Unfair probate treatment.

dunstonh

 so why did they insist 3 times on a full G of P? 

What did they tell you when you asked them that?  

The reality is, they don't have to go through this process at all. This is why I believe there is something akin to the PPI malarky.

There isn't even a hint of similarity to the issues with PPI.

 Have registered my concerns with the FCA who infer Raisinet al may be in conflict with the FCA handbook Principles.

The FCA do not handle consumer complaints.  The front line staff wouldn't know if it is in "conflict" of the FCA handbook.

 Problem is, it took Martin to raise the PPI fiasco.

No it didn't.   PPI complaints were going in before he jumped on the bandwagon.

eskbanker

Understandable that you're frustrated by delays in accessing funds at this difficult time, but there's a massive difference between admin issues at least partially arising from Raisin's multi-party model (i.e. where funds are held by third parties) and a systemic industry-wide 'scam', so probably best not to attempt to extrapolate the former into the latter!

Edit: response to this post was sent by OP via private message, which IMHO isn't a particularly suitable way of continuing debate, so I'll stick to public discussion only....

masonic

peter_batty said:

Sorry. Forgot to mention that Raisin/MAM changed on the basis the 2 amounts were only 5k each. They knew this at the start. Their policy apparently is flexible where the amount is under 10k per bank so why did they insist 3 times on a full G of P? I am interested to know if this is systemic in the small margins finance institutions, If so, How many others have automatically gone to the expense of Probate when unnecessary? The cost involved in the SED process is only 10.00 per signature witnessed - total = 60.00
The reality is, they don't have to go through this process at all. This is why I believe there is something akin to the PPI malarky. Have registered my concerns with the FCA who infer Raisinet al may be in conflict with the FCA handbook Principles. Problem is, it took Martin to raise the PPI fiasco.

It's not correct to say they don't have to go through this process at all. They must go through the process if they want to ensure they will not be liable for the total value of the accounts should someone without the legal authority to act as executor produce the death certificate and a disputed or old version of the will. It is therefore a matter for them if they wish to take on that liability for the convenience of a deceased customer's executors and heirs. That decision is going to depend on a number of factors, including the amounts concerned, the level of risk (sole account to be inherited by a spouse is less risky than an estate to be inherited by a distant relative or friend), the amount of legal expertise present within the firm, and their financial situation (ability to absorb such a loss).

If you wish to absolve them of that liability, then you must get the law changed to absolve them of liability. Then you must decide what happens when the money is taken fraudulently - do the heirs have to go without or track down and reclaim the money themselves, should the loss be compensated through a levy on the industry (and reduced rates for all customers)?

peter_batty

Lot of very explicit advice there Masonic. I am particularly drawn to your comments "That decision is going to depend on a number of factors, I fully agree. But if no factors were considered by the organisation not asking any circumstances, is this a failing of the firm? At the time of bereavement there are a multitude of factors at play where, consideration by the organisation as to what factors are involved would amount to a duty of care, perhaps
Regards
Peter

masonic

peter_batty said:

Lot of very explicit advice there Masonic. I am particularly drawn to your comments "That decision is going to depend on a number of factors, I fully agree. But if no factors were considered by the organisation not asking any circumstances, is this a failing of the firm? At the time of bereavement there are a multitude of factors at play where, consideration by the organisation as to what factors are involved would amount to a duty of care, perhaps
Regards
Peter

They are not under any obligation to waive the requirement for any particular set of circumstances, and would not need to ask about circumstances if they would not have an impact on the decision. For example, some would not consider waiving probate above a certain threshold regardless of circumstances.

However, if the firm has a policy on when probate should be requested, and the executor is misinformed about this, or not asked about something that would give rise to an exception, then that would be grounds for complaint. You'd have been given incorrect information, which at best may have led to the stress and inconvenience of entering into a dispute over the issue that ultimately finds in your favour, and at worst would have caused to you spend money on a grant of probate that wasn't needed.

theoretica

peter_batty said:

Interest and bonuses only paid to date of death so bankers benefit from delaying settlement.

