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

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'd expect you yourself...' - I have, repeatedly, explained that the only explanation I have been given has been that the companies require proof of source of funds & when I have said, in a polite & as detailed a way as I can, that that part of the amount comes from decades ago & that I no longer have old wage slips & bank statements, nor do the banks as they don't keep records going back that far, that is when I am offloaded. I find it frustrating & somewhat bizarre that some people replying on here can't seem to understand that & prefer instead to imply there's something else going on. There really isn't. If there was it might mean there's something I can try to sort out but this situation is how it is currently because there is no way for me to get bank statements of wage slips from decades ago. 

EssexHebridean

The problem is, you've been asking the same question, and getting the correct answers, for 5 years now. On each occasion when people try to gently (and then not so gently) tell you that your situation isn't a problem with the system, it's a problem with your personal situation - for some reason or another - you've insisted that they are wrong. 

There HAS been advice - notably trying to make you understand that ultimately this is more likely to be a problem you are creating, one way or another (and potentially without even having realised it) thank anything else. There have been suggested solutions - but you have mostly ignored those. A lot of the advice and indeed the suggested solutions too have been given to you multiple times over 5 years and - what, best part of 20 pages? 

The reason people aren't "willing to actually accept that the situation does happen" is because in 99.999% of cases the situation DOESN'T happen - in almost all transactions, those carrying out conveyancing are perfectly happy just to ask for what protocol suggests that they should need. Sometimes though, all the circumstances point to someone doing something a bit "dodgy" - and at that stage, more digging happens. If it still looks dodgy after that, life gets tricky. The problem is that generally speaking folk get a bit upset if they are told "We're very sorry - the way you're behaving here leads us to believe you might be engaged in money laundering, and as a result we're no longer willing to act for you" - so the approach of simply making things impossible is often the easiest way out. 

I tell you something you could try - get a mortgage for all bar the basic deposit amount of the purchase price. Use your cash for the deposit only. Choose a mortgage that is on SVR (not a fix) and one that you can pay off without any early repayment charges. Once the matter completes, give it a handful of months then simply clear the mortgage, using your savings. You might get investigated, but then again, you might not. It will cost you a small amount of interest, but will at least finally get you to where you want to be - assuming, of course, you can actually GET a mortgage. 

jnorth55

Elliott.T123 said:

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.      

I get what you are saying, but I disagree that that is how this, or any system that is fair should work, for any customer. It shouldn't be down to luck in which firm you pick as surely that means non-legit people could also do that. People replying have said things like 'this doesn't happen' or 'try somewhere else' but no one has said anything about what could be done to improve the system so that things like this don't happen. I know what some people will say to that; it can't work for everyone, but it surely isn't impossible to think of a system where someone financial history & all kinds of other information can be checked so that they can at least be viewed as of good standing so they can get passed daft situations such as requests for wage slips from decades ago.

jnorth55

Herzlos said:

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?

If you read my initial post there is as much information that is required for what I'm asking as in your version, & more on some details. There was no need for any guesswork. 

I have replied to that question, repeatedly. The process is as normal until I am asked for 'proof of source of funds' for the amounts that I have had in savings for decades. I then explain that I worked for companies that no longer exist etc. I've listed bank accounts going as far back as I remember etc. 

EssexHebridean

jnorth55 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

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.      

I get what you are saying, but I disagree that that is how this, or any system that is fair should work, for any customer. It shouldn't be down to luck in which firm you pick as surely that means non-legit people could also do that. People replying have said things like 'this doesn't happen' or 'try somewhere else' but no one has said anything about what could be done to improve the system so that things like this don't happen. I know what some people will say to that; it can't work for everyone, but it surely isn't impossible to think of a system where someone financial history & all kinds of other information can be checked so that they can at least be viewed as of good standing so they can get passed daft situations such as requests for wage slips from decades ago.

If someone goes through the standard checks, and is viewed as of good standing, no further checks are needed. 
If someone is NOT viewed as of good standing, further checks are required. 
None of those checks exceed looking back 6 years, as nobody has any obligation to keep records for longer than that. 
If firms are repeatedly asking you for documents beyond that, they're trying to tell you something, without running the (perceived) risk of getting their windows smashed. 

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

The problem is, you've been asking the same question, and getting the correct answers, for 5 years now. On each occasion when people try to gently (and then not so gently) tell you that your situation isn't a problem with the system, it's a problem with your personal situation - for some reason or another - you've insisted that they are wrong. 

There HAS been advice - notably trying to make you understand that ultimately this is more likely to be a problem you are creating, one way or another (and potentially without even having realised it) thank anything else. There have been suggested solutions - but you have mostly ignored those. A lot of the advice and indeed the suggested solutions too have been given to you multiple times over 5 years and - what, best part of 20 pages? 

