Proof of who I am.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Unless the property is to be transferred into the names of the three beneficiaries before it is sold, the sale will be made by the executor. Has probate been applied for by more than one executor?[/FONT]

amalis

a council tax bill?

Margot123

Only the named executors on the Grant of Probate are required to prove their ID.

I have had to do this with the EA and solicitor.
The EA expects this as previous experience tells them not to bother putting work into marketing/selling a property that someone is not legally entitled to sell.

ReadingTim

Carpetman wrote: »

But still, it's not enough. Are they just being difficult?

A credit card can be quickly and easily applied for, at no cost, and does not have to be used. Similarly a passport, although it takes a little longer and costs a little more. But set against the gain of 1/3rd of an inheritance, it is peanuts.

The EA is being no more difficult on their insistence on these documents than you're being on your refusal to provide/obtain them. Furthermore, as the only one who benefits is you/your wife, your refusal appears to be particularly pigheaded.

Whilst you may not like it, such anti-money laundering checks are an unfortunate reality of large financial transactions in the modern era, so to rant and rave against it simply marks you out as an unsophisticated luddite.

konark

We should resist these Jobsworths and their demands for more and more forms of ID, it's not about being a Luddite, it's about not giving your details to people who have no business to ask for them and will probably flog them on to 3rd parties given half a chance..

The executor is selling the house, if your wife is not the executor the Estate Agents have no reason to ask her to prove who she is. She will never own the house- it is being sold!

AdrianC

konark wrote: »

We should resist these Jobsworths and their demands for more and more forms of ID

Proving ID is a legal requirement.

and will probably flog them on to 3rd parties given half a chance..

Which would be illegal, and subject to even harsher penalties once GDPR comes in in May.

ReadingTim

konark wrote: »

We should resist these Jobsworths and their demands for more and more forms of ID, it's not about being a Luddite, it's about not giving your details to people who have no business to ask for them and will probably flog them on to 3rd parties given half a chance..

Luddite and conspiracy theorist - I'm surprised you lift your tinfoil hat up enough to read the Daily Mail...

MarcoM

ReadingTim wrote: »

A credit card can be quickly and easily applied for, at no cost, and does not have to be used. Similarly a passport, although it takes a little longer and costs a little more. But set against the gain of 1/3rd of an inheritance, it is peanuts.

The EA is being no more difficult on their insistence on these documents than you're being on your refusal to provide/obtain them. Furthermore, as the only one who benefits is you/your wife, your refusal appears to be particularly pigheaded.

Whilst you may not like it, such anti-money laundering checks are an unfortunate reality of large financial transactions in the modern era, so to rant and rave against it simply marks you out as an unsophisticated luddite.

personally i would not mind said checks if they actually worked
and stopped money laundering however the perception is that the country is awash with dirty money, particularly in real estate.
There isn't a broadsheet newspaper that does not list an article on money laundering at least once a week whether it involves bogdan the oligarch from russia or a local spiv.

AdrianC

I don't think you know what "money laundering" is.

Thrugelmir

MarcoM wrote: »

personally i would not mind said checks if they actually worked
and stopped money laundering however the perception is that the country is awash with dirty money, particularly in real estate.

Also to stop people committing fraud.