Coroners Office and cause of death

[jules77]

My brother in law, for whom I am the executor, passed away on the 13th September. We had no cause of death and we have only been given an interim death certificate. Prudential, with whom he held a policy, wrote to the Coroners office, and were given the cause of death on the 24th November, and have just given me this information over the telephone. Yet the Coroners office have still to hold an inquest and inform me. I am absolutely fuming, and plan to write a letter of complaint as surely the Coroners office should A: not release information to a third party without the family's consent, B: advise the family first and C: not release any information until after the inquest?

[Giggsie]

total disgrace they should be told about it.

[RATTER15]

I agree it is a disgrace, not a lot you can do about it I dont think. The laws are very different with regards to someone deceased, there is no longer any right to confidentiality, if my understanding of the law is correct.

[askyourgran]

The only upside to that is you won't have to wait quite so long for his estate to be sorted out. But if there hasn't been an inquest yet, how do they know what to tell the Prudential, does the interim death certificate suffice?

[jules77]

No the Prudential need the full death certificate anyway, as do everyone else, which wont be released until after the inquest. I am applying for probate, and the estate cant be resolved until I have Letters of Administration etc. I have written a letter of complaint to the Coroner, but wanted to know how I stood legally, as I see it as a breach of the Data Protection Act?

[jules77]

I am told that informing the family was on the 'jobs to do list', but in the interim, someone in the Administration Department advised Prudential first.

[factor-fiction]

I understood the Data Protection Act doesn't apply to deceased people, although it may not be quite as simple as that. But out of courtesy I would expect them to tell the family first. It will be interesting to see what the Coroner says in response to your letter
As the inquest hasn't happened then they cannot have given Prudential the definitive cause of death. Maybe they would have given you the same prelimiminary information earlier if you had asked, so I'm wondering if you had asked.

[factor-fiction]

Sorry, I see you already have an interim death certificate. As the inquest hasn't happened yet I'm not clear what cause of death info the Coroner could have given to the Prudential. Is it different to what was on the interim death cerificate?

[jules77]

The interim death certificate didnt give a cause of death. We have been telephoning the Coroners office regularly and last time we spoke to them, a cause of death had not been established. They said they would 'try' and get us an answer before Christmas. The Coroner has now given me exactly the same information as they gave the Prudential.

[factor-fiction]

Thanks jules77. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious but I'm not clear what the purpose of the inquest is then if the cause of death has already been established.
It does seem wrong that they tell the Pru before they tell the family. I think deceased people may well be outside the scope of the Data Protection Act so they can pass the information onto Prudential, but it does seem wrong that they told Prudential first. It may also be that there was something in the life assurance contract that gave the Pru the right to access this info.
Finally, another possibility may be that the Coroner has not had the documentation needed to authorise them to release the information to you until it's gone through probate.
Let us know what the Coroner says

[jules77]

They opened the inquest because there was no clear cause of death. They were going to contact us, when they got round to it, to confirm a date for the hearing, but there is absolutely no point in us going now, as we know what they are going to state the cause of death was. They will however have one in our absence. My argument with the Pru is that they contacted the Coroner because I had only sent them an interim death certificate, but I didnt have anything else as we were awaiting the post mortem results. The Pru obviously have a reason for knowing, but I would have told them 'after' the hearing, and the Coroner does not know that the Pru has an interest because I havnt confirmed they do, and it makes a mockery of patient confidentiality as they could, in effect, tell just about anyone that contacts them, if that makes sense?

[bednobs]

yes they can. Dead people have little (if any) rights in law. It would have been nice to tell you first, but not essential

[jules77]

So why when I call up his Bank or any other company where he had an account, do they identify me first, if he has no rights, they can technically give his banking information to anyone?

[factor-fiction]

I take your point although I would guess that the Pru didn't just ring the Coroner up. The Pru will have a copy of the life policy which bears their name and the name of the deceased and that may have been enough to convince the Coroner that they had an appropriate interest .
It would have been nice to tell you first and I think it is poor service on their part, but on the plus side the policy claim may well be settled more quickly now.
Maybe your issue with the Coroner should be why they didn't tell you sooner rather than why did they tell the Pru.

[jules77]

The Prudential wrote to the Coroner to request further information as they only had an interim death certificate, which is all I had too!! I feel they need to tighten up their procedures at the Coroners office and ensure family are told before anyone else. It makes no difference to the Pru to be honest, as they cant settle anything until I have got Probate.

[bednobs]

the reason why theyy are so hot on money and property after death is because it's in limbo - it can't belong to the deceased as he is dead, therefore it's in legal limbo till the paperwork gets sorted