The reason people aren't "willing to actually accept that the situation does happen" is because in 99.999% of cases the situation DOESN'T happen - in almost all transactions, those carrying out conveyancing are perfectly happy just to ask for what protocol suggests that they should need. Sometimes though, all the circumstances point to someone doing something a bit "dodgy" - and at that stage, more digging happens. If it still looks dodgy after that, life gets tricky. The problem is that generally speaking folk get a bit upset if they are told "We're very sorry - the way you're behaving here leads us to believe you might be engaged in money laundering, and as a result we're no longer willing to act for you" - so the approach of simply making things impossible is often the easiest way out. 

I tell you something you could try - get a mortgage for all bar the basic deposit amount of the purchase price. Use your cash for the deposit only. Choose a mortgage that is on SVR (not a fix) and one that you can pay off without any early repayment charges. Once the matter completes, give it a handful of months then simply clear the mortgage, using your savings. You might get investigated, but then again, you might not. It will cost you a small amount of interest, but will at least finally get you to where you want to be - assuming, of course, you can actually GET a mortgage. 

It might only happen on 0.1% of instances. it might be less or more. You don't know & neither do I. The difference between us is I'm trying to describe what happens when it does & all you keep implying is that there must be something else going on when there isn't. You're pulling a standard gaslighting trick of pushing someone by implying the only way you or anyone will believe me is that I spend pages & pages going into all kinds of details that wouldn't actually do anything to shift your attitude. 

As for 'get a mortgage' for a start I shouldn't need to, because there should be a system that works as it should for everyone. It might not be possible, most systems don't work for everyone, but it is rather frustrating that you seem to think a system that, like you, assumes that proof of source of funds being unavailable is the same as never having existed is fair. 

One thing I can tell you is with more & more AI integration into these systems, as is happening elsewhere, anyone whose circumstances don't fit the averages data are going to find things more complex. 

As I have already mentioned, due to my age I can't get a standard mortgage now anyway. 

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

jnorth55 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

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.      

I get what you are saying, but I disagree that that is how this, or any system that is fair should work, for any customer. It shouldn't be down to luck in which firm you pick as surely that means non-legit people could also do that. People replying have said things like 'this doesn't happen' or 'try somewhere else' but no one has said anything about what could be done to improve the system so that things like this don't happen. I know what some people will say to that; it can't work for everyone, but it surely isn't impossible to think of a system where someone financial history & all kinds of other information can be checked so that they can at least be viewed as of good standing so they can get passed daft situations such as requests for wage slips from decades ago.

If someone goes through the standard checks, and is viewed as of good standing, no further checks are needed. 
If someone is NOT viewed as of good standing, further checks are required. 
None of those checks exceed looking back 6 years, as nobody has any obligation to keep records for longer than that. 
If firms are repeatedly asking you for documents beyond that, they're trying to tell you something, without running the (perceived) risk of getting their windows smashed. 

So, now you're saying I might be someone who goes round smashing windows. I have no idea why you refuse to read the information but I have already said that the only issue is around savings that go go back decades. I have every document for much longer than 10 years for example. You are simply wrong in your understanding of the proof of source of income system.

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

jnorth55 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

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.      

I get what you are saying, but I disagree that that is how this, or any system that is fair should work, for any customer. It shouldn't be down to luck in which firm you pick as surely that means non-legit people could also do that. People replying have said things like 'this doesn't happen' or 'try somewhere else' but no one has said anything about what could be done to improve the system so that things like this don't happen. I know what some people will say to that; it can't work for everyone, but it surely isn't impossible to think of a system where someone financial history & all kinds of other information can be checked so that they can at least be viewed as of good standing so they can get passed daft situations such as requests for wage slips from decades ago.

If someone goes through the standard checks, and is viewed as of good standing, no further checks are needed. 
If someone is NOT viewed as of good standing, further checks are required. 
None of those checks exceed looking back 6 years, as nobody has any obligation to keep records for longer than that. 
If firms are repeatedly asking you for documents beyond that, they're trying to tell you something, without running the (perceived) risk of getting their windows smashed. 

You're also incorrect about the '6 years' rule. It's actually 6 tax years, so 7 in effect (6 years from end of tax year). The proof of source of income checks have no guidelines as to how far back a solicitor can request, which is where this whole thread started. 

jnorth55

I'm going to exit this thread now. I had wanted to start a conversation not about what happens for the 99.9% when they system works but what's it like when it doesn't & for reasons that aren't the fault of the person trying to buy a property. Most of the replies have continued to say or imply there must be something else going on. 

To anyone else who happens to read this thread having found they get stuck in the system, through no fault of their own, I would say try to remember that the people commenting have no idea what it's like.

Thanks to the people who've replied with a bit more understanding. 

Chief_of_Staffy

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. 

You don't need to prove the origin of all the money. You need to show a short-term trend and if that is roughly in-line amount you have saved, and your age, and your stated work history, etc. then it's not an issue. Someone who's 25 who works at a supermarket might reasonably have saved £15k over seven years, but wanting to pay £150k in cash would need explaining. Someone who's retired at 60 who was a CEO of a moderately sized company might reasonably have saved £2m, but if they're buying a country pile with £20m, that would need explaining too. It's not an audit since the year dot, it's a match-up of what your short-term accounts show against your relevant life factors.