proof of funds - long term savings / switched banks etc

jnorth55

Hi, 
have joined this forum as the 'proof of funds' thing has somewhat turned into a block to me putting in an offer on various houses. A bit of background;  I live in a house that was left to me & I always thought i'd stay in it so, like most self employed folks, every 6 years I clear out the oldest boxes of receipts / bank statements etc.   The house needs work doing to it now & I have decided to live somewhere else but my problem is that for the cash part of any purchase i've had a lot of the savings for decades & i've also moved bank accounts lots of times to chase best interest rates etc.   Some of those banks aren't even still trading now.  In short I don't think I have anyway to prove where savings from over, say, 20 years ago came from as its impossible to get statements that far back & in some instances as I said the banks don't even exist now.  I know I could get statements showing, for example, that a certain amount has been sat in an account for the past few years but tracing where it came from back would only show transfer in from one bank to another up until I got to a point where banks don't keep records that long. 

has anyone else had a similar problem or knows the process from a solicitors perspective ?   thanks.

davidmcn

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

jnorth55

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

davidmcn

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

It's not literally proving the source of funds, otherwise you'd be going back to whenever money was invented! You have to draw the line somewhere - all they are wanting to do is eliminate reasonable suspicion that you've recently been "gifted" or are "looking after" somebody else's money, and if it's been lying in your account for long enough then it will be assumed that it is really is your money.

jnorth55

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

It's not literally proving the source of funds, otherwise you'd be going back to whenever money was invented! You have to draw the line somewhere - all they are wanting to do is eliminate reasonable suspicion that you've recently been "gifted" or are "looking after" somebody else's money, and if it's been lying in your account for long enough then it will be assumed that it is really is your money.

again, thanks for the reply but all the research i've done shows that if payment is in cash, or partly, above what would be an average deposit for example, then proof of source of funding is part of the legislation. I guess if its a small-ish amount then that might show up or appear to simply in regular ins & outs of a current account or savings account for example, but what i'm getting at here is that if proof of source of the amount is requested how does one go about that when the amount, or most of it, has been in different accounts for decades?

davidmcn

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

It's not literally proving the source of funds, otherwise you'd be going back to whenever money was invented! You have to draw the line somewhere - all they are wanting to do is eliminate reasonable suspicion that you've recently been "gifted" or are "looking after" somebody else's money, and if it's been lying in your account for long enough then it will be assumed that it is really is your money.

again, thanks for the reply but all the research i've done shows that if payment is in cash, or partly, above what would be an average deposit for example, then proof of source of funding is part of the legislation. I guess if its a small-ish amount then that might show up or appear to simply in regular ins & outs of a current account or savings account for example, but what i'm getting at here is that if proof of source of the amount is requested how does one go about that when the amount, or most of it, has been in different accounts for decades?

I've told you the answer, and I do this for a living. If you want to know exactly what a particular solicitor's policy is, you'd need to ask them - they will all differ to some extent. But it would be absurd to expect anybody to produce 20 years of bank statements.

jnorth55

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

It's not literally proving the source of funds, otherwise you'd be going back to whenever money was invented! You have to draw the line somewhere - all they are wanting to do is eliminate reasonable suspicion that you've recently been "gifted" or are "looking after" somebody else's money, and if it's been lying in your account for long enough then it will be assumed that it is really is your money.

again, thanks for the reply but all the research i've done shows that if payment is in cash, or partly, above what would be an average deposit for example, then proof of source of funding is part of the legislation. I guess if its a small-ish amount then that might show up or appear to simply in regular ins & outs of a current account or savings account for example, but what i'm getting at here is that if proof of source of the amount is requested how does one go about that when the amount, or most of it, has been in different accounts for decades?

I've told you the answer, and I do this for a living. If you want to know exactly what a particular solicitor's policy is, you'd need to ask them - they will all differ to some extent. But it would be absurd to expect anybody to produce 20 years of bank statements.

apologies. obviously I have no idea what you do for a living as this is a public forum. You perhaps know this forum well also & if so you can find any number of posts where buyers have been asked to prove source of income & have had problems doing so. What i've been unable to find is any answer as to how anyone has done that when they've had the funds for decades & the original 'source' transactions can't be easily traced, for example when a bank is no longer trading. 

davidmcn

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

It's not literally proving the source of funds, otherwise you'd be going back to whenever money was invented! You have to draw the line somewhere - all they are wanting to do is eliminate reasonable suspicion that you've recently been "gifted" or are "looking after" somebody else's money, and if it's been lying in your account for long enough then it will be assumed that it is really is your money.

again, thanks for the reply but all the research i've done shows that if payment is in cash, or partly, above what would be an average deposit for example, then proof of source of funding is part of the legislation. I guess if its a small-ish amount then that might show up or appear to simply in regular ins & outs of a current account or savings account for example, but what i'm getting at here is that if proof of source of the amount is requested how does one go about that when the amount, or most of it, has been in different accounts for decades?

