Proof of Funds - old savings. Is PoF a system that Martin needs to look at.

jnorth55

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

Herzlos said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Every house I have ever bought, every house my parents have bought, every house my in-laws have bought (using far bigger cash figures than you mentioned, one of the purchased was over £1m in cash) the "proof of source of funds" has been a simple case of, here is the bank account / accounts the money is in, it has been here for 12 months. That is all the proof that was required.

I'm convinced there must be some other issue at play we're just not catching. I don't think it was mentioned anywhere, but what country are you in? We're assuming England but it's possible you're somewhere with completely different rules and we're talking at cross purposes. 

What country is your money in? What kind of savings account?

Seriously, doesn't it show the issue that you assume there must be something to do with me.

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Various posters on here in what sounds like exactly the same circumstances aren't asked to provide the same information. A conveyancer (or adjacent) on here says they've never seen it, nor has anyone here heard of it happening. 

So we can be fairly confident that it's not:

Local laws, because you're in the UK

The location of money, because it's been in a UK savings account for 10+ years.
The amount of money, because it's a fairly regular house buying amount. 

The conveyancer/solicitor, because you've tried a few. 

So what else could it be? It's hard for us to tell because you're pretty evasive with the details. If you respond to solicitors like you respond to us, I can see them wanting further scrutiny. 

Maybe you just need to launder it properly and be done with it. 

I'm sure you realise the effect of what you're saying here, or that fact that it's near to libel. I have not been evasive at all. When different people have asked questions I've answered. I've stated exactly where the money came from & where it is etc. 

We're 9 pages in and still only have vague details.  I think we've got all of the pieces now but it still doesn't make sense; I don't think any of us can think of any reason you'd need to provide proof of funds for funds that are over 10 years old. There must be some detail we're missing that would explain it. 

I'm sure you're not the only person in this position but it seems to be incredibly rare. 

'vague details'! seriously, what more info do you expect anyone to share on a public forum. I've detailed everything needed to understand the very easy to understand issue of 'proof of source of funds' when they were acquired decades ago & neither the person or any bank has records going back that far. 

jnorth55

Chief_of_Staffy said:

No solicitor would ask to check 20 years' of financial records because

a) nobody keeps 20 years of records
b) the task would be unduly onerous, taking days of dedicated work.
c) unless there's something highly unusual like an eight figure sum in an account when you're selling a 2-up 2-down and you need to provide proof of your lottery win then there's no reason to go back 20 years
d) it puts the solicitor at greater risk, because if they've been provided with information that shows fraud and they miss it, that's significantly worse for them than if they'd never been provided with it in the first place.

a) exactly, but if the 'source of funds' was acquired, gradually through saving for a long time, then that is the issue I've been trying to discuss. 
b) agreed & the issue is that if one does have savings going back that far it does seem hard to even find a solicitor willing to look at the details or discuss etc. What I'm getting at is that there does seem to be an issue with (some) firms simply not bothering with anything that isn't the most common situation. As I've already said I have spoken to solicitors who are also frustrated with this. 
c) What you'd described there might indeed be unusual but if we take it as an example - eight figure savings, small house etc. the point is the same. If their money was acquired through employment a long time ago, for example, they could find themselves in this situation. 
d) I get that, but doesn't this also show an issue. If a solicitor assumes something non-legit when there is no proof of that but, for quite reasonable reasons the person can't supply old wage slips or bank statement from decades ago, doesn't that go against first principles. 

silvercar

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

No solicitor would ask to check 20 years' of financial records because

a) nobody keeps 20 years of records
b) the task would be unduly onerous, taking days of dedicated work.
c) unless there's something highly unusual like an eight figure sum in an account when you're selling a 2-up 2-down and you need to provide proof of your lottery win then there's no reason to go back 20 years
d) it puts the solicitor at greater risk, because if they've been provided with information that shows fraud and they miss it, that's significantly worse for them than if they'd never been provided with it in the first place.

