Bank Accounts Abroad – Today, Spain. Louise Assists.

Bank Accounts Abroad – Today, Spain. Louise Assists.

Increasingly, our clients are seeking our help in the matter of closing down foreign bank accounts – most recently we have received a request to close down a client’s bank account in Spain.

Can we help? – Well yes we can once the paperwork has been prepared. I always advise that the first port of call would be to make contact with a lawyer in the country the bank account is in. It is getting increasingly difficult to pass the stringent tests applied when closing down bank accounts overseas and moving the funds back to England.

It can save a lot of time and therefore money in seeking specialist advice from a Lawyer in the jurisdiction, who of course will be able to speak directly with the bank on your behalf to ascertain the best way forward.

One of the main difficulties one would imagine is the initial communication with the bank – if you do not speak the language, then it can be a frustrating affair to try and obtain instructions when the bank clerk does not speak English as a first language if at all and you do not speak Spanish for example.

We have seen clients who have been advised by one clerk to “just jot down a note to say you wish to close your account and sign before a Notary in England and then get a Foreign Office Apostille” [if you do not know what a Foreign Office Apostille is then see here – a link to my earlier blog-].

Just jot down a note?

I suppose that in a sense the advice is right, but it’s not useful. Because the words of the note you decide to write, are unlikely to be the words of the note that the Bank official had in mind.

If the Bank does not provide the actual text of document of what it needs then the chances of it accepting and acting upon a note written by a layman in English language are remote to say the least.

The classic scenario is that a note is duly written, then Notarised and then endorsed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Apostille, and paying for a courier to send the “note” directly back to the bank. Job done so the client thinks – Bank receives the document and confirms to the client that “it is very nearly right but not quite! – Sorry you will have to start again”. Frustrating or what? – a costly trial for the poor client!

So what now, well of you go and start again in the hope that this time the bank’s second set of instructions will do the trick – make an appointment with the notary, blah blah blah spend more £??? to hopefully close down the account – again no guarantee – from experience it seems that one bank clerk has a different idea to another bank clerk as to what is actually required and because of the language barrier the poor client ends up going round and round in circles and this can go on and on without having the desired effect.

My advice is to start by seeking seek the guidance of a professional – who will be able to speak in the “mother-tongue” to the bank and ascertain what document(s) are required and your adviser can prepare the wording of such document(s) – this even can be written in the foreign language i.e Spanish for example and emailed across directly to us for you to sign before the Notary – this would mean one visit only and one expense to the Foreign Office.

It is a bit of a no brainer really! Seek guidance from professional and save yourself time and money in the process. But it is the fact that nine out of ten times in our experience this is not done.

The same applies for closing the bank account of a deceased person – if the executors are wishing to close down a foreign account then various documents will need to be submitted – usually notarised and apostilled first – mainly Death Certificate, Grant of Probate etc.. sometimes a notarial certificate is also required if the deceased person died without leaving a Will – the certificate required from the Notary usually sets out England’s intestacy rules – again this will then need to be submitted to the Foreign Office.

So the message is, do not think it will be easier or cheaper to try to do what the first Bank Clerk suggests and cut out the lawyers, in relation to foreign Bank accounts and assets generally.

Instead, come and have a word with me and I will put you on the right track.

Really this guidance is good for all aspects for preparation and execution of documents for use abroad. I suppose people understand that a technical document like a court paper or a Power of Attorney will need professional guidance, but assume that the closing of a Bank account should and will be simple. Rookie error!

Don’t get it wrong – song here –

Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.
Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

Advertisements

Make a Will. Are Friends Electric?

Make a Will. Are Friends Electric?

I have blogged several times about the wisdom of making a Will. Everyone who is an adult with at least a bank account to pass on, should do so..

I suspect that everyone reading this does already understand and agree, but there is often a marked reluctance about actually taking the step.

I will probably blog again and set out once again all of the compelling reasons for making Wills.

But perhaps if I do list all of the good reasons, I still won’t identify the new trend recently identified in China as one of them.

According to a report in the Chinese Global Times, Lily Tong has prepared her new Will and presented it the local Notary so that her son will be cared for after her death.

Lily is only 25 so there is every reason to hope that she will be around for a long time yet, but she believes you can’t be too careful and I would agree.

Except that in this case her “son” is virtual. And, by the way, a Frog.

So her concern is that should she die then her digital frog – which only exists in a video game – would itself “die” without someone to log in and recharge its virtual life support.

