BS: Silly Official Requirements

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 06:41 PM

If there is ever to be a protest in DC again one will have to pay up to 400,000 dollars for police and clean up first. For a small group or single person protest they must stay on the sidewalk but the 20 ft sidewalks have been reduced to 4 ft on the Mall and around the White house. Trump is hoping no one can claim their first amendment rights are not being abridged. We will see when the arrests for not being on the official sidewalk begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Oct 18 - 08:59 AM

My husband has always kept his Ivorian nationality in addition to his British nationality. He has an Ivorian passport, but the blessed thing has to be renewed every five years.
This involves his physical presence at the Ivory Coast Embassy in Belgravia, London. They refuse to do it by post (unlike a UK passport) because it's a biometric one, and his face has to be measured and photographed electronically.

He has to make an appointment first, and they decide at what time this will be.

If it's early, he'll have to get a National Express bus at the crack of dawn, parking in an all-day car park in Norwich. It takes him to Victoria, then he has to walk through Belgravia to his Embassy.
Luckily he adores this. He loves looking at all the multi-millionaires' houses along the way.

Imagine if he lived in Aberdeen! What a blinking trek every five years just to renew a passport he's had for donkey's years.

This is coming up in February next year. It's going to cost an arm and a leg!

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 06:30 AM

Ha! No apology necessary - I don't know how you manage doing this on a phone, the display and K/B are far too small for me. iPad or PC are a necessity AFAIC! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 06:15 AM

Sorry, thanks, Backwoodsman! I scrolles too far back in this phone.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 06:14 AM

Ah, I did spend some time looking but didnt find that. Thanks, Sen. That will probably be all they need.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 03:05 AM

DMcG, if you purchased it through Amazon, the invoice does exist. Log in to Amazon and go to 'Your Account' then 'Your Orders'. In the ribbon above the appropriate order, on the right-hand side hit 'Invoice' then, in the drop-down box, hit 'Invoice 1'. Print or download the invoice (or, even better, do both).

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: BobL
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 02:27 AM

If you and the seller are both in the UK you're protected by consumer rights law, warranty or no warranty. Although as you say, proof of purchase online may not be so straightforward.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 18 - 01:20 AM

I am beginning to think someone in officialdom has something against me...

On 30th September I ordered a laptop from Hewlett Packard via Amazon. All arrived ok and is working nicely. But during the setup around 5th October I notice the warrenty has expired. As best I can tell they set from when they manufactured it, not when Amazon sold it to me. Hmm, dubious approach, I rh8nk.

The appeals procedure requires I send a copy of the invoice, not the order nor delivery note. In the online ordering world, such separate invoices do not exist.

Another pointless hassle coming up, I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 07:09 AM

Hahahahahaaaaa Huw!! That's so funny! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: HuwG
Date: 01 Oct 18 - 06:50 AM

I've just re-read my last post. I hasten to add that it was the Japanese vases, rather than my distant cousins, that were hideous things. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 17 Sep 18 - 08:39 AM

That's interesting HuwG. My sister recently received a legacy from the deceased maiden aunt of her late husband. The difficulty was, the legacy was in the form of interest from invested shares. The shares were supposed to be left and not dissolved. She had to obtain a Deed of Variation, signed by all the other legatees, in order to cash in the shares and realise the principal.
It took ages and pots of money for the law firm involved. But finally she succeeded.
The aunt had been very close to my sister, especially after her husband died leaving her with two young babies. She spent every Christmas with my sister and supported her emotionally for years.
I'm sure she wouldn't have wanted all that palaver with her Will.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: HuwG
Date: 17 Sep 18 - 07:47 AM

My parents died within a few months of each other, about four years ago. (Both were well into their eighties.) They were well off but my Dad had set up a very complicated set of investments for the purpose, in his words, of "keeping it away from Ed Balls" (who at the time was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Gordon Brown.)