I've told you the answer, and I do this for a living. If you want to know exactly what a particular solicitor's policy is, you'd need to ask them - they will all differ to some extent. But it would be absurd to expect anybody to produce 20 years of bank statements.

apologies. obviously I have no idea what you do for a living as this is a public forum. You perhaps know this forum well also & if so you can find any number of posts where buyers have been asked to prove source of income & have had problems doing so. What i've been unable to find is any answer as to how anyone has done that when they've had the funds for decades & the original 'source' transactions can't be easily traced, for example when a bank is no longer trading. 

Like I said, there is simply no need to go back decades. Nobody will be expecting you to do so. If you've read something which suggests otherwise, can you point us towards it?

Tracing the "source" is only relevant if it's a recent deposit into your account - where for example somebody has been gifted money by a relative, there would then be a need to trace the funds through their accounts. But there's still going to be a cut-off date of, say, 3 or 6 months back from now, no matter what path you take to get there.

jnorth55

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

jnorth55 said:

davidmcn said:

Practices will vary, but solicitors are only likely to be looking back 3 months or so.

thanks for the reply but i'm not sure about this as proving 'source of funds' obviously would go back to when the money was acquired, if I understand the process correctly?

It's not literally proving the source of funds, otherwise you'd be going back to whenever money was invented! You have to draw the line somewhere - all they are wanting to do is eliminate reasonable suspicion that you've recently been "gifted" or are "looking after" somebody else's money, and if it's been lying in your account for long enough then it will be assumed that it is really is your money.

again, thanks for the reply but all the research i've done shows that if payment is in cash, or partly, above what would be an average deposit for example, then proof of source of funding is part of the legislation. I guess if its a small-ish amount then that might show up or appear to simply in regular ins & outs of a current account or savings account for example, but what i'm getting at here is that if proof of source of the amount is requested how does one go about that when the amount, or most of it, has been in different accounts for decades?

I've told you the answer, and I do this for a living. If you want to know exactly what a particular solicitor's policy is, you'd need to ask them - they will all differ to some extent. But it would be absurd to expect anybody to produce 20 years of bank statements.

apologies. obviously I have no idea what you do for a living as this is a public forum. You perhaps know this forum well also & if so you can find any number of posts where buyers have been asked to prove source of income & have had problems doing so. What i've been unable to find is any answer as to how anyone has done that when they've had the funds for decades & the original 'source' transactions can't be easily traced, for example when a bank is no longer trading. 

Like I said, there is simply no need to go back decades. Nobody will be expecting you to do so. If you've read something which suggests otherwise, can you point us towards it?

Tracing the "source" is only relevant if it's a recent deposit into your account - where for example somebody has been gifted money by a relative, there would then be a need to trace the funds through their accounts. But there's still going to be a cut-off date of, say, 3 or 6 months back from now, no matter what path you take to get there.

even if you search this forum using the term 'proof of funds', you can find posts about people being asked for statements going back 2, 5, 10 or even 20 years for example. 
As I mentioned this has become a bit of a block for me so i've spent some time researching the legislation & the guidance from the professional organisations & whilst its somewhat vague in certain sections, it does seem to suggest that the original source of funding for any cash payment is required. There's no mention of any length or time the solicitor can go back. I think the bigger point here though is that without specific rules around what & how solicitors can request proof of source of funding it means its really hard to know what the process will be or to try to prepare in advance, & as I said, impossible to get old statements from banks that aren't trading now.  

theartfullodger

Tax returns for all those years will be fine, proving income stamped by HMRC, extract as documents.  Unless of course some tax-fiddling which I'm sure isn't the case, so rare with self-employed 

jnorth55

theartfullodger said:

Tax returns for all those years will be fine, proving income stamped by HMRC, extract as documents.  Unless of course some tax-fiddling which I'm sure isn't the case, so rare with self-employed 

thanks for the snide remark about tax dodging self-employed - usually the sort of comment that comes from people who don't mind fiddling their own expenses or benefit claims. 
apart from that, if you bothered to read the post, you'd see i'm talking about savings etc from decades ago, none of which show up except via the interest amounts on s-e tax returns & as interest rates have been low for years now there isn't much 'income' from interest to show either.