceased.

I was pulled in recently by the Managing Director and given a dressing down on this matter in front of two other colleagues. She claims the document is not worth the paper it is written on and going forward she wants me to send out an "indemnity form" (to be signed and returned) that she herself has prepared based on a HSE template. Her main concern is that a payment would be made to someone that has no legal right to it, and that she could find herself in court as a result.

My question is, how could her letter/form have any more legal standing that the ones I've requested from the next of kin? As far as I can see it's worded much more elegantly than the ones I've been receiving, but ultimately it's just a signed statement of indemnity.

I'm relatively new to the position and I was extremely annoyed at being spoken to in that manner, especially as I've just been following the previous procedures in place. I've a another meeting about it next week and I just want to get my ducks in a row.

Any advice appreciated

banie01

Whether or not her letter has any more standing than yours is actually kind of pointless.

You are an employee, your Employer has laid out a procedure they wish to be used for the precise use case you have described.
Do it.

Bar you wishing to make a rod for your own back in this instance, you have nothing to gain by not following the procedure your employer wishes to lay down.

I note you mention that you were following the old procedure, was there a gap in the training?
Has the person who trained you not been aware of any new procedure?
Or what might have happened is that at some point recently an ad hoc indemnity was deemed insufficient and the company was left on the hook for paying out money twice.
It doesn't really matter why the new form has been introduced tho, what matters is that it has been and it is a reasonable expectation of an employer that you follow a lawful instruction.

Regarding the indemnity, once sufficient ID is presented to confirm both the claimants next of kin status, and that the deceased is intestate and the claimant signs a letter confirming that should a will or subsequent other closer claimant arise that they are responsible for repaying the estate. Your employer would likely be sufficiently covered.

However, that is completely your employer's call to make. They could advise that they want the form completed in triplicate, on tissue paper.
Not at all reasonable, but their game, their rules.

AtticusFinch86

banie01 wrote: »

Whether or not her letter has any more standing than yours is actually kind of pointless.

You are an employee, your Employer has laid out a procedure they wish to be used for the precise use case you have described.
Do it.

Bar you wishing to make a rod for your own back in this instance, you have nothing to gain by not following the procedure your employer wishes to lay down.

I note you mention that you were following the old procedure, was there a gap in the training?
Has the person who trained you not been aware of any new procedure?
Or what might have happened is that at some point recently an ad hoc indemnity was deemed insufficient and the company was left on the hook for paying out money twice.
It doesn't really matter why the new form has been introduced tho, what matters is that it has been and it is a reasonable expectation of an employer that you follow a lawful instruction.

Regarding the indemnity, once sufficient ID is presented to confirm both the claimants next of kin status, and that the deceased is intestate and the claimant signs a letter confirming that should a will or subsequent other closer claimant arise that they are responsible for repaying the estate. Your employer would likely be sufficiently covered.

However, that is completely your employer's call to make. They could advise that they want the form completed in triplicate, on tissue paper.
Not at all reasonable, but their game, their rules.

Thanks for the response.

I understand that, and have no issue sending out the form she herself has prepared, and will do so going forward. My main problem is that 1) I was never made aware her indemnity form even existed 2) I followed existing procedure and 3) she chastised and embarrassed me in front of colleagues with false information and some sarcastic comments about my naivety. I also know she will have spoken to other team members about it and will have ridiculed me further.

I just want to be able to set the record straight if it's mentioned again this week, and to let her know I'm happy to send out any forms she has prepared but that I followed existing protocol previously and that there should be no liability issues irrespective.

AtticusFinch86

banie01 wrote: »

Whether or not her letter has any more standing than yours is actually kind of pointless.


I note you mention that you were following the old procedure, was there a gap in the training?
Has the person who trained you not been aware of any new procedure?

.

No, although her indemnity form was in existence, as far as I can tell it was not previously used (at least not on a regular basis). I've spoken to my direct line manager about it (he'd have overseen the person previously doing my job) and it was him that advised me I needed to get a signed letter stating that the person is next of kin, fully responsible for financial affairs of deceased, etc.
We've a new CFO in place and I suspect the MD is trying to show that strong controls are in place. I have no issue with this, I just resent being reprimanded and ridiculed for following procedures she herself would have previously signed off on.

banie01

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

Thanks for the response.

