The right reverend Prelate is correct, except where there is a dispute, where the claimant goes into the bank and the bank says, ““We don’t recognise the validity of the evidence that you have brought before us””. The claimant could then go to the reclaim fund. If the bank says, ““We regard this account as dormant. You’re not the rightful owner of these resources. That money anyway has already gone to the reclaim fund; that, as far as we are concerned, is the end of the matter””, it might not be the end of the matter for the individual in certain cases. The reclaim fund might then have to reach a judgment on the position, and would need the information which the bank supplied to it. The noble Baroness was concerned about the confidentiality of that information. I am trying to assure the Committee that it is covered. Reaching that judgment is the only circumstance in which the reclaim fund would become involved with information of this degree of detail.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 December 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c69GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:37:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428551
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428551
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428551