Mum and Dad both left everything, apart from some small personal bequests, to a trust fund which my brother, nephew and nieces and I could all use to e.g. purchase a house, start a business etc. We (mainly my brother) started to consolidate Dad's various hard-to-get assets into the fund. For some reason, the cash from one of the liquidated investments could not be paid directly into the trust account but had to be paid into our personal accounts. HMRC took the opportunity to tax it at the emergency rate, almost 40 %. Dad must have been rotating.

We eventually received a rebate, after long correspondence with HMRC which was essentially a Father Ted act. ("That money was just resting in my account.")

Mum left two Japanese vases to the daughters of her cousin. They were hideous things. You needed sunglasses if you were in the same room. There is still a polite contest for second place for the inheritance.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:23 PM

Bought a top-notch Mira shower in 2013. It's still going strong. Except for the clamp on the rail that holds the shower head. It got brewer's droop in 2015. Bought a replacement, twenty quid plus. Same thing happened again in 2017. Another twenty quid plus. Now it's busted again. I finally snapped and wrote to Mira asking them to replace it. They wrote back to tell me that they had no record of any of those purchases, including the shower itself. Well that's hardly surprising, as I bought it from Amazon, not Mira, and bought the replacement clamps from other plumbers' merchants. So they offered me a replacement at 20% discount. The buggers. I bought it under protest. You can't not have a shower head that stays erected for chrissake. They will be hearing from me!

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:47 PM

Hahaha There's a TV advert for dog chews, and the chap says they go on and on and on, nm nm nm!

I love it when my husband buys something on Amazon and the courier arrives at our door with the parcel. He tries manfully to pronounce the name but usually makes a bit of a pig's knitting of it. Husband grins and helps him to say it, then signs that weird screen thingy with his fingernail.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 02:06 PM

Mrs Steve's initials are N.M. (Shaw). For years we used to get those letters from Readers' Digest, addressed to her as Dear Mrs Nm..." with "Mrs Nm" repeated over and over again throughout the rest of the letter.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 07:03 AM

I wouldn't want any publicity either Jos. That advert, "Someone's knocking at the door...", where they win the Postcode Lottery, makes me cringe.
If someone like that was knocking at my door, I'd probably tell them to bugger off!!

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Jos
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 06:52 AM

I also dispose of the bit with my name and address before putting letters in the recycling bin.
At least I no longer get those things from Reader's Digest offering me entry into some 'lucky' draw, with my name repeated more than a dozen times throughout the letter, as well as my address to try to make me long for my neighbours to see me getting the prize.
(If I ever do win a big prize I won't be telling anybody and there WON'T be photographs of me squirting champagne about the place - I really hate people who do that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 05:53 AM

We shred everything too. I tear off the bit with the address/name etc and shred it, putting the innocuous remains in the recycle.

Has anyone made their Will? It's one heck of a palaver. We were asked so many 'what ifs'. For instance,

'What if you both died instantaneously in an accident? Who would you want to inherit your joint estate?'
(long list of Africans)
'What are their full names and addresses?'
No idea. They don't have an address.
'What if they too were all dead. Who would inherit?'
Husband looking shocked and upset.
Bit morbid, but these things are necessary in order to cover all eventualities.
From what I've heard, leaky Wills cause no end of hassle and expensive resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 04:47 AM

Surely (in the OP) they are assuming that the letter was headed with your address and the Bank used a window envelope. Maybe there is cooperation in the industry to send statements (etc) uniquely this way.
FWIW I shred everything that has my name/address on it, and a lot of crap that is just advertising has my details on.

I bought something from John Lewis and it needed to be returned under guarantee and they said they couldn't trace the sale. The on-line (only) credit card record only went back 6 months so I had to pay 5GBP for a statement just to prove John Lewis had not charged my credit card! So it wasn't guaranteed after all!

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 03:53 AM

You've hit the nail on the head Bob. Apparently, Building Regs have changed since the thing was built. We talked to a very helpful neighbour who has had a lot of extensions built on to his bungalow, and he told us that nowadays, you can't put a washing machine in a conservatory. It isn't allowed. Can't think why.