At first glance, and perhaps at second and third, there is plenty to laugh at. There was the craze of Tamagotchi in the 1990s, digital creatures hatched from eggs on your keychain fob which also needed regular attention or they would “die”. I don’t remember anyone wanting to make provision in their Will for the long term care of a Tamagotchi.

But at a fourth glance, perhaps there is something about the immersive nature of the video game, of the virtual reality, which speaks to the human brain particularly of teens and young adults.

And if what really matters to you in your life should not be the subject of your Will, then what should?

And then again, there have been science fiction stories from the 1960s or earlier suggesting that one day a human’s mind, its experience, memory and personality could be downloaded and stored into a computer. So then, the person will die, but will live on forever in the computer, continuing to think, make decisions – be “alive”. Even more alive in a way than Lily’s frog, but still only virtual.

And those virtual persons will need maintenance and care. Someone to keep the computers on and backed up.

Or then again, again, when robotics goes further, perhaps it will be the robots and the computers, and the virtual personalities which used to be humans, who become the carers for the humans?

So that before the time that Lily does die after several decades, perhaps it might be her virtual frog who has actually taken over her care?

Is there anyone else who feels that the pace of life is accelerating beyond the ability of the law to keep up?

Here’s the song – link here-

In the meantime, and until then, Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com  and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

House Thefts. Land Thefts. Latest Court Decision. The Judges Don’t Agree What To Do.

House Thefts. Land Thefts. Latest Court Decision. The Judges Don’t Agree What To Do.

It used to be that when you bought a house in England, you got a title Deed. Or more likely, a huge bundle of title deeds. If you had a mortgage you had to let your lender keep the bundle. If not, you likely stored them in a Bank or at your Solicitors’ offices.

No-one who didn’t need or have any right to look at them, could look at them. No-one could copy them, no-one could pretend to be you and then sell your house to an innocent third party and steal all the money.

You might wonder, why has that system been replaced for the system we have now? That is, by a system where A CROOK CAN LOOK AT YOUR DEEDS ONLINE FOR £3.00 AND PRINT THEM OUT IN UNDER A MINUTE.

Then all they have to do, is pretend to be you, and they can sell your house. Or more precisely, persuade innocent buyers into paying the crook for the house in the belief that they are buying it.

Ok there is a lot more they have to do, in terms of having the computer knowledge to hide the money once they have got it, and having the sheer brass neck and basic criminality in the first place. And the crook needs to find an empty house, because a buyer would not buy it with you in it.

An exception to the empty house point, is the documented case of the criminal taking a tenancy of a property, then selling it as the owner, after actually changing his own name to the name of the property owner, by Deed Poll!

That enabled him to get a real driving license, council tax bill, bank account, all in the name of the real owner. Link here

But the “open register” system has removed the most basic protection of all. Title Deeds.

This new system has been in place since 2003.

In 2009, identity theft according to the guardian, was the UK’s fastest growing crime https://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2009/oct/12/ukcrime-id-theft-rising

And in 2018? The Register says, ID theft in UK hits a record high https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/18/id_theft_in_uk_at_record_high_cifas_report/

Can you tell me this – Why can I find out who owns a house worth millions, and whether they have a mortgage, and then print their ”deeds” from the Land Registry, yet I can’t find out who owns a car worth £500, from the DVLA?

Surely the obvious thing is that the Government should immediately block the public access to the Land registry information?

Anyway, until the Government finds a brain cell, [and don’t hold your breath about that], the reality is that crooks can easily get the information and documents which they need to steal your house. The question then arises, what should be done with the stable door?

Basically when a crook C has pretended to be an Owner O and “sold” a house to Buyers B then run away with the money, and C has used a solicitor SC [who thinks that C is O and that they are therefore acting for O] and B has used a solicitor SB, the compensation choices are

1 C intended to steal Money from B and has done so. No one is to blame but C who has disappeared. B has lost the money and no one will compensate B

2 SC has been careless in letting B and SB believe that SC actually acted for O. SC should reimburse B

3 SB has been instructed and paid by B to complete a transfer of the house into the name of B. This has not happened. SB must reimburse B

4 Between them SB and SC were warranting to B that they are competent solicitors who will work together to ensure that house ownership is transferred to B. This has not been achieved and so both must share in reimbursing B

And believe it or not, as my earlier blogs have explained, each of the possible 4 choices has been the result of choice settled upon by a Judge in at least one case.

