Help with maturing Endowment - unreasonable requests for information from Aviva

Golden_Anemone

Hi - can anyone please advise.

I have an endowment policy that has matured. It was taken out in joint names 25 years ago with my then fiance. We married shortly afterwards and then separated 20 years ago and as I was taking out a mortgage on a new home and he wasn't, he agreed to assign the endowment policy to me as it was worth very little if we had cashed it in. There was a deed of assignment drawn up by my solicitor and properly signed and witnessed by all parties.

I provided Aviva with this deed along with the completed claim form, identification documents for myself and my marriage certificate and heard nothing for several weeks.

Now they want me to provide 2 forms of identification for my ex husband because he is a party to the deed of assignment. He refuses to give them to me.

Aviva say they have tried to do something called an "electronic ID" and this wasn't possible so the only option open to me is to instruct a solicitor to enforce my ex's legal obligation to provide the ID.

This seems unfair and wrong. Does anyone have any experience?

I've tried to contact them today to ask what piece(s) of legislation they are relying on to support their assertions that 1) They cannot pay my claim without his ID and 2) that he has a legal obligation to provide the ID for a policy he has no interest in, but their phone system is down so I still don't know.

dunstonh

Now they want me to provide 2 forms of identification for my ex husband because he is a party to the deed of assignment. He refuses to give them to me.

If the policy was assigned then he is no longer party to the policy and there is no requirement for this. Asking them at the time of assignment is fair enough but not now.

This seems unfair and wrong. Does anyone have any experience?

You should make a formal complaint as their request is unreasonable and not required. I can understand them asking for your ID. That is acceptable. You are the beneficiary and they have to comply with money laundering regs. However, there is no reason for the ex husband to be checked as he has no claim on the proceeds.

Have you also requested that the proceeds are paid directly to the "Known" bank account? i.e. the one you paid direct debits on?

Golden_Anemone

dunstonh wrote: »

If the policy was assigned then he is no longer party to the policy and there is no requirement for this. Asking them at the time of assignment is fair enough but not now.

My thoughts exactly. The assignment was done 20 years ago so the money laundering regs won't have existed. My solicitor at the time was perfectly satisfied to everyone's identity - are Aviva perhaps attempting to apply this legislation retrospectively?

You should make a formal complaint as their request is unreasonable and not required. I can understand them asking for your ID. That is acceptable. You are the beneficiary and they have to comply with money laundering regs. However, there is no reason for the ex husband to be checked as he has no claim on the proceeds.

They registered a formal complaint from me on the phone yesterday and said they will respond in 5 working days but that this will not remove the requirement for me to obtain ID from my ex.

Have you also requested that the proceeds are paid directly to the "Known" bank account? i.e. the one you paid direct debits on?

Yes, I have requested that the proceeds are paid into the account from which every one of the Direct Debit payments came from and provided them with further evidence of the account by way of a cancelled cheque when they requested it.

Thanks for your reply. Do I just wait for their response to the complaint and then go to the Ombudsman?
I'm reluctant to do as they say and instruct a solicitor.

dunstonh

My thoughts exactly. The assignment was done 20 years ago so the money laundering regs won't have existed. My solicitor at the time was perfectly satisfied to everyone's identity - are Aviva perhaps attempting to apply this legislation retrospectively?

The money laundering regs were changed a few years ago to include maturities and surrenders. So, the fact they are making a check now is fine. However, it should be based on the current beneficiary and owner. The assignment should have removed the ex in that respect and therefore removed any requirement for a check.

They registered a formal complaint from me on the phone yesterday and said they will respond in 5 working days but that this will not remove the requirement for me to obtain ID from my ex.

It will if the complaint is upheld.

es, I have requested that the proceeds are paid into the account from which every one of the Direct Debit payments came from and provided them with further evidence of the account by way of a cancelled cheque when they requested it.

When i have dealt with Aviva maturities and surrenders, when it is a "known" bank account (which is what they call it) then they dont require as many checks on the ID compared to if they maturity is by cheque or to an unknown bank account.

You wait for a response from the complaint team. Do not instruct a solicitor yet as it may be an unnecessary cost.

Golden_Anemone

Aviva have responded to my complaint and have refused to budge from their position with regard to needing ID from my ex before they can recognise the deed of assignment.

When I pressed them and asked exactly what legislation they were relying on to say he had a legal obligation to provide this they changed their tune and admitted it was not a legal requirement but nonetheless was Aviva policy and necessary to prevent fraud.

I have downloaded the forms for a complaint to the Ombudsman - is this my next step? I'm assuming that is going to take months?

Thrugelmir

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

I have downloaded the forms for a complaint to the Ombudsman - is this my next step? I'm assuming that is going to take months?

If the Ombudsman does not uphold your complaint then you are back at square one. The Ombudsman is unlikely to rule on a matter of operating policy.

Golden_Anemone

So unless I can get my ex to agree to provide his ID - which he says means agreeing to pay him half the proceeds of the policy - Aviva keep it? Nice payday for them then. :eek:

dunstonh

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

So unless I can get my ex to agree to provide his ID - which he says means agreeing to pay him half the proceeds of the policy - Aviva keep it? Nice payday for them then. :eek:

Can you confirm that the policy was actually assigned? If it was assigned to you then he has no legal title on the policy.

Thrugelmir

Golden_Anemone wrote: »

So unless I can get my ex to agree to provide his ID - which he says means agreeing to pay him half the proceeds of the policy - Aviva keep it? Nice payday for them then. :eek:

Was the assignment notice not lodged at the time?

Aviva have a liability to your ex. They are merely protecting themselves against fraud. A totally understandable position.

Golden_Anemone

A deed of assignment was drawn up by our solicitor at the time that we sold the jointly held property.

I have provided the deed of assignment to Aviva but they say they cannot recognise it without him providing them with 2 forms of ID and that therefore he is still considered a joint beneficiary to the policy.

Golden_Anemone

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Was the assignment notice not lodged at the time?

No, it wasn't lodged at the time - I didn't actually have it in my possession until the solicitor sent it to me following the sale of my last property and when I bought my current house. When I spoke to Aviva a couple of years ago about getting it lodged I was told by one of their advisors that the only way I could register it with them was by sending the only copy to them by post - I panicked at the thought of that and did nothing until February of this year when I contacted them again and was told I could get a certified copy.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Aviva have a liability to your ex. They are merely protecting themselves against fraud. A totally understandable position.

Do they not also have a liability to me? They have said will not accept confirmation of identity from the solicitor who drew up the deed of assignment and therefore a greedy ex can take advantage. They had no problem accepting the premiums from an account in my sole name for 25 years.