The Family Tree that Changed a Death Benefit Review
When a pension scheme contacted the son of a deceased member, the case initially appeared straightforward. He said he was the member’s only child. It wasn’t the full story.
With no obvious reason to question the information, the scheme could easily have continued its entitlement review based on his account alone. When Heka mapped the deceased member’s family network, we identified other surviving children – people who had not been disclosed and whom the scheme may otherwise never have known existed.
A contact is not the same as a complete family picture
The first relative reached is only one source of information – and they may not know, remember or choose to disclose the member’s complete family circumstances. Families are rarely as simple as the records suggest. Members may have:
- Children from previous relationships
- Estranged relatives
- Family members who have changed their names
- Children or siblings living overseas
- Grandchildren who may need to be considered
- Relationships that were never recorded by the scheme
The risk grows across large deceased-member portfolios
A single complex case can often be escalated for specialist investigation. The difficulty becomes much greater when a scheme is managing tens, hundreds or even thousands of deceased-member records. This creates three connected risks for schemes:
- Incomplete beneficiariesBenefits may be distributed without all potential beneficiaries being identified.
- Unresolved casesCases may remain unresolved because the available member data appears insufficient.
- Insufficient evidenceTrustees may lack the supporting evidence needed to demonstrate how the family was identified and reviewed.
From tracing an individual to mapping the family
Traditional tracing often focuses on finding a named person. Family tree tracing begins with a different question: who else should the scheme know about? Heka starts with the deceased member and reconstructs the wider family network around them – a spouse or partner, children, siblings, grandchildren and relatives living overseas.
The aim is not to make the trustee’s decision. It is to give trustees a more complete and accurate evidence base on which to make it.
What the undisclosed children changed
Heka’s findings did more than produce additional names. They changed the basis of the review. Once the other children were identified, the trustees had a more complete view of the family and could investigate the case appropriately before reaching a decision.
Sometimes, it is the person the scheme does not yet know it needs to trace.
Because when a relative says, “I’m the only one,” the scheme should be able to verify whether that is really true.