So it is clear, the Courts haven’t known what to do, each Court has decided to deal with the problem in a different way.

Now what’s new is that we have very recently had the news of a decision upon appeal of the “Dreamvar” case which I have blogged about earlier – link here –

As it was decided in February 2018 – most surprisingly, – the Judge ordered that it should be the Solicitors acting for the innocent Buyers who should reimburse their client. Option 3 of the 4 above.

In a nutshell, the 15th May 2018 Appeal decision has fudged the question and plumped for option 4 – both sets of lawyers must reimburse. –Link to Case Report here –

I think it is fair to say that most commentators and lawyers were expecting option 2.

That seems the right one to me in a case where the “selling” lawyers SC have been less than careful to identify not only Mr X – the person in their office, but also the relationship between Mr X and the ownership of the property.

And it is therefore interesting to note that one of the three judges who decided this appeal, does not agree with the decision. That dissenting Judge said “I consider that ….SB… ought fairly to be excused”.

So the result is that, if the Courts can’t tell them, no-one in the business of Conveyancing has much idea of the extent of their risk and insurance obligation.

I will treat us all to another Blog no doubt, when this latest decision is itself appealed!

It’s my House – Link Here – – Don’t let anyone steal it.

Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website www.atkinsonnotary.com

Challenging A Will. Three Recent Cases

Challenging A Will. Three Recent Cases

I don’t know whether there has been a big increase recently in the number of Court cases where disappointed family members are challenging their Late Parent’s or Partner’s Wills, but it does seem like it.

Since 2015 when the case of Ilott v Mitson was decided – I wrote a Blog about that – link here –there has been a rash of similar challenges. Perhaps because the challenge in Ilott was successful, that might have encouraged family or dependents to have a punt at Court when they feel a bit short changed by being left out of an expected inheritance.

So the next one in 2016, was the case of Ames. Again I Blogged -here – that If Ilott v Mitson had turned over a perfectly valid will in favour of an estranged daughter then surely Ames would do the same, since in Ames the daughter was not estranged and had been living off her father right up to his death.

But no.

So far, so inconsistent.

Both of those cases were brought on the basis of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependant) Act 1975 claiming that the deceased had failed to provide “reasonable financial maintenance” – in other words that the person making the Will and leaving out the claimant was ignoring a proper duty to make financial provision in favour of a person who was lacking financial means and was dependent upon their support.

This claim seems to me to be very weak in the Ilott case. That claimant had not received a penny from her mother in 37 years, so whilst she was in considerable financial difficulty I do not understand why the law says that mother’s money should support her after mother’s death when it could not be claimed before the death. The law says among other things, that “reasonable” financial provision must be made for adult children. I suppose, one person’s “reasonable” is another person’s “tenuous” possibly.

The claim seems to me stronger in the Ames case. There the daughter had been in receipt of money from her father right up to his death.

But the weak claim was a success, and the strong one failed.

The failure of the strong one had the merit though, that it failed because the Judge decided that it is the law of England that a person can make a will and dispose of his/her property freely and hooorah for that.

So now, three more. Is sanity and, even more importantly, consistency, prevailing?

The case of Habberfield from January 2018

The case of Thompson v Ragget from March 2018

The case of Nutt, hot off the press from April 2018

Taking them in order, what is the law telling us now about contesting Wills?

Firstly, although each of them is indeed a contest and, as they always are, based upon a perceived failure to give reasonable provision in the Will of the deceased person, only the second case is specifically claiming that the claim is one which should be allowed  because of the provisions of the 1975 Act.

The first case invokes the Act as a fall-back, but the gist of the claim in Habberfield is that it falls within the doctrine of the law invented by Lord Denning, called proprietary estoppel. Or as the layman might describe that doctrine – “Fairness”.

It’s not fair, says the claimant Lucy Habberfield, that because my father promised me that I would be able to succeed him when he retired, I have therefore worked for more than twenty years in his dairy farm. Working there through my pregnancy, working long hours, working for low pay, and working with very little time off.

And yet, her father left the farm and everything he owned, to his widow and left nothing to Lucy.

The full judgment confirms that because this is not fair, Lucy shall receive over a million pounds now from the estate.

So this was a case in which the 1975 Act did not come into the Judge’s decision. He found that a person may not expect the Courts to give effect to a Will which disregards a promise, when the person to whom the promise was made has relied upon it and spend some thirty years of hard graft on low pay because of it. Thank you, Lord Denning. Fairness.

