![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
rugrat:
gzt: Is the fault with the document template or is the fault with the information entered into the document by the user?
The information entered, but when they actually came round and chatted with us in person I’m sure they changed some information on it before final signing.
Even though it was initially done online, they did visit in person, believe they updated some stuff after chatting to us.
They then came back for signing. Everyone was present accept myself. I went into their office in town for my signing.
There was never meant to be a second successor only first.
They went through the signing pointing out where to sign, and now they are saying it’s invalid as part of it is not signed even though it was them in person saying where to sign.
I would be doing some careful digging as to exactly what information you originally supplied (perhaps they email this back to you as part of the booking?), and what was changed.
gzt: Can you provide a link to the service you purchased?
https://www.publictrust.co.nz/products-and-services/endur-power-of-attorney/
Occupation on witness stamps Associate Trustee.
There is also a witness EPA that touches on some things Wheelbarrow01 said, has in it
”Gave the donor a copy Of the prescribed form of standard explanation of the effects and applications of an enduring power of attorney, followed instructions in the form for giving a verbal explanation to the donor and explained to the donor any effects and implications not covered by the standard explanation and instructions”
After this experience I do not wish to use Public Trust again, and a Doctor has signed off with my Dad, so he cannot make any new legal agreements.
Also as witnessing the signatures for some reason First successor attorney 2, they did not witness signing this part, and they must’ve known it was there!
I possibly said there wasn’t meant to be a successor attorney 2, and not signing that bit was their solution, but with all the happenings in the last couple of years I cannot remember.
jonathan18:
@Wheelbarrow01, how sure are you that what you've written above actually reflects the current situation re Public Trust? That old model of free will for naming the Public Trust as executor is no longer the case, and I understand hasn't been for a while.
No I wasn't aware they had changed strategy. The new options as per the web link you provided seem a lot better now than they used to be in my opinion.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |