Dealing With Banks and Institutions for Someone Else

Written by Richard O'Shea, Solicitor TEP · Mary Molloy Solicitors, established 1981 · Last reviewed 21 August 2026

The recognition gap

The Act is in force; institutional training is patchy. Front-line staff still ask for documents the law replaced, apply pre-2023 checklists, or default to refusal as the safe answer. The gap is closing, but families meet it weekly — and the cure is nearly always the same: present the right paper, to the right unit, with the statutory basis named. Refusals survive vagueness; they rarely survive specificity.

What to bring, role by role

• Decision-making assistant — the agreement itself; your role is access and support, and the institution still deals with the person as decision-maker (guide)
• Co-decision-maker — the registered agreement; decisions in scope are made jointly, so expect both signatures to be required (guide)
• DMR — the court order; the specified decisions are yours to make on the person's behalf, and the order's wording is exactly what the institution may hold you to (guide)
• Attorney — the EPA plus evidence it has taken effect: an unactivated EPA confers nothing, which is the single most common misunderstanding at counters (2015-Act · 1996-Act)
• In every case — registration is verifiable through the DSS, and institutions entitled to verify should be pointed there rather than left inventing their own proofs

When they still say no

Escalate in this order: past the counter to the vulnerable-customer or bereavement/capacity unit (most banks have one; front-line refusal often just means wrong desk); then a short solicitor's letter identifying the instrument, the statutory basis and the specific instruction refused — this resolves the substantial majority; then the institution's formal complaints process and, for financial firms, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. Document each refusal as you go — names, dates, what was asked for. And keep perspective on the other side of the counter: institutions that over-comply — taking instructions from relatives with no authority at all — are the scandal the checks exist to prevent. The system working properly is friction with a purpose; our job is making sure it recognises lawful authority quickly. A letter from us usually costs less than a month of phone queues: 01 5827148.