We got a quote from a double-glazing firm for putting a new tiny structure up, and they said £17,000. I wondered if the window frames would be solid gold, with diamond-encrusted handles. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: BobL
Date: 15 Sep 18 - 03:32 AM

Surely, Sen, planning permission shouldn't be a problem if you're replacing an existing structure by one of the same size and character? Although the new one would have to comply with today's more stringent building regs. If all else fails, dismantle & reassemble on a new base, replacing original bits where necessary, and call it a repair - AFAIK you don't need planning permission for that.

Admittedly the last time I had anything to do with planning permission it was for a garden shed only just tall enough to need it. A nice man at Aylesbury Vale DC said make the new concrete base 3 inches lower, then it wouldn't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 02:22 PM

This house has a tiny lean-to conservatory (3m X 1.5m) around the back door, in which the previous owners installed two sockets and made it into a very useful utility room.

Sadly, the chap built it himself and it's on a wooden base, which is now rotting. The structure is wooden too, with plastic cladding and double-glazed windows.

We've been looking into demolishing it and putting up a similar structure, of the same dimensions, but on a concrete base. The roof would be the same, poly-carbon (transparent to let in the light).

The amount of red tape for this has been appalling. I didn't realise there is Planning Permission then Buildings Regulations to be consulted. Building Regs costs £400 just to apply.

The local council person was what I call 'rude and cheeky' on the phone, and said we can't have a utility room! I'm always unfailingly polite and pleasant, but she seemed as if she'd like to poke out both my eyes. No idea why.

We've decided to shelve it for the time being. It leaks a bit when it rains, and the floor is like a trampoline in one corner. But our kitchen is too small for a washing machine. Gaaaah!

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Sep 18 - 12:24 PM

Ok, the opening post problem is still dragging on. I ordered a bank statement back there on the 8th, "which will arrive in 5 working days", but is still not here.

So I went into the bank today and explained what I needed and they printed off a copy.

On plain paper.

Just as I could have done - or indeed mocked up in Word or similar. There is no proof at all that it has been done by the bank. Can they print it on headed paper? "No, sorry." Can they stamp it to show it is from the branch? "We don't do that any more."   Perhaps write that it was printed at branch and sign it?    A reluctant ok.

So in fact I still have only weak evidence that the account is genuinely held at the bank. But I contact the insurance company again. That statement and signature is still not acceptable. "Can they stamp it?" "No, they don't do that any more" .... hmmm, "ok we will extend the time to sort this out before the cut off date, but will still need a printed statement."

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 12:26 PM

She was losing anyway, Thomson. The winner was weeping because of Serena's rotten behaviour, which, in different circumstances, could have been seen as a deliberate attempt to rattle her opponent. I have every sympathy with Serena's sentiment. My sole focus here is that she should not have let rip on court. I see from the media and Woman's Hour, etc., that I'm in a minority. But the point is that there is far too much questioning and barracking of referees and umpires going on in sport. There should be zero tolerance of that whether it's a man or a woman, rich or poor. I agree with you completely about the clothing issue. But if you have a grievance, act sportingly on court and take it outside afterwards. Poor or inconsistent refs and umpires are everywhere in sport. You have the right to complain, but just remember that millions of people who tuned in to be entertained are watching you. Paying you, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Silly Official Requirements
From: Thompson
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 11:26 AM

I hadn't realised that your right to wear anti-thrombosis tights depended on how rich you were. Handy, that.

Yeah, she behaved like a twerp. But so did the umpire, who has failed to go slappy-botty at the male tennis stars who behaved exactly the same. And she had the grace to comfort her weeping opponent when the entire crowd booed the result.

Why aren't coaches allowed to signal in tennis, by the way? They are in every other sport, or aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Sep 18 - 04:10 AM

Oh Steve, I couldn't agree more. Watched her on the BBC News - what an irritating idiotic drama queen she is! She should be banned from the sport for such behaviour.

Far from championing feminist rights she's making an absolute fool of herself and damaging the cause.
In reality it's all about 'her' isn't it? Silly besom.

