Bank unable to trace recipient of a standing order

eskbanker

brianposter said:

DullGreyGuy said:

brianposter said:

Would a SAR to the bank uncover the original SO authorisation ?

The account holder is deceased so cannot do a subject access request, data protection laws only apply to living persons

That does not prevent an executor from making a SAR. I would be inclined to make a SAR and follow up with a complaint if the SAR was not treated on its merits.

Technically it doesn't prevent a SAR being submitted, but there's no obligation for the recipient to do anything with it, so no grounds for a complaint:

Do we need to comply with a subject access request about someone who has died?

According to data protection laws, personal data is information which relates to living people. Therefore, a person can’t make a subject access request to get information about someone who has died.

For the same reason, where you receive a subject access request but the person dies before you’ve responded, you won’t need to provide the information.

If information is required on behalf of a person who has died, eg medical records, other laws will apply instead.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/advice-for-small-organisations/frequently-asked-questions/right-of-accesssubject-access-requests-and-other-rights/

Keep_pedalling

Nasqueron said:

Cancel it and see who complains?

My condolences for your loss

If the OP has informed the bank of the death the account will already be frozen with no payments going either way.  

brianposter

It is perfectly reasonable to complain about stupidity by any institution.

Ergates

brianposter said:

Would a SAR to the bank uncover the original SO authorisation ?

An SO authorisation doesn't give any recipient details - just the target account.

eskbanker

brianposter said:

It is perfectly reasonable to complain about stupidity by any institution.

...but not if your definition of 'stupidity' is actually 'complying with the law'!

Ergates

brianposter said:

It is perfectly reasonable to complain about stupidity by any institution.

It's not stupidity, and it won't give any useful information anyway.  An SO authorisation says:  Pay X amount into Y account on the Zth day of each month, that is all.

Ergates

eskbanker said:

DullGreyGuy said:

When my uncle died an unknown SO was found but then also paperwork for a garage for the same amount which his wife knew nothing about. No one was prepared for what they found inside it! SO cancelled, let the owner repossess it and deal with its contents 

Is it just me who'd like to hear the rest of this story?!

No - can't just leave us hanging like that!!

Hoenir

brianposter said:

It is perfectly reasonable to complain about stupidity by any institution.

Rules and laws have been created for good reason. Taking the time to understand why is no bad thing.

penners324

Do you have online access to the account?

All the Standing Orders and DDs are listed.

Also does the bank statement not have a name on it? Be very odd if it didn't 

brianposter

Hoenir said:

brianposter said:

It is perfectly reasonable to complain about stupidity by any institution.

Rules and laws have been created for good reason. Taking the time to understand why is no bad thing.

As has already been pointed out, there are no laws which prevent the bank disclosing the information requested to the OP.