Full report of Habberfield, click here

In the second case, Thompson v Ragget the deceased had made a Will in which he said “I have specifically made no provision for my partner Joan ……” and “I confirm Joan has her own finances and is financially comfortable, she has her own money and her own savings”.

Long story short: Joan, who was Mr Hodge’s “common-law wife” (there is no such thing) for forty two years, and at the time of his death so far from being financially comfortable, she was living in a care home with a total of £2,500.00 in the Bank.

Clearly, said the Judge, Mr Hodge was quite wrong in his statement that Joan had plenty of money. After 42 years together this was a clear case where the terms of a Will should be overturned, under the 1975 Act.

The advice which lawyers always give to someone who is making a Will and wishes to leave out a person whom one would usually expect to be included is – make sure that your Will explains that you are leaving X out of your Will on purpose and explain why.

Clearly, Mr Hodge did exactly this, but it was therefore possible to see that his stated reason was absolutely mistaken. This helped the Judge to put matters right.

Law Report of that case – click here –

Finally, the case of Nutt. The report of it is – click here –

After the above two big wins for the claimant, perhaps the applicants here were thinking, maybe all you have to do to get a Will turned over in your favour, is go to Court and say “It’s not fair”?

[Actually that can’t be right because the third claim was first made in 2005 but hey, don’t spoil a good story]

In this case Mother was a widow with three adult children. As the Judge heard, mother had clearly decided, – two of my children have their own houses, the youngest does not.

Also, the youngest did her gardening and helped her more in the house and overall spent rather more time with her than the others did. The upshot was that Mother left her money to him and not to the other two. Her Will was made in 2010.

So when she died, here was a Will which the two disappointed children did not like. They were not in need of financial provision, they had adequate assets and income so the 1975 Act was not the basis of the claim. They just weren’t happy.

The claimants asked the court to say that their mother’s earlier will of 2005 should be accepted to probate. In that Will she had left her property equally between all three children. The children liked that Will better.

They claimed in respect of the 2010 Will that
1. Mother hadn’t signed it in the presence of two witnesses or
2. If she had, then she did not have mental capacity to make a Will or
3. If she had, then she did not know what this Will actually said or
4. She had been brainwashed or unduly influenced by the youngest child.

Did they leave anything out?

At the actual hearing, it turned out that they were unable to produce anything along the lines of real evidence for any of this.

As an example in respect of ground 4 undue influence, they claimed that their younger brother was a “domineering personality” who dominated his mother.

As evidence to support that claim, they told the Court how he had told his mother once to change her coat before going out because the one she was wearing would not keep her warm enough. Well, really, was that the best they could do?

And at the end their claim was unsuccessful. As the Judge explained and in my hope may all Judges say the same “My task is not to decide whether the last Will was justified or fair. I am only required to say – “Is It Valid?””

So hooray.

What have we learned?

• That if you make a Will and its terms break promises you have made to someone would has relied to their disadvantage on that promise being kept, you can expect the Will to be set aside.
• That if your Will makes it clear that you have decided the terms of your Will upon mistaken facts, you can expect the Will to be set aside.
• That if you don’t like your Mother’s Will, but she hadn’t made any promises, nor based her decisions on mistaken beliefs, then don’t think the Judge will agree with you just because you make a fuss about it.

So in all three cases, ten out of ten to the Judges.

Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

Litigants In Person. Going To Court Without a Lawyer. Best Not, Eh?

Litigants In Person. Going To Court Without a Lawyer.

There is a saying among lawyers – “A person who acts for himself has a fool for a client”.

As an incentive to the world never to go to the Courts without a Lawyer, and perhaps invented by lawyers, the motto could be accused of being merely self-serving. After all, lawyers will charge you money for acting on your behalf.

But really, would you rewire your own house? Do your own Dentistry? If it takes seven or eight year to learn these skills, perhaps it’s a bit arrogant to “do it yourself”?

Nevertheless, there are many people who do take their complaints through the Courts and do so without any Solicitors or Barristers. And because legal aid is so hard to get, and Lawyers so expensive, it happens more and more.

See my earlier Blogs here and Here.

The result of the phenomenon of litigants appearing in court for themselves in person, can usually be expected to be that cases are delayed. The Judges typically do go out of their way to indulge and assist the unrepresented, in spite of the fact that very often their cases are based upon misunderstandings both of the law and of the procedure of the Courts.

