I don't see why you should go to any trouble or expense in providing this information.
I ignored it, nothing happened.
1. The original (not copy) life assurance policy documents so that the benefit of the policy can be assigned to Pepper. I do have the required life assurance and have no issue with them becoming the beneficiary but I don't feel comfortable sending the original documentation in the post to them. Shouldn't Leeds just have assigned their interest in my Life Assurance policy to Pepper as part of the sale? Why do they need the original documentation instead of confirmation of the provider and the policy number etc so they can contact the provider directly to arrange replacing Leeds as the beneficiary?
I don't think it's that simple. Financial firms are required under anti-money laundering and ant-terrorist financing legislation to identify and verify customers and beneficial owners prior to establishing a business relationship with them. You can check out the legislation, e.g. the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 as amended at http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/en_act_2010_0006.htm. From what you have said the financial institution in question would appear to be complying with its obligations under the law concerning the identification of customers, etc. You don't have to respond to them, but they are not able to transact with you unless they have identified you and verified your identity, as required by law.Hi all,
I recently got a letter from Pepper confirming they have purchased my mortgage from Leeds Building Society and they are requesting some info from me which I expected they would have already received from Leeds as part of the purchase process. I'd appreciate some thoughts on whether I am obliged to submit the info they are asking for or not.
Financial firms are required under anti-money laundering and ant-terrorist financing legislation to identify and verify customers and beneficial owners prior to establishing a business relationship with them.
So? They might be required, but you aren't. Why should you facilitate them in any way?I don't think it's that simple. Financial firms are required...
And why would this be of any concern to you? I presume the OP had no knowledge or control of whether they were going to have a relationship with Pepper, so again, why would they faciltate something they had not requested or wanted?You don't have to respond to them, but they are not able to transact with you unless they have identified you and verified your identity, as required by law
So Pepper have already breached the law by purchasing the mortgages. That's not John's problem.
Financial firms are required under anti-money laundering and ant-terrorist financing legislation to identify and verify customers and beneficial owners prior to establishing a business relationship with them.
So? They might be required, but you aren't. Why should you facilitate them in any way?
In what way will it be a problem? Do you have an actual example of this? The regulations - and sanctions - are for the banks, not their customers. Unless you can point to something that says the it isn't?And once you get on those databases it will be a problem for you...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?