Source of funds and source of wealth

simonpies234

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902637#Comment_81902637

Fundsmith state they will lock account for failing to comply. Other might also.

What is reasonable will then be decided by a judge I guess. That's my problem.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902654#Comment_81902654

It won't get to a judge unless Fundsmith file a Suspicious Activity Report, and the NCA decide to investigate, and this process takes longer than 42 days.

simonpies234

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902662#Comment_81902662

Fundsmith state,

'In order to correctly comply with the regulations we would be unable to release proceeds to
you, if you decide to redeem your holding, prior to us receiving your completed declaration.'

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902669#Comment_81902669

Completing a declaration is not the same as providing all of the evidence they request. Anyway, it's really a question for Fundsmith as to what happens if you reach a stalemate. They will have a relatively small number of consumers as investors, since most would invest through an intermediary and collective nominee account where trades would not be identified to any specific individual.

simonpies234

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902670#Comment_81902670

So if you get whacked with one of these and have not kept records your whole life. You have 42 days to remove assets. Or face a ride of your life?

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902674#Comment_81902674

Once you "get whacked with one of these", it would already be too late to withdraw your assets, so if you were unable to convince the provider that the funds were legitimate, you'd need to wait until any investigation was complete, which might take longer than 42 days if a judge is willing to sign off an extension.

simonpies234

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902685#Comment_81902685

That's my point. It's draconian and unreasonable to expect someone to have kept records for their whole life.

Others of course might disagree.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902694#Comment_81902694

It's an unpleasant experience for sure, and the reason why we recommend people have backup facilities available elsewhere to meet their short term expenses. But I would be much less concerned if one of my investment accounts was subjected to such action for a month or two vs my main current account.

There is now a requirement for providers to be able to supply you up to 5 years data if you need it, so if you start now you can build up a history that will hopefully make such an event much less painful.

dunstonh

There have been several threads on different MSE forums where some conveyancers have asked for records going back 10 years. 

The rules came out in 2017. Those conveyancers are trying to cover their backsides but if they failed to do it at the time, then its tough on them. There is no ongoing relationship that requires the person to help them out. Many will do but there is no impact on the consumer if they don't.

Just curious though how you provide statements from 10 years ago. You are required by law to keep them at most for 6 years, banks only have to keep records of them for 6 years (some do keep longer though).

I have all my statements going back to 1988. There is no 6 year law. Individuals are not subject to the data protection act.

Plus, firms are not subject to a 6 year rule either. Its a recommended guide but firms can keep them longer if they have a justifiable reason.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6657180/source-of-funds-and-source-of-wealth

Coming back to the original question, I've been asked about it by a couple of financial institutions, but in those instances it was not very invasive and I was not required to provide documentary evidence. I suspect HL will take a pragmatic approach to this and triage for risk. With them already losing quite a few customers over the fee changes, I can't see them wishing to drive more away.