Opening an isa with POA

ANGLICANPAT

Im using POA to open an  ISA for the donor.  T there are two attorneys  who can act either on their own or with each other .    When opening  an account  it always  gives  space for all the attorneys to go through the tedious process of  id etc .   If only the one attorney is going to be active, (the one who is already a member of the bank in question,so less id req )  is it mandatory to  have to  mention the second attorney ?   (I appreciate if  attorney  1 kicks the bucket , no2 will then have to apply for themselves .)     

eskbanker

ANGLICANPAT said:

is it mandatory to  have to  mention the second attorney ?

It depends on how the question is phrased, is it asking for details of all attorneys or asking who's going to be running the account?

ANGLICANPAT

It does say signed by all attorneys, but  to me  that is open to  interpretation  if not all attorneys  are going to be having anything to do with it  (I know its pretty clear , but you start thinking that way when the other attorney is having difficulty supplying proofs!)  I   just thought there might be a  standard 'rule'  someone knew about that  made it legally necessary for all named  attorneys to supply id's.  (It doesnt mention about who is running it) Ill give bank a ring  when Ive got an hour to spare on the phone, if the other id's dont turn up soon.

bundoran

ANGLICANPAT said:

It does say signed by all attorneys, but  to me  that is open to  interpretation  if not all attorneys  are going to be having anything to do with it  (I know its pretty clear , but you start thinking that way when the other attorney is having difficulty supplying proofs!)  I   just thought there might be a  standard 'rule'  someone knew about that  made it legally necessary for all named  attorneys to supply id's.  (It doesnt mention about who is running it) Ill give bank a ring  when Ive got an hour to spare on the phone, if the other id's dont turn up soon.

Which part of "all attorneys" is open to interpretation? Which part of "all attorneys" is ambiguous? 🤔

Or are you interpreting "all attorneys" to mean "not all attorneys"? In which case you might need to give your head a wobble.

"All attorneys" really couldn't be more explicit.

badger09

bundoran said:

ANGLICANPAT said:

It does say signed by all attorneys, but  to me  that is open to  interpretation  if not all attorneys  are going to be having anything to do with it  (I know its pretty clear , but you start thinking that way when the other attorney is having difficulty supplying proofs!)  I   just thought there might be a  standard 'rule'  someone knew about that  made it legally necessary for all named  attorneys to supply id's.  (It doesnt mention about who is running it) Ill give bank a ring  when Ive got an hour to spare on the phone, if the other id's dont turn up soon.

Which part of "all attorneys" is open to interpretation? Which part of "all attorneys" is ambiguous? 🤔

Or are you interpreting "all attorneys" to mean "not all attorneys"? In which case you might need to give your head a wobble.

"All attorneys" really could be more explicit.

BIB have you missed out ‘not’🤔

bundoran

badger09 said:

bundoran said:

ANGLICANPAT said:

It does say signed by all attorneys, but  to me  that is open to  interpretation  if not all attorneys  are going to be having anything to do with it  (I know its pretty clear , but you start thinking that way when the other attorney is having difficulty supplying proofs!)  I   just thought there might be a  standard 'rule'  someone knew about that  made it legally necessary for all named  attorneys to supply id's.  (It doesnt mention about who is running it) Ill give bank a ring  when Ive got an hour to spare on the phone, if the other id's dont turn up soon.

Which part of "all attorneys" is open to interpretation? Which part of "all attorneys" is ambiguous? 🤔

Or are you interpreting "all attorneys" to mean "not all attorneys"? In which case you might need to give your head a wobble.

"All attorneys" really could be more explicit.

BIB have you missed out ‘not’🤔

Errr ........ yes! Thanks Mrs Badger. I've changed it.  🫣

ANGLICANPAT

lol, well I did say it was pretty clear,  but under pressure I  CAN  see a smidgen of   hope that  perhaps  it means (or rather  you could get away with meaning  )  all the ones who need to be involved .  Pity , now Im stuck till  the other POA  returns and makes another attempt to find  sufficient id which is in date etc .