a) exactly, but if the 'source of funds' was acquired, gradually through saving for a long time, then that is the issue I've been trying to discuss. 
b) agreed & the issue is that if one does have savings going back that far it does seem hard to even find a solicitor willing to look at the details or discuss etc. What I'm getting at is that there does seem to be an issue with (some) firms simply not bothering with anything that isn't the most common situation. As I've already said I have spoken to solicitors who are also frustrated with this. 
c) What you'd described there might indeed be unusual but if we take it as an example - eight figure savings, small house etc. the point is the same. If their money was acquired through employment a long time ago, for example, they could find themselves in this situation. 
d) I get that, but doesn't this also show an issue. If a solicitor assumes something non-legit when there is no proof of that but, for quite reasonable reasons the person can't supply old wage slips or bank statement from decades ago, doesn't that go against first principles. 

I understand all that you have written, but in my case the funds had accumulated over decades. I’m in my 60s, some of the funds were work bonuses lost in time, some just general excess income over expenditure- nothing I could put my finger on and say this money comes from X. Just general savings over time that amounted to a decent pot. All the solicitors wanted was ID proof and statements showing the money had been sitting in savings for 6 months plus. 

As I’ve said before, this was for 2 separate deposits, with different solicitors each time. I’m puzzled, as are many other people, why every solicitor you meet puts onerous requirements on you that (a) no one else has encountered and (b) does not make any logical sense in that no one is expected to have evidence from so long ago and if they did it would only increase the burden on solicitors.

You are perfectly entitled not to post anything on a public forum, but I’d expect you yourself would have some idea what makes your situation unique amongst forumites.

Elliott.T123

jnorth55 said:

What I suggested several posts back then. As I said then, sometimes, saying and doing less actually gets you the desired result.  It would make perfect sense that this is the issue, allowing that I (And it seems many others here too) have NEVER heard of a solicitor or conveyancer asking for documentation going back decades on this. Indeed, the only situation in which I can begin to think someone might is in a scenario where they really weren't comfortable to act for an individual, but also didn't want to say as much. Ie, a "soft" way of offloading a client. 

OK. So, taking what you've said here, & applying it in general, not to my situation, what would someone do if they 100% hadn't done anything at all non-honest but were offloaded? That's my point really; there isn't a system for people in that situation. If you think about any other kind of legal or financial service there are ways to get a review or get an ombudsman's view, but it does seem that there are situations, possibly very rare, where the system simply doesn't provide a framework that works.

The individual would do exactly what they would do in any other situation in life if a business refused service, they would find someone else.

If a pub refuses to serve you do you find an ombudsman or do you go next-door? If a builder doesn't want your job and quotes double the price of everyone else what do you do? go with someone else?

I appreciate you are frustrated and you feel like this situation doesn't work for you. What you need to accept is that if these solicitors are making your life so difficult what they are really saying is "I don't want to do business with you but I don't want to say that". They are perfectly at liberty to do that, the system doesn't need to change you need to find someone who does want your business it is as simple as that.      

Elliott.T123

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

No solicitor would ask to check 20 years' of financial records because

a) nobody keeps 20 years of records
b) the task would be unduly onerous, taking days of dedicated work.
c) unless there's something highly unusual like an eight figure sum in an account when you're selling a 2-up 2-down and you need to provide proof of your lottery win then there's no reason to go back 20 years
d) it puts the solicitor at greater risk, because if they've been provided with information that shows fraud and they miss it, that's significantly worse for them than if they'd never been provided with it in the first place.

a) exactly, but if the 'source of funds' was acquired, gradually through saving for a long time, then that is the issue I've been trying to discuss. 
b) agreed & the issue is that if one does have savings going back that far it does seem hard to even find a solicitor willing to look at the details or discuss etc. What I'm getting at is that there does seem to be an issue with (some) firms simply not bothering with anything that isn't the most common situation. As I've already said I have spoken to solicitors who are also frustrated with this. 
c) What you'd described there might indeed be unusual but if we take it as an example - eight figure savings, small house etc. the point is the same. If their money was acquired through employment a long time ago, for example, they could find themselves in this situation. 
d) I get that, but doesn't this also show an issue. If a solicitor assumes something non-legit when there is no proof of that but, for quite reasonable reasons the person can't supply old wage slips or bank statement from decades ago, doesn't that go against first principles. 