And this indulgence is often complained about by other parties to such litigation.

Really, they say, I am paying my lawyers a lot of money to represent me in the Court case, and I am being charged for their time, and yet many extra hours are being wasted because the other side isn’t properly prepared and doesn’t understand the law or the procedure and I am having to pay for this and, the icing on the cake, is the fact that my own lawyers seem to be assisting them.

But there is a case reported – Link Here – in February which underlines that there is a limit to the indulgence the Court will show to such characters.

In Barton – v- Wright Hassell, Barton who was unrepresented by any lawyers, notified the defendants of his claim by email.

There are rules about that. And if Barton had been represented by properly qualified lawyers, they would have served the papers by post or personal delivery within the rules.

In this case, Barton had waited until the very last day that he could serve his claim, then sent it by email. The lower Court threw out his claim because it had not been properly served. But it was now too late to serve it properly. Barton Appealed.

In effect Barton said to the Appeal Court – I am not a lawyer. I can’t be expected to know all the difficult rules of the Court. The defendant have got computers, I sent them an email. They received the email. It contained all the necessary details of my claim. Let’s get on with it.

Seem reasonable?

Or is he in fact saying – because I am ignorant, and have not bothered to research and learn the rules of the Court nor pay someone who does know the rules to act for me, therefore the rules should be relaxed for me?

The Court has told Barton to “sling his hook”.

The decision is, that the Rules of the Court are the Rules. They are not rules which only solicitors and legally qualified persons have to obey but which other people do not. The Judge said “The rules on service are neither inaccessible nor obscure”. If you don’t read the rules, you lose.

As others have said, this decision – that everyone has to obey the rules -, is not in any way restrictive of a litigant in person’s rights. Their rights, like everyone’s rights, is to DO THINGS PROPERLY.

The only problem I have with this eminently sensible resolution, is that the Court’s judgment was a majority decision. Two Judges disagreed. Thankfully, they were in a minority and no one need pay any attention to them.

So well done everybody, The Law Won. Link Here

Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

Make a Will. Make a List. Think Digital.

Make a Will. Make a List. Think Digital

If you die …….. – perhaps I should start again.

WHEN you die.

Yes that has a better ring to it. Because, you will. Sorry about that.

Some folk obsess about their coming deaths, some are terrified. Philip Larkin was the expert -Link Here-

It seems to me that unlike Larkin most folk put the matter at the back of their minds and concentrate on choosing a new car.

The fact is, we are all of us in a short term period and when it’s over it’s over. During our short lives, we tend to accumulate STUFF. For thousands of years this has been going on, and accordingly there has been plenty of time for the law to grow and take account of this human state of affairs.

There is a plentiful case-law and statue basis to regulate how we can make our wills and how the STUFF we leave behind is to be valued and what tax is to be paid on it and who can be “executors” appointed to deal with all this work. There are rules about Trusts, and estate management and the giving of gifts and surviving seven years and different inheritance tax rates for gifts to spouses and on it goes, and the lawyers have done it all before.

A problem arises however when a new technology disrupts all the previous ways of doing things.

For example, first mobile phones came into existence, and then the law noticed and regulation was invented to deal with it. Thirty or so years ago I was an “early adopter” of a Motorola mobile phone with perhaps thirty minutes talk time – ten hours to charge.

I used to dread it ringing if I was on a train, – embarrassing or what?

So that’s something that has swept the world – the phones arrived first, then the law caught up to deal with it.

Now someone invents Digital Currency, that’s Bitcoin right? Up to a point, Lord Copper. The internet carries a Digital Currency index of 1372 entries. Should you buy Bitcoin? But what about Pirl? Or Crypto Bullion? What what?

This seems to be an areas of assets which most of us have never heard of and people who probably don’t understand it (and if they think they do perhaps that’s only what they think) have nevertheless invested millions of real pounds into buying and selling it.

So in the last few years, millions, billions of pounds of value, exists ONLY inside computers.

So after thousands of years of folk being born and accumulating STUFF and then dying in a regulated world where the transmission of STUFF [less tax] to the next generation is clearly choreographed, now folk are dying as the owners of NEWSTUFF.

It’s STUFF, but it can only be found inside a computer. The law has not caught up.

