|
|
Post by rooster on Oct 17, 2019 18:37:04 GMT
Hi all, I don't wish to alarm anyone but I've re-read the verification email and noticed something thus far not mentioned. In the email's section 1, it says that we should send a copy of EITHER of four documents (which I've chosen to send my driving license). However, in the 2nd section, it specifically doesn't use the word 'either'. From that I think we have to take it as read... that they want a copy of all 5 of the listed documents, so that will be: Your Lendy Account registered Bank or Building Society account statement ANDMortgage or Credit Union statement ANDUtility bill AND Local Authority council tax bill ANDHMRC self-assessment letter or tax demand Please take another look yourselves and let me know whether this was in fact a sloppy error in their letter/email and we can choose, or that we do in fact have to send copies of each and all of these section 2 items? Cheers in advance. Maybe you received a different verification email to me, but mine stated: ...the only thing they asked for from "section 2" as you term it was a certified unredacted bank statement. There was no mention of a mortgage statement, utility bill, tax bill, or HMRC docs in the verification email I received last week! Thanks greatmarko for your reply. Yes, it appears you and I definitely received a different email.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550 
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Oct 17, 2019 19:42:08 GMT
The email I received stated in the second section that they wanted " A certified proof of address" i.e. A = singular item. They then gave a list of acceptable options. It was very sloppy drafting but it is not a demand for all 5 as many investor will not have all 5 in any event e.g. some may not have a mortgage. I have requested full disclosure of the information that they have received from Experian, in an effort to discovery who has been incompetent in confirming my details, but have not had any reply from the shoddy lot at RSM / Shoosmiths. This wholly contrived situation is clearly a money generating scheme by the "professional" administrators to run up extra fees between themselves and Shoosmiths. . I'd be happy for the cost of any investigation you demand to be subtracted from the monies you are expecting to be reuturned to you by the administrators. Thank you for your support and generous suggestion. I don't mind paying to catch this lot out. Seems to me that too many investors are simply accepting this situation without asking why it is necessary. If you want to send them your extra documents may I suggest you send them all via RM "signed for" as they may say they never received them. Very best wishes, SXLR
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Oct 17, 2019 21:03:14 GMT
I think the people who are being shocked at this level of AML bureaucracy simply haven't yet had enough exposure to the current AML/KYC regulations imposed on us by EU legislation (ratified by UK government, obviously) and the variety with which the requirements can be interpreted. I can't see anything underhand going on. All I see is a bunch of administrative staff being told second hand by another bunch of administrative staff being advised by a lawyer. With the level of care and competency we currently have in the customer service front line of the finance industry and all those parasitic middlemen professions that feed off it and the regulations, I find nothing here surprising. They are milking it to a) cover their arses and b) stretch out the job because of the delay related pay.
It took my company a full month to complete AML/KYC checks when opening a bank account a few months ago, and that was when supplying the requested documents almost immediately. Every director had to go through a greater level of pain than is being requested from us here. Among other trivialities, as I remember it, an email was claimed to be sent that wasn't sent and the bank's responses to the actions by the individuals varied. One director had to go to a branch in person to show their documents while the others did not. It was such a faff that the account opening process had its own username and password, different for each director, and different from the account that was eventually opened, as well as a progress chart for the many stages of the verification process. We would have jacked it all in near the beginning if there wasn't something reasonably unique we needed from the account.
With another bank account, the process was complete in a couple of days, with minimum requirements from only one of the directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by daddum61 on Oct 18, 2019 6:54:02 GMT
you would have thought that the default position would be that RSM would just return monies to the account that the money originally came from.
i would have thought that it would ring more alarm bells if you wanted the money returning to a different account, certified or not
|
|
spareapennyor2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 626
Likes: 470
Member is Online
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Oct 18, 2019 10:17:59 GMT
hsbc wont certify bank statement would print one
post office £12.75 to certify passport
even the tellar said NO at the start
|
|
|
|
Post by scerbera on Oct 18, 2019 10:45:20 GMT
Has anyone else not received any email relating to the aml checks yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Oct 18, 2019 11:51:04 GMT
I have only £70 in bad debt from a 2016 loan, I don't have any of the ID related documents they are requesting (not any I have two copies off that I want to send out), at most I'll probs get £45 back from recovery. It will cost me more than this in time and money so I am ignoring the AML check.