You really are trying to make this far far more difficult than it needs to be.

Forgetting the details on if there is anything suspicious or not this simply boils down to:

The vast majority of solicitors in England and Wales (I do not know about Scotland so will leave it out) are more than happy with 12 months bank statements showing the funds. In extreme circumstances maybe 2-3 years.

If a firm is asking for more than that then move on to someone else. 

To answer your points individually:

a) Lots of people have acquired the money slowly over time, my parents gifted me a very large sum towards a purchase once, this money was acquired over 40 years, all the solicitor wanted was the last 12 months showing the money in premium bonds and then a bank account after that. This is not in any way unique or abnormal, it is very common, you are not special.
b) No it is not hard to find a solicitor who is willing to look at or discuss the details, every single solicitor I have used (4) my parents have used (5+) and anyone I know have used are absolutely willing to discuss this and treat it as a normal every day occurrence
c) In a very unique situation like this then yes further proof may be required but even then I would expect 5+ years history of the money in savings to be plenty
d) Just move on, the solicitor doesn't want your business, find one that does.

OP, can you share with us the exact reply that you have been sent from your solicitor asking for more information? That would be very interesting to see. Obviously remove names, companies etc but if you can share the text of the message they sent it would be very interesting to see exactly what information they have actually asked for.

EssexHebridean

jnorth55 said:

EssexHebridean said:

Elliott.T123 said:

jnorth55 said:

Herzlos said:

Elliott.T123 said:

Every house I have ever bought, every house my parents have bought, every house my in-laws have bought (using far bigger cash figures than you mentioned, one of the purchased was over £1m in cash) the "proof of source of funds" has been a simple case of, here is the bank account / accounts the money is in, it has been here for 12 months. That is all the proof that was required.

I'm convinced there must be some other issue at play we're just not catching. I don't think it was mentioned anywhere, but what country are you in? We're assuming England but it's possible you're somewhere with completely different rules and we're talking at cross purposes. 

What country is your money in? What kind of savings account?

Seriously, doesn't it show the issue that you assume there must be something to do with me. It really isn't. The money is in the UK, in normal bank savings accounts, as I have already said in other replies. The issue is, the only issue, that when I have been asked for 'proof of source of funds' I haven't been able to go back to when a percentage of my savings was originally earned in terms of documents etc. 

I think I may be onto the issue!

When you have been asked for proof of source of funds how do you respond?

Is your response "I am not able to do this" or "I don't have those records" or something along those lines?

When asked that just send the solicitor a bank statement showing the last 12 months of the funds. Do not say anything else, do not offer up any more information, just send that and await a response.

What I suggested several posts back then. As I said then, sometimes, saying and doing less actually gets you the desired result.  It would make perfect sense that this is the issue, allowing that I (And it seems many others here too) have NEVER heard of a solicitor or conveyancer asking for documentation going back decades on this. Indeed, the only situation in which I can begin to think someone might is in a scenario where they really weren't comfortable to act for an individual, but also didn't want to say as much. Ie, a "soft" way of offloading a client. 

OK. So, taking what you've said here, & applying it in general, not to my situation, what would someone do if they 100% hadn't done anything at all non-honest but were offloaded? That's my point really; there isn't a system for people in that situation. If you think about any other kind of legal or financial service there are ways to get a review or get an ombudsman's view, but it does seem that there are situations, possibly very rare, where the system simply doesn't provide a framework that works.

That is usually where "try somewhere else" comes in - as often a situation that one firm might feel they don't want to proceed with, another with slightly different procedures will take a different view of.

If the person finds that they continually get similar issues arising - ie being "offloaded", then there is generally either something amiss with their financial situation or their attitude. Most firms want the work - but there are always limits - a client who it seems is going to be problematic beyond reasonable ability to charge extra is probably, in honesty, not one that the firm wants on the books, and very few firms these days will take any chances on the risk of getting caught up in shady financial dealings. The SRA (currently - although not for much longer I believe) are all over that now, having been caught out previously. 

Herzlos

jnorth55 said:

'vague details'! seriously, what more info do you expect anyone to share on a public forum. I've detailed everything needed to understand the very easy to understand issue of 'proof of source of funds' when they were acquired decades ago & neither the person or any bank has records going back that far. 