Like you, I loathe flipping tennis. Plink plonk plink plonk... yawn zzzz.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 06:18 PM

Serena bloody Williams is a multimillionaire. So she has some kind of sexist issues with an umpire (who was basically doing his job according to the rules, as I understand it). So she goes off half-cock on court and totally spoils the day for the woman who, deservedly, beat her. What a ratbag. If she has issues over sexism, mid-match on court is not the place to grandstand them. She has more than enough clout to take on the issue in the cold light of day off the court. She would be listened to bigtime. She came across as the ultimate spoiled brat. And, in case you'd like to accuse me of sexism, I felt exactly the same way about John McEnroe. There are people bloody starving on this planet yet we have to put up with these petulant prima donnas. My solution is to ignore tennis altogether. Bloody silly game anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 05:32 PM

Serena Williams was 'penialized' by an official for wearing thrombosis preventive tights and was forced to remove them. She was penalized for speaking back to the judge in low even tones. She was penalized for looking at her coach which she denied and throwing her racquet to the ground.

She was penalized for acting like a typical man by a sexist tennis judge and was penalized by ruling she must automatically lose an unplayed game and fined $17,000

Serena said she would rather lose than be accused of cheating, which she promptly did.

Whether you are in an entrepreneurial, corporate or political space, being a woman, there are invisible rules that you are expected to love honor and OBEY

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 05:25 PM

Serena Williams was 'penialized' by an official for wearing thrombosis preventive tights and was forced to remove them. She was penalized for speaking back ou are expected to follow to the judge in low even tones. She was penalized for looking at her coach which she denied and throwing her racquet to the ground.

She was penalized for acting like a typical man by a sexist tennis judge and was penalized by ruling she must automatically lose an unplayed game and fined $17,000

Whether you are in an entrepreneurial, corporate or political space, by being a woman, there are invisible rules that you are expected to love honor and OBEY

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Gutcher
Date: 09 Sep 18 - 12:03 PM

Having, due to being snowed in on three separate occasions last winter, decided to prepare for the coming winter, I purchased a second home in a village a one hours drive from my country residence, this of course being in a different Council area.
A list of questions arrived from the new council, answers to be backed up by written proof, original documents only copies would not be accepted. I, perhaps foolishly, emailed them asking if I should seek out a J.P. and have him/her make out a sworn affidavit that I had indeed taken possession of the new house. This question obviously raised someones hackles in the council, as thereafter, having provided written proof from my solicitor and bank of the completed bargain in March, I received, over a period of four months, at three weekly intervals a further two questions to be answered on the same basis as the original questions.
Eventually they gave up and issued a council tax invoice that would take someone with an accountancy qualification to unraval, I eventually came to the conclusion that it favoured me by the sum of £1.40.

In a visit to the N.E. at the end of this saga someone enquired if I had moved into my new house and if it was in the same area as my house of 50+ years the answer being no it came under E.A. Council, this gentleman, a council employee, stated to the company that E.A. were notorious in councils all over Scotland and if any thorny question were asked by a council taxpayer they were instructed to do an E.A. ie. use evasion, deflection and obfuscation.

The council probably did a credit check on me, and this having come up blank, never having had a mortgage, overdraft or loan of any kind and having no standing orders with a bank, I was probably, in their book, viewed as a very suspicious character.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 02:44 PM

I passed through a security checkpoint, and was immediately - a metre further on - again asked for my passport. I asked why there were two checkpoints, and was told it was for "immigration" (or perhaps "emigration") because Ireland is not in the Schengen Area. Same nonsense when you board the Eurostar.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 12:24 PM

Leeneia: you may well be right that that is what they wanted, but they very deliberately asked for something else. They could have asked for a statement that shows my address. But they specifically asked for proof the statement had been sent to me and ALSO shows my address. So there are two very specific requirements which they took the trouble to underline, and reason would suggest that the word "also""was put in because they previously had the simpler form and someone decided it was not good enough.

Or I could be over-thinking it!

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 12:13 PM

The shenanigans I had to endure when many years ago we were trying to get our Marriage Visa for my then fiancé to come to UK were unbelievable.
I can understand why - they have to be very strict or UK would sink beneath the sea with all the illegal arrivals.