If they phone me, I'll speak to about how I can go about pretty much refusing the credit I'm owned, I'm serious I don't have time to send off sensitive documents I'll never get back for money I will earn in a hour.
As others said here, you can bet I am sending it as a tracked package expensively, no way am I losing Photo ID by a 2nd class Royal Mail post stamp.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Oct 18, 2019 12:18:47 GMT
I have only £70 in bad debt from a 2016 loan, I don't have any of the ID related documents they are requesting, at most I'll probs get £45 back from recovery. It will cost me more than this in time and money so I am ignoring the AML check. If they phone me, I'll speak to about how I can go about pretty much refusing the credit I'm owned, I'm serious I don't have time to send off sensitive documents I'll never get back for money I will earn in a hour. You would think there would be a little common sense applied here. I imagine people who are laundering money don't go to all the hassle of setting up an account, transferring money and investing in a multi year loan to launder £70. Surely there should be an amount (£2k maybe?) under which money should just be refunded with no checks. It's too much time and effort on both sides otherwise.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 18, 2019 12:32:11 GMT
Has anyone else not received any email relating to the aml checks yet? I only heard from them after contacting them, so I suggest you to do the same. They said they sent me an email before, but I never received it, and I'm not the only one. Perhaps they're not very comfortable with modern technology like sending emails, stuck as they are in their world of certified copies sent by post.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 18, 2019 12:48:46 GMT
... It's too much time and effort on both sides otherwise. For us, extra time and effort is bad.
For them, extra time and effort is good, because the creditors' committee agreed to pay them by the hour rather than by results. (It may well still be the case that the results-based charge would have been even higher though, making the time-based charge better choice of two bad options...)
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Oct 18, 2019 13:20:41 GMT
I have only £70 in bad debt from a 2016 loan, I don't have any of the ID related documents they are requesting, at most I'll probs get £45 back from recovery. It will cost me more than this in time and money so I am ignoring the AML check. If they phone me, I'll speak to about how I can go about pretty much refusing the credit I'm owned, I'm serious I don't have time to send off sensitive documents I'll never get back for money I will earn in a hour. You would think there would be a little common sense applied here. I imagine people who are laundering money don't go to all the hassle of setting up an account, transferring money and investing in a multi year loan to launder £70. Surely there should be an amount (£2k maybe?) under which money should just be refunded with no checks. It's too much time and effort on both sides otherwise. Alternatively the administrators could act in accordance with their remit to return as much money to creditors as possible, accept that the AML of this now defunct company was lacking by their interpretation of the requirements but accept that the FCA were satisfied.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Oct 18, 2019 13:23:05 GMT
... but where's the invoicable fun in that?
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Oct 18, 2019 13:45:17 GMT
... but where's the invoicable fun in that? exactly
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Oct 18, 2019 13:46:43 GMT
... It's too much time and effort on both sides otherwise. For us, extra time and effort is bad.
For them, extra time and effort is good, because the creditors' committee agreed to pay them by the hour rather than by results. (It may well still be the case that the results-based charge would have been even higher though, making the time-based charge better choice of two bad options...)
I can see where you are coming from but I think it is unfair for people to always automatically assume that anyone who is paid by the hour will try and drag things out with unnecessary work. A lot of people do have some integrity (not to mention professional standards and regulations to upheld) and from what I can see these guys are highly regarded with a good reputation.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 18, 2019 14:03:43 GMT
I can see where you are coming from but I think it is unfair for people to always automatically assume that anyone who is paid by the hour will try and drag things out with unnecessary work. A lot of people do have some integrity (not to mention professional standards and regulations to upheld) and from what I can see these guys are highly regarded with a good reputation. The more nuanced version of the point is that, in cases where it's not clear whether some additional work is necessary or not, there's an inherent bias towards judging that the extra work is required if you're not the one paying for it.
I hope that when it's all done and dusted, and current confidential investigations are sufficiently concluded to be able to report further publicly, that there will turn out to have been a damn good secondary reason for making everyone do this, rather than just the stated reason of box-ticking for AML regulations.
|
|