And now when you die, your family or whoever goes into your study and can’t find a safe or a filing cabinet with a paper file list of all your investments and of where they are, what Bank, what sort code. Instead they find your iPad. And that’s it. And they don’t know how to open it and have a look.

Now if you were still alive, you could enter the locking password, and see what secrets the iPad holds.

If you are dead and have not told anyone at all what your password is, that might be the beginning of a world of pain for your loved ones.

If you have made your Will [You have made your Will, Haven’t you?] then you will have named your choice of persons to act as your Executors. Their job is to ascertain all of your assets, and realise them and pass them across to their new owners in accordance with your Will.

On the other hand, if all they have to start with is the knowledge that on your iPad is a document called “Open this when I am Dead” – but the iPad is locked ……

It seems that it is possible for Apple or the FBI to open a locked iPad. But they won’t do it for you. There are ways to get the iPad going again, but they involve restoring the device, and thereby wiping all of its previous contents so that you start again as if it were new. Not too useful.

So at the very least, put your Will in a drawer in your house and in the same envelope put in the necessary codes to open your computer.

And if you are the Executor, once you are inside the computer, take care. The on-line “assets” of the deceased computer-owner will be held on the basis of the terms and conditions of the relevant on-line provider. You know, those boring pages full of stuff we never read before we tick the button that says ”I have read and accept these terms”.

So bear in mind that it is not necessarily a matter of logging in to those assets using the i/d and password of the deceased. That might be a criminal office. If you find my i/d and password details for my bank and use them to log in – that is a crime whilst I am alive. And likely enough, whilst I am dead also.

And if the deceased has an Amazon prime or Netflix or Spotify account, can anyone continue to use them after his/her death? If s/he has ten children can s/he leave all the Kindle electronic books collection to each of them? You can’t do that with real books.  And an iTunes music collection? It might have cost thousands of pounds for a huge collection of music, but the right to listen to any of it dies with the deceased.

It is a minefield and the law is not yet up to speed with the issues.

The best you can do I suggest, is make your Will with a Solicitor who is alive to all of these issues [see what I did there?] and make specific provision for each of your digital assets.

And don’t forget, tell them the unlock code for your device!

In the meantime –Link Here- Life’s A Gas

Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747.  Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

 

 

Trading Overseas? – We Can Help With Companies House Documents… From Louise, at AtkinsonNotary

Trading Overseas? – We Can Help With Companies House Documents…
From Louise, at AtkinsonNotary

Please note one of the very many services we offer is obtaining your company documents directly from Companies House and notarising them as genuine to send to a foreign jurisdiction.

Usually this is required to confirm that the company in question is of good standing and is, as at the date of notarisation, in existence. Depending on the country, once notarised the certificate may then be required to be sent for further legalisation i.e Apostille and/or foreign embassy stamps.

Please see my link here for earlier blogs explaining the legalisation process.

The usual process for us to proceed would be for you – our client – to confirm the full name of your company and if possible the company number – we can apply directly at Companies House and request that the certificate be either emailed or posted directly to us. The usual certificates we get asked to “notarise” are:

1. Certificate of Incorporation/Certificates of Incorporation on Change of Name
2. Certificates of Good Standing. These are full certificates signed by an Officer of Companies House. If WE order them, they will be posted directly to us and we can then certify them GENUINE.
3. Memorandum of Articles of Association
4. Annual Return
5. Preparing a Notarial Certificate confirming the Laws of England in relation to signing a Deed by a company according to Section 44 of the Companies Act.
6. Preparing a Notarial Certificate confirming the current Registered Directors and/or Company Secretary

Some companies during their life of trading incorporate company name changes and we can obtain as many Certificates of Incorporation of Change of Name as required to show the trail from past names to the present name.

So if you have a company which is expanding to trade internationally and need notarised company documents to submit to your intended foreign jurisdiction then we can help. If you receive instructions from overseas and are uncertain whether you fully understand what is required – we can help. Any company related documents that need notarising and/or legalising – we can help.

We have many years of experience in deciphering the requirements of foreign jurisdictions so do please get in touch if we can assist.

Just a reminder that our Notary Mr Christopher Atkinson has retired as a Solicitor and therefore does not have the usual problem of juggling busy solicitor’s a diary and also a Notarial practice to contend with. This means we can usually act without delay if matters are required to be dealt with urgently.

Remember, if you require our services or if you have any queries on any of the services that we offer then please so not hesitate to email us louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on 0113 8160116 or 07715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com