I have sent a grant of probate extracted by my firm and the closure form to HSBC and have received a response wanting id for the executors and for them to call into the branch etc. I have asked for the monies to be paid to my client account.
I’m sure I saw something similar on here recently. What can be done now and what is the Law Society going to do about this ridiculous situation? We may as well not be acting for our clients. What do others think?
Claire Flood
Claire Flood Solicitors
Have you checked whether the Executors already have accounts of their own with HSBC or First Direct where they have already supplied ID in a personal capacity? First Direct, at least, have accepted that in these circumstances the ID does not have to be checked again.
Bruce Hogarth-Jones
Plantagenet Partners LLP
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Claire Flood.
I take it the clients complied with your ID&V requirements, as required by The Law Society, before you accepted instructions from them.
Regardless of the destination of the funds, asset holders (such as HSBC) are required to do the same before accepting instructions from their clients (in this case the executors).
I whole-heartedly agree that it creates a lot of work, which often creates friction with the underlying client. The requirements are imposed by Government and regulators, such as The Law Society, are required to implement them, warts and all. When they were proposed, I am aware that the various professional and industry bodies sought to try to ensure they were workable. Although I believe some concessions were made by the government representatives, they were constrained by the underlying legislation and could only go so far to meet practitioners’ concerns.
Whilst the ID&V requirements are primarily intended to prevent money-laundering, they can also be “sold” as security measures – helping to ensure that money and other assets to which we are entitled (whether in our own right or otherwise) can only be accessed by us, or our validly authorised representative. Although clients may see through this, it could help soften any objections they might have, unless they are told how “ridiculous” the situation is felt to be (which seems to me to be merely an attempt to gain the clients’ sympathy).
Paul Saunders
Well, that is FATCA, CRS, Financial Action Task Force and/or the OECD as actively encouraged by HMRC.
That international symposium, i.e. fiscfest, has been informed by its member tax administrations that lawyers cannot be trusted to handle money.
You will have noted that had you been following the OECD’s and EU’s rhetoric and publications for the past 10 years. Lawyers acting as Executors in whatever professional legal capacity even less as a doubly regulated professional activity can only be exponentially more suspect.
The Law Society is given no standing by HMG to be a match for them, as the MoJ has no inters in opposing the Prime Minister or the Chancellor and it is that that I find an unacceptable state of affairs.
The OECD is proceeding by IGA and other indirect mechanisms to achieve a political objective for which it outside the objects contained in its Constitutional Treaty.
Politicians have allowed this to happen on their watch. Note that HMRC internationally is only answerable to the First and Second Lords of the Treasury who traditionally exercise the Treaty prerogative in the other capacities mentioned above, and you have seen where that got everyone insisting on their Parliamentary accountability.
Peter Harris
Thank you.
I just find it annoying that our word no longer seems to count without them imposing additional requirements.
As you say we will have carried out our own money laundering and id checks in any event.
Kind regards,
Claire Flood.
Agree - what a state of affairs.
Kind regards,
Claire Flood.
I agree with the above comments, that HSBC (in effect) has gone overboard in requiring the clients to go to the bank. We have had to tell clients that they may have to open a special account to receive the money at the local HSBC branch, and when the monies are from overseas that HSBC may want to speak to the client. This speech is obviously of no good as unless HSBC are familiar with the client, they cannot recognise the voice of the person they are speaking to. Such speaking is therefore complete nonsense. In summary it is bureaucracy gone mad.
I suspect a large part of the HSBC attitude follows on from the money laundering in Mexico a few years ago, the fine that HSBC had to pay the USA, and the supervision the USA imposed on HSBC.
Also, it is an insult to the legal profession that lawyers are not to be trusted. We were trusted back when exchange controls were in force, so why not now? The Law Society has obviously dropped the ball, and is not representing the profession as it should when dealing with small minded civil servants with nothing better to do than upset perfectly legitimate transactions. After all how can there be money laundering if the deceased’s legitimate monies are paid to the Executors or to the lawyers acting for the Executors?
Peter Double
Probate Resealing Services
Thank you - couldn’t have put it better myself. Spot on.
Claire Flood
The situation with HSBC (and worse with First Direct) developed around December last. We did try and obtain an explanation as to the change of policy however it was illogical – we now have a policy when we first notify HSBC / First Direct of the death we include Executor’s ID such that it is in date (say, if a recent bank statement is used), particularly with the delays at Probate Registry. We do not ask clients to attend a branch or contact a call centre if we are attending to administration.
(Off topic, the Liverpool DPR turnaround times are much improved, around 5-6 weeks now.)
John Cartlidge
Campion Solicitors
Thank you for that tip.
Kind regards,
Claire Flood.
The latest wheeze from Natwest goes like this.
We submit letter, original death certificate, funeral account for settlement and request usual bank account information.
Two weeks later, aforesaid letter etc. are returned to us with a letter advising we need to register for the online bereavement service if we require anything else. Given the thought of a phone call to a Natwest call centre is demoralising to say the least, we register for the service, which requires a pass code by text message, observe a tutorial on how to take photos of documents, and then we are told to ‘upload original documents’(?). There is no account information provided, however there is an ‘additional requests’ option, where we then upload the letter they have had for a fortnight…
John Cartlidge
Campion Solicitors
I suppose they would call that ‘progress’!
Kind regards,
Claire Flood.