I understand that, and have no issue sending out the form she herself has prepared, and will do so going forward. My main problem is that 1) I was never made aware her indemnity form even existed 2) I followed existing procedure and 3) she chastised and embarrassed me in front of colleagues with false information and some sarcastic comments about my naivety. I also know she will have spoken to other team members about it and will have ridiculed me further.

I just want to be able to set the record straight if it's mentioned again this week, and to let her know I'm happy to send out any forms she has prepared but that I followed existing protocol previously and that there should be no liability issues irrespective.

Which is why I asked about the training.

Is there a process manual or work instruction for what the method you were using was?
If there is, print it out and bring it to the meeting.
Be polite, reserved and firm in confirming that you followed the procedure as laid out, that you were trained in.

Also confirm that you are more than happy to undertake the new process she is outlining.
It is up to yourself if you want to raise the matter of how she spoke to you.
If it was me, I would.
That said, I would also be aware of any probationary period applicable or indeed the requirement of 12months service for protection from unfair dismissal.

In your initial post, it comes across as if the form is the issue.
Would I be right in thinking however that it's not?
Its the manner in which it was raised, and in which you were spoken to?

banie01

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

. My main problem is that 1) I was never made aware her indemnity form even existed 2) I followed existing procedure and 3) she chastised and embarrassed me in front of colleagues with false information and some sarcastic comments about my naivety.[/quote

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

No, although her indemnity form was in existence, as far as I can tell it was not previously used (at least not on a regular basis).

Look OP, this is going to sound slightly Dickish on my part but believe me if this issue ever goes to HR it will be much more so.

I've bolded 2 snippets above.
Both of those statements cannot be true?

Now reading your full post it seems your line manager gave the go-ahead for the letters you sent.
However, if the form was in existence then there is a procedure somewhere that calls for its use.

Be it that your line manager wasn't aware of it ( He should be) or that whomever trained you wasn't.
It would appear to be a training issue, has your line manager given you any input on this?

If you want to raise the manner in which you were spoken to, do but be aware of your circumstances as I outlined in an earlier post.

Holding onto the form or your knowledge of it as a point is a red herring.
It is IMO a training/Handover issue and if the form was in existence, whomever signed you off and gave the nod for the letter process you were previously using carries more responsibility for the issue than you.

Your issue however is very much how it was raised, and not what was done.

AtticusFinch86

banie01 wrote: »

Which is why I asked about the training.

Is there a process manual or work instruction for what the method you were using was?
If there is, print it out and bring it to the meeting.
Be polite, reserved and firm in confirming that you followed the procedure as laid out, that you were trained in.

Also confirm that you are more than happy to undertake the new process she is outlining.
It is up to yourself if you want to raise the matter of how she spoke to you.
If it was me, I would.
That said, I would also be aware of any probationary period applicable or indeed the requirement of 12months service for protection from unfair dismissal.

In your initial post, it comes across as if the form is the issue.
Would I be right in thinking however that it's not?
Its the manner in which it was raised, and in which you were spoken to?

It's the issue in the sense that she ridiculed me for my naivety in thinking that the signed letter I had sought gave us legal cover, and that going forward I was to send our the letter/form she had prepared (which as far as I can tell, gives us the same legal cover). At the time I felt embarrassed, stupid, extremely naive and angry with myself about it. But having reflected a little, I couldn't understand how her letter provided any more legal cover than my own. Which is what I wanted to clarify here. Again, I've no issue sending her letters going forward. I am just extremely annoyed at the insinuation that I was moronic in following previous protocol. This isn't the first time she's reprimanded me in front of others. She makes a regular habit of dressing down most of her staff.

I think you are right about mentioning it to her in a calm, controlled manner. If the opportunity presents itself during the week, I will certainly attempt to do so.

nuac

Mod
imho this organisation's solicitor should set out the procedure for dealing with such accounts, including drafts of any necessary documents
Closed