Generally, when I'm trying to get help on the internet, I try and provide as much pertinent detail up front as I can because drip-feeding it tends to annoy people. Most of it can be provided in a fairly anonymous way like exact figures, no towns, etc. 

So in your case I'd have provided something like:

I've got about £200k in a cash-ISA with a UK high street bank, where it's been for 10 years. Most of that came from jobs I had in the 80's and 90's for companies that no longer exist, along with sales of some assets in the same time frame. 

I'm trying to buy a house in England without a mortgage. 

I've been to 3 solicitors and they are all asking me to provide proof of funds for those original funds because (whatever justification they had). I don't have paperwork going back any more than 5 years. 


And you'd have probably saved about 5 of the 10 pages of discussion and guesswork. 


It's been asked a few times on here and I haven't seen any answer yet; what exactly are the solicitors telling you when asking for this extra evidence?

Have any of those solicitors advised you on how to proceed?

Myci85

After 10 pages of this, I've come to the conclusion that the OP just wanted to vent and didn't actually want advice/solutions.

jnorth55

silvercar said:

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

No solicitor would ask to check 20 years' of financial records because

a) nobody keeps 20 years of records
b) the task would be unduly onerous, taking days of dedicated work.
c) unless there's something highly unusual like an eight figure sum in an account when you're selling a 2-up 2-down and you need to provide proof of your lottery win then there's no reason to go back 20 years
d) it puts the solicitor at greater risk, because if they've been provided with information that shows fraud and they miss it, that's significantly worse for them than if they'd never been provided with it in the first place.

a) exactly, but if the 'source of funds' was acquired, gradually through saving for a long time, then that is the issue I've been trying to discuss. 
b) agreed & the issue is that if one does have savings going back that far it does seem hard to even find a solicitor willing to look at the details or discuss etc. What I'm getting at is that there does seem to be an issue with (some) firms simply not bothering with anything that isn't the most common situation. As I've already said I have spoken to solicitors who are also frustrated with this. 
c) What you'd described there might indeed be unusual but if we take it as an example - eight figure savings, small house etc. the point is the same. If their money was acquired through employment a long time ago, for example, they could find themselves in this situation. 
d) I get that, but doesn't this also show an issue. If a solicitor assumes something non-legit when there is no proof of that but, for quite reasonable reasons the person can't supply old wage slips or bank statement from decades ago, doesn't that go against first principles. 

I understand all that you have written, but in my case the funds had accumulated over decades. I’m in my 60s, some of the funds were work bonuses lost in time, some just general excess income over expenditure- nothing I could put my finger on and say this money comes from X. Just general savings over time that amounted to a decent pot. All the solicitors wanted was ID proof and statements showing the money had been sitting in savings for 6 months plus. 

As I’ve said before, this was for 2 separate deposits, with different solicitors each time. I’m puzzled, as are many other people, why every solicitor you meet puts onerous requirements on you that (a) no one else has encountered and (b) does not make any logical sense in that no one is expected to have evidence from so long ago and if they did it would only increase the burden on solicitors.

You are perfectly entitled not to post anything on a public forum, but I’d expect you yourself would have some idea what makes your situation unique amongst forumites.

I have tried to explain what I think the issue is in terms of solicitors asking for proof of source & then simply not even bothering to listen to or deal with the reasonable explanation, & also that I have had the same thing said to me by solicitors who understand such situations but work for firms who simply aren't interested in anything that isn't more commonplace. 
You mention deposits but this thread is about buying with cash so the situations are different. 

I've not tried with dozens of solicitors but when I asked the questions I was simply trying to ask / say that there are ways in which the system causes things like this, & it does happen to other people also. 

jnorth55

Myci85 said:

After 10 pages of this, I've come to the conclusion that the OP just wanted to vent and didn't actually want advice/solutions.

Incorrect. The 10 pages have mostly being replies saying 'this doesn't add up' or similar. There hasn't been much advice & no solutions, of course. I'm not blaming people for not giving advice because mostly they don't seem willing to actually accept that the situation does happen.