That surprises me - my limited experience was that interest continued as normal on accounts.  Maybe that would be a simpler target for complaints/seeking legislative change.

masonic

theoretica said:

peter_batty said:

Interest and bonuses only paid to date of death so bankers benefit from delaying settlement.

That surprises me - my limited experience was that interest continued as normal on accounts.  Maybe that would be a simpler target for complaints/seeking legislative change.

Yes that does seem odd, but was it a case that the third party fixed term accounts matured or were closed early due to notification of the death and money was returned to the Raisin holding account, which doesn't pay interest?

peter_batty

In their own words-
"Interest will be paid up until the date of death, and these funds will be paid
out once MAM have received all of the required documentation."
One account was /is an easy access, the other a fixed term which "matures" in 2 weeks. in fact, they sent an email to my wife yesterday informing her of her options - How unbelievable eh?
Te partner banks are still holding the funds

masonic

peter_batty said:

In their own words-
"Interest will be paid up until the date of death, and these funds will be paid
out once MAM have received all of the required documentation."
One account was /is an easy access, the other a fixed term which "matures" in 2 weeks. in fact, they sent an email to my wife yesterday informing her of her options - How unbelievable eh?
Te partner banks are still holding the funds

I don't see where that is detailed in the T&C or FAQ. Looking back over the documentation I have (and have access to online), I see no terms governing interest accrual following the death of the account holder, either from Raisin or the third party account provider I used (I only used one).

Meteor Asset Management have this to say on the subject:

It doesn't look like you'd want to go for the early redemption option, given the £75 charge.

Here is an example of what a couple of the third party providers say:

ICICI

QIB

Nothing in either of those about interest ceasing to accrue prior to closure. While OakNorth explicitly states interest will continue to accrue:

(Note that each of these partner banks reserves the right to require grant of probate in order to release funds, so this requirement may stem from them)

It would be worth getting them to confirm where in the contract this is covered. If it wasn't in any conditions provided to and agreed by the deceased, then it might be worth challenging it, depending on the sums of interest involved.

peter_batty

Thanks Masonic.
Firstly I think you have actually substantiated my initial point of concern.

According to the government's own website Gov Uk. Savings or estate valued (not sure which as I can't find the statement to hand) below 5k are automatically exempt from Probate

My issue was/is that there may be a multitude of low value estates where a small saving exists. The examples you give above don't appear to recognise a minimum estate or savings value. ergo, the cost of probate application is or may be prohibitive or unnecessary.

Obviously my wife's estate doesn't fall into this category but the principle is the same. Shouldn't Raisin et al be asking for an estate valuation first?

Secondly. The comparison T's and Q's are interesting and denote there is a differentiation between organisations, even those apparently working with Raisin. What I am hoping the FCA will discover is, how disparate term's and conditions are and whether these should be consistent across the Financial Market

Thirdly. You are correct, the early redemption charge is prohibitive in this instance and would certainly be in any below 5k savings package but, it wasn't even offered.

Fourthly. OakNorth isn't that clear on what the cut off point would be. They only appear to be saying it will accrue until account closure. Is the account closure the date of death or, upon production of all the formal documents which, of course , could be months or even years after death
With regard to its advice about calling Raisin on 0161 600 0000 This is purely a call centre with very limited information or advice. Invariably you are directed to using the website messaging system.

So far, I have only accessed Raisin and MAM's T's and C's. Didn't think about all the others involved ie Starling, FCMB and Brown Shipley. Shouldn't need to do it, but I will

On the 28th July I asked Raisin to confirm or clarify its statement of 21st April - "Interest will be paid up until the date of death, and these funds will be paid out once MAM have received all of the required documentation". Surprise, surprise, they have yet to answer.

I remain very sceptical at this time. Settlement is still somewhere on the horizon as Raisin is now insistant that all 3 executives open a joint banking account and (Wet) sign a letter advising Raisin where to send the money. Unbelievable.