# Is the Credit Union negligent re Nomination checklist



## agentino (8 Aug 2011)

All,
I hope this is the right forum for this query.

My issue relates to the Nomination process in Credit Unions whereby the person Nominated assumes control of ones account after I die.

I understand the Nomination list supercedes any will (swince Credit Union act 1997) however I have some other questions.

1. Is the Credit Union legally obliged to inform the previous person nominated in the event of a change
2. wHen the amount involved changed from 10K punts to 23K Euros in 2006 were the Credit Union obliged to inform all concerned in writing at the time.

Any help at all inthis matter greatly applreciated


----------



## mf1 (8 Aug 2011)

Credit Union Act 1997.

Section 21 (4) A nomination by a member of a credit union under subsection (1) may be revoked or varied by a subsequent nomination by him under that subsection or by any similar document in the nature of a revocation or variation signed by the nominator and delivered to the credit union's registered office during his lifetime; but such a nomination shall not be revocable or variable by the will of the nominator or by any codicil to his will

"1. Is the Credit Union legally obliged to inform the previous person nominated in the event of a change?"

I would not have thought so. Its purely and simply a matter for the nominator. The nominee can be changed at any time. Up to date of death. And not by the will. 

"wHen the amount involved changed from 10K punts to 23K Euros in 2006 were the Credit Union obliged to inform all concerned in writing at the time."

I would not have thought so.

If this is really a question about how does a nominee secure payment of a debt which they  assumed would be paid out to a nominee by the CU, that's an entirely different matter. It is not related to the nomination process. 


mf


----------



## agentino (8 Aug 2011)

Thanks for that MF1,
The query does not relate to a debt.

However it transpires that the person who changed the nomination form took advantage of the person whose account it was when that person was not fully capacitated. The person who was nominated and had been funding the account was not aware of the change and feels that the credit Union were negligent in not letting them know of the change. I tend to agree with the person to be honest particulary as the Credit Union would have been aware of all the circumstances.
It is probably one for the Ombudsman to be honest and the the civil route.

If you (or anyone) has any further view on it I would appreciate it


----------



## ontour (9 Aug 2011)

agentino said:


> However it transpires that the person who changed the nomination form took advantage of the person whose account it was when that person was not fully capacitated.



So the person who changed the nomination was not the account owner?  Did that person have guardianship or legal authority to make such decisions on the account owner's behalf?



agentino said:


> The person who was nominated and had been funding the account was not aware of the change and feels that the credit Union were negligent in not letting them know of the change.



It does not matter if I lodge a million euro to your account today, I still have no rights to information about your account.  There may have been negligence in letting the change take place, depending on the circumstances, but there was no case for the credit union to notify the previous nominee.  I would speculate that the credit union would be in far more trouble for notifying a nominee while the account holder is still alive.

Surely it is the person who allegedly duped the account owner that is at fault?  There are laws to protect against such actions as you will see from this [broken link removed]!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Aug 2011)

Hi Agentino

Has anyone lost any money here? If not, there is no grounds for compensation.

The previous nominee has no role in this at all. The fact that they were funding the account is irrelevant. They are no longer the nominee - end of story. 

As ontour points out, presumably only the account holder or their attorney can change the nominee. If the Credit Union allowed someone else to do it, then the change could be challenged. 

Who has lost out? 

All these cases are far better dealt with by the Ombudsman than by a legal process.

Brendan


----------



## agentino (9 Aug 2011)

All,
Thanks for all the info much appreciated. I think Brendan may have it summed up well. 

To answer Ontours question the account holder signed the nomination change form under duress from a 3rd party
I guess it comes down to the account holder having being duped and there is not a lot the person who has been shafted can do about it now.
Legally he does not have much comeback as it is not his account and has no way of proving the account holder was not competent.
The Credit Union were only acting on the instruction of the account holder.

End of story except for logging it with the Ombudsman for moral reference

Thanks again


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Aug 2011)

> End of story except for logging it with the Ombudsman for moral reference


Please don't. The Ombudsman is overwhelmed with genuine complaints and if you lodge one "for moral reference" you are simply pushing other ones down the queue.

The Credit Union is a membership organisation. Make your views known to the Chairman and bring it up at the AGM.

Brendan


----------