The main stumbling block was the constant demands for my husband's address in Cote d'Ivoire. Most Africans don't have any address at all. They don't have a number on their door or a letterbox, and the 'streets' often don't have names either. A few might rent a box in a Post Office in the nearest city, but most don't have the money for that.
The Home Office were as stubborn as anything about this one. You'd think they'd have known, but they seemed totally ignorant.

We had to use the address of the Office at the Port of Abidjan where my husband worked as a night watchman. He often slept there on a bit of cardboard, so I suppose it was his 'address' in some ways.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 11:49 AM

About the original post: I bet the insurance company was trying to say that they wanted a past statement that verifies your home address. No PO box, general delivery, or anything vague like that.

I would have shown them an ordinary statement, and if they objected, then dealt with it. But I think the probability that they would object is about 1%.

You know those people whom we see walking into traffic while manipulating their smartphones? They are now the same people writing business correspondence. Is it any wonder they don't have a grasp of the real world?

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 10:24 AM

Yes , original McIntosh apple stock certificates in a safe deposit box from my late mother. 13 years of jumping through hoops while the state was betting I'd die first. Then there were certain criminal big banks that valued them at half their true worth.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 10:13 AM

I wanted my bank to sign copies of my driving licence and a utility bill so I could open an account with another bank in Ireland.

I duly took copies and originals to my bank in my home town in England. Hello, could you please sign these to show who I am. No was the reply we don't know you. I have banked with them for 30 years, 10 of which have been with that branch.

Fine, can I take 200 out of my account now please.

Yes was the reply, no problem.

So they would let me withdraw money from an account but they didn't know who I was.

Arrrrgggggggggggggggg !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 08:13 AM

Has your wealthy uncle just died Steve, and you need a bank account in which to deposit the inheritance?

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Thompson
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 07:54 AM

My bank doesn't provide postal statements any more, so that would be the end of that for me!

Here in Ireland there's a nasty scam going on exploiting immigrants: people have block-booked appointments for visas and renewals online, and are selling the appointments for profit. Just shows how attempts to make things more efficient by putting them online can be undercut by stupidity - in this case by not limiting applications to a single, verified person.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 06:17 AM

You could always borrow my mobile number. All I'd need from you in return is all your bank details... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 05:59 AM

I suppose all these ID confirmation demands are due to dishonest scammers having a go. There have to be safeguards in place or they'd have the skin off your back and pinch your identity.

I don't own a 'phobile moan' - can't stand the blooming things and I've never needed one. Also there's a pathetically poor signal in our village. But whenever I fill in some blessed form online/buy something the thing demands my phobile moan number. If you don't have one the page refuses to pass onwards and goes all red. I've learned to type in a made-up number.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 05:51 AM

I've had difficulties getting stuff such as her Blue Badge for my mum because she simply can't provide the evidence needed. She has no photo ID of any kind, all the household bills are addressed to my dad, she's never had a driving licence and her passport expired decades ago. And they don't accept her bus pass! We get round it in the end, usually after several trips to banks, building societies and the like and a rummage through her stuff to find a pension letter that's less than six months old, etc. Another issue is that she's stone deaf and can't communicate on the telephone, and because of data protection they'll only speak to her....grrr...

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 04:39 AM

One of the other ones I came across a few months back was when I was reading the Terms and Conditions for a cruise I was going on. It sometimes arises people need to alter the booking, so there are clauses for this.   Here it the one that caught my eye:

If a Guest wishes to transfer to another Package, this will generally be treated as a cancellation under clause 38. P&O Cruises will allow the transfer without treating it as a cancellation if the P&O Cruises holiday to which the transfer is to be made departs within 12 months (within 6 months in the case of transfer from a World Cruise, Classic Southern
Hemisphere Journey, Grand Tour or Exotic Fly-cruise) of the original and is for a higher price.

Hang on: 6 months for a world cruise? (Not that my cruise was a world one, but the incongruity leapt out at me)

World cruises run annually in January, so a higher price alternative within 6 months does not exist. And why are they harder on world cruises than anything else? To me, it has a whiff that they originally wrote 36 months, a typo has been introduced and they have run with this absurd rule ever since, probably for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 04:13 AM

Ha Will, if only I could have accessed that site then, but sadly I didn't have a computer. Lloyds were very helpful and kind. I had to release funds for the funeral expenses (which you can before probate is granted) and they handled all that for me.

