What if I don't furnish Proof of Address/ID?

llgon said:
I have an offset mortgage with them and they unilaterally removed the offset element a few years back for all customers. Following complaints to the ombudsman they had to reinstate the offset element and pay compensation. There is a long, comprehensive thread about this on boards.ie.
Click to expand...

Right so a totally different matter and at their discretion. Compliance with the money laundering laws and directives is not a discretionary matter and taking one as a precedence for the other is not very wise.

I have no idea what Dankse/Pepper will do with someone who fails to comply, but what I can say for experience is that the half hour or hour you will spend updating your details is nothing compared with the countless hours will spend if your name gets on the black list and the authorities start an investigation.
 
Jim2007 said:
Right so a totally different matter and at their discretion. Compliance with the money laundering laws and directives is not a discretionary matter and taking one as a precedence for the other is not very wise.

I have no idea what Dankse/Pepper will do with someone who fails to comply, but what I can say for experience is that the half hour or hour you will spend updating your details is nothing compared with the countless hours will spend if your name gets on the black list and the authorities start an investigation.
Click to expand...

Jim2007,

Being a frequent poster I would have thought you would have read the previous posts in the thread before posting. I asked IIgon for any information about Danske bank previously chancing their arm. With regards to the offset matter that LLgon talks about, what makes you believe this was a discretionary matter, it certainly was not.

The F.S.O. received numerous complaints from borrowers about this arbitrary change in the terms of their respective contracts by Danske Bank. The F.S.O. made an adjudication on the matter and directed Danske bank to return all lost monies due to their draconian actions together with compensation, to every borrower affected. Danske Bank did not appeal the F.S.O. decision to the High Court, as they would have received legal advice to the effect that they would lose.
This action coupled with their overcharging of variable rate home loan mortgagors between February 2009 and November 2011 shows you the contempt at which this bank treats it's customers.

As previously posted, borrowers with this bank DO NOT have to comply with Danske Bank letter alluding to a/c identification reguirements under the Criminal Justice Act 2010 as all these borrowers would have been already compliant under the requirements of the 1994 Act. This letter is nothing more than a ruse to allow the bank to tidy up their loan book and get their formal a/c idenfication requirements in order. If they want this information, by law, they should already have it. Danske bank have probably lost a lot of this information during their hasty withdrawal from the Irish marketplace. This is a problem for them and not their customers, as the C.B.I. are currently investigating same
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interestingly they posted these letters from Denmark!

They sent another delegation of their staff from Copenhagen recently to meet solicitors of those being chased through the courts - with a view to doing deals as Guess what - Litigation is costing them too much!

Are they finally realising the ineptness of the likes of Ivor Fitz & Co
 
Jim2007 said:
I have no idea what Dankse/Pepper will do with someone who fails to comply, but what I can say for experience is that the half hour or hour you will spend updating your details is nothing compared with the countless hours will spend if your name gets on the black list and the authorities start an investigation.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I asked the question about whether the customer have any responsibility, or is it up to the bank to comply with the Act? Is it really a crime not to give information to a company with which you have no interest in conducting future business? Why on earth would anyone by investigated or "black listed" in those circumstances? Who exactly are these authorities with this black list?
 
newtothis said:
The downside is they're looking for certified copies. I really don't have the time or inclination to organise this. They are saying that they have to periodically ask for "up to date proof of identity", even when no new business is being transacted: keep in mind this is a "bank" that doesn't do any new business. I don't believe this to be the case, though I'm no expert. Is it a requirement of the act? If it is, do all banks send out similar letters? If not, why not? If it isn't a requirement, why are they sending such a misleading letter out unnecessarily? Incompetence? Some other reason?
Click to expand...

Having read the letter (which is a bit obtuse and required a few readings (with my finger under the words)), it looks like they want certified copies or will accept two copies of each type of Proof of Identify and Proof of address. So you can send in either certified copy of your passport or driving licence and a certified copy of a utility bill/revenue letter - or- an uncertified copy of your passport AND driving licence, and an uncertified copy of Two utility bills/revenue letters etc. (which are less than 6 months old)
As our (joint) mortgage is in both our names, this requires four documents each (uncertified) and I don't know if my wife even has a utility bill in her name, never mind two.

As I seem to remember sending this information in some time ago, when it was last asked for, and certainly long after my mortgage was originally taken out, I think I've spend enough time on it, and will line the budgie cage with it.
 
Buddyboy said:
Having read the letter (which is a bit obtuse and required a few readings (with my finger under the words)), it looks like they want certified copies or will accept two copies of each type of Proof of Identify and Proof of address. So you can send in either certified copy of your passport or driving licence and a certified copy of a utility bill/revenue letter - or- an uncertified copy of your passport AND driving licence, and an uncertified copy of Two utility bills/revenue letters etc. (which are less than 6 months old)
As our (joint) mortgage is in both our names, this requires four documents each (uncertified) and I don't know if my wife even has a utility bill in her name, never mind two..
Click to expand...

I nearly had to lookup a textbook on Boolean logic to make sense of the sentence referenced. As you point out, for a joint mortgage with two people living together, the chances of getting four proof of addresses is slim (and impossible in our case). I'm not bothered in the slightest about not returning the information, but as ever it is the weak and vulnerable that will bit hit by nonsense like this. Those of an older generation who may fall into this category are precisely those who will see any communication from a bank as something to be treated seriously.
 
Last edited:
Buddyboy said:
As our (joint) mortgage is in both our names, this requires four documents each (uncertified) and I don't know if my wife even has a utility bill in her name, never mind two.
Click to expand...
My situation exactly (as quoted). My mortgage is post 2010 but I don't believe that makes any material difference to me, and I won't be replying.
 
This money laundering excuse is used by financial institutions as an excuse to suit themselves. It is an anti consumer alliance between lazy bureaucrats and capricious banks which does very little to actually reduce crime.
 
If they want my ID and Bills they can pay me for photocopying and time and solicitors fee to certify. I'm happy to accept Krone!
 
I have just read this thread as I too have received this request.I have heard of no other bank asking for this information to date. It seems an onerous task to apply to an existing customer.
I would be very surprised if there are any alterior motives given the banks exemplary record over the past few years.
However, if an existing customer could not produce all of these proofs could,(as in the case of a mortgage for a principal private residence.ppr) the bank assume it wasn't the customers ppr and move the mortgage unto a higher commercial rate. I would not like to put any ideas into their minds so please modify this post if necessary.
 
What exemplary record are you talking about. This bank charges one of the highest variable rate mortgage interest rates in the Irish market at present. The bank has been involved in overcharging both variable rate mortgage holders and offset mortgage holders. Has been seven times more likely to seek Summary Judgment for borrowers in arrears than any other mortgage provider. To suggest that a bank could move a PPR mortgage to another higher commercial interest rate due to failure to comply with their recent letter is frankly, a nonsense.
 
Section 33(1)(d) of the 2010 Act requires firms to complete "customer due diligence" where there are reasonable grounds to doubt that existing customer documents and information are accurate and adequate for the purposes of verifying or confirming customer identity. The likelihood here is that they identified gaps in what they have on file for people and are attempting to rectify this. They can't do anything if you don't comply given the nature of the product, and the obligation is on them so I wouldn't be too bothered. If it was a current account or a deposit account it'd be a different story.
 
I never replied to the request for info in 2015 and happily I was able to move my mortgage away from Danske/Pepper since then (I was concerned that they might sell on the mortgage to some crowd that could cause me problems).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top