My sister was co-beneficiary, but had been recently widowed and lived up in Scotland with her two babies, so she had to write an official letter (witnessed!) to hand over the execution of the Will to me.
(She's a dreadful pedant and insisted on being called an 'executrix' as she's a female!)

My husband used to find all this documentation here in the West tedious and incomprehensible, until I pointed out that it safeguarded everything legally and all rights could be backed up by the official papers.
When his father died in Ivory Coast, his wicked uncle Moumou tried to help himself to the bit of land and the compound. We had to pay for a French Abidjan solicitor to get it all sorted, with the help (and interference!) of the entire family of about sixty people. Total nightmare, but fortunately it was resolved in his mother's favour.

Husband is now more appreciative of watertight legal documentation...

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Will Fly
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 03:56 AM

Been through that twice, Sen - once with my father and then helping out my wife with her mother last year. The first time I had a joint co-executor, so much of the labour was shared. The second time, my friendly solicitor and fellow musician did a lot!

Actually, there's a government website on bereavement which is very thorough and goes through the whole process of probate, stage, by stage.

Subject: RE: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: Senoufou
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 03:33 AM

Sounds a nightmare DMcG. How very complicated!

When I did the Probate myself for my late father's Will, (I got shot of the official executor saving several thousand pounds) I nearly followed him to the grave with the stress of it all. I was bombarded with documents needing proof of this and that. I was run ragged. Luckily his bank (Lloyds) were stupendously helpful, It was their central office in Norwich, and I was taken to the Bereavement Suite!
They even assisted me in tracking down father's many investments through his broker.

Every time I achieved a 'stage', I got the next 'stage' on a different-coloured piece of paper through the post. I should have employed a blooming full-time secretary.

The daftest part was having to 'swear an affidavit' in the Court in Norwich, in front of some official bloke. I had to look up the word, as I had no idea what it meant.
I can tell you, I was more than ready to blooming swear!
Finally I got the YELLOW paper which entitled me to the inheritance.
Phew!

Subject: BS: SIlly Official Requirements
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 18 - 03:11 AM

I got a letter from an insurance company yesterday asking for proof that I hold the account into which the money is to be paid. I applaud them for this: due care and attention and all that. But this was the requirement:

A postal bank statement less than 12 months old for the account where you want the money paid to - we don't accept internet bank statements. The statement must have been sent to, and also show your home address

It was followed by instructions on how to get a solicitor or similar to certify copies of the document.

As I say, you can't be too careful. However, how on earth am I supposed to provide evidence it was sent to me? I could, perhaps, send an unopened envelope, but as like as not that is advertising blurb rather than the statement I assume it is. If I get a certified copy, I must have opened the envelope, so I have destroyed any proof it was sent to me. I could, presumably, have walked into the bank and asked for the statement and been given an identical document without it ever going anywhere near a postal system, so possessing an original is not proof it was sent anywhere. And why care? If the bank document can be shown to be original, and they only pay directly into the account, why involve the postal system?

Then, of course, like many people these days I don't get postal statements anyway, so I had to order one specially. I *think* I have done so, and was promised one, but then a PDF appeared from the bank in their secure mail system, so I can only hope they have sent it on paper as well.

Then finally, of course, why do this? There must be easier ways to demonstrate I own an account these days, without this whole palaver of creating potentially forgeable paper copies, involving solicitors and costs for everyone.

So I spoke to their customer assistance, who couldn't explain it either, but said if I send the originals everyone will be happy.


Ok, a bit of a rant, there, but it is an example of official requirements that do not really make sense. I have queried the terms and conditions of a number of things recently and every time the people concerned have not been able to understand it either.   As a rule, the poor hapless helpdesk people are fine and free of blame - they are as stuck with this as anyone else.


Anyone else had problems with such official documents recently? Preferable tales at the level of irritation, rather than life altering problems, to keep this thread fairly 'light'.