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

EssexHebridean

jnorth55 said:

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 said:

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.

No - neither of those things are in any way true. 

I'm starting to understand where the OP's problems are originating from...  I suspect anyone who works in this industry has indeed seen clients turned away as much because of their attitude as because of anything else. Ultimately, conveyancing fees aren't massively high in most areas for the amount of work and responsibility involved - a solicitor will have to act on a large number of transactions to even clear the costs of Professional Indemnity Insurance and practising certificates for example - and clients who create a huge additional workload because of their own actions aren't generally favourites. 

For others who reach this thread because they find that they are running into issues with source of funds... The solution, as offered back in 2020, and again now, is to not behave in a way that makes people think "hang on, this person seems a bit concerning - we probably need to dig a bit deeper here". I (and others) aren't exaggerating when we say that the system does do what it's intended to - remembering of course that the whole idea of the current system IS to root out those who are up to no good. Appearing to be behaving in a way that encourages suspicion - so by making a drama about "not being able to prove income" or "I don't have records to prove X, Y or Z" is an excellent way of appearing to be evasive, and to be trying to hide something. Provide the information initially requested with no further comment or embellishment - chances are it will be perfectly adequate.

Grumpy_chap

I think the only way we would be able to understand this would be if the OP can advise 

1.  Exactly how the original question is phrased?
2.  Exactly the answer the OP provides.
3.  Exactly the follow up request from the Solicitor.

If the manner in which the OP communicates in this thread is replicated in their dealings with the Solicitors I can see how the response at (2) has been found to be unsatisfactory.

EssexHebridean

It seems that the OP has now stepped away from the thread anyway after not receiving the answers that they actually wanted, but instead having the way things work explained to them. Early in the thread they were asked to provide suitably redacted screenshots of communications from the various solicitors as this would help to inform the responses being given - but for whatever reason they declined to provide that helpful information. 

Grumpy_chap said:

I think the only way we would be able to understand this would be if the OP can advise 

1.  Exactly how the original question is phrased?
2.  Exactly the answer the OP provides.
3.  Exactly the follow up request from the Solicitor.

If the manner in which the OP communicates in this thread is replicated in their dealings with the Solicitors I can see how the response at (2) has been found to be unsatisfactory.

Yes - exactly my point, too! 

I suspect in 2, 3 or 5 years they will be back with the same question, and still ignoring the facts in the matter. Next time we get someone in the door at  my firm who comes across as a bit shady I will be wondering...!  

Elliott.T123

jnorth55 said:

 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.

Unfortunately any system that places a personal liability on someone for doing something wrong is never going to be 100% perfect.

If you buy alcohol the member of staff selling you that item is personally liable if you are under age, some times someone who is very clearly over 18 will be denied service because they do not have ID but have been challenge. The member of staff would rather be 100% sure than take that 0.0001% risk to them personally. 

This is the same thing, some solicitors are always going to be extra extra sure because if anything were to come back at a later date they are liable. 

The solution is to find one who is more willing to take a risk (even if that risk is so small as to be effectively zero).

As other posters have said you are in such a small minority here that its just simply not worth changing anything for.

user1977

Elliott.T123 said:

jnorth55 said:

 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.

This is the same thing, some solicitors are always going to be extra extra sure because if anything were to come back at a later date they are liable. 

Also bear in mind that they potentially can be fined for not making adequate checks, irrespective of whether any of their clients were actually found to be up to anything criminal.

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

jnorth55 said:

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 said:

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.

No - neither of those things are in any way true. 

I'm starting to understand where the OP's problems are originating from...  I suspect anyone who works in this industry has indeed seen clients turned away as much because of their attitude as because of anything else. Ultimately, conveyancing fees aren't massively high in most areas for the amount of work and responsibility involved - a solicitor will have to act on a large number of transactions to even clear the costs of Professional Indemnity Insurance and practising certificates for example - and clients who create a huge additional workload because of their own actions aren't generally favourites. 

For others who reach this thread because they find that they are running into issues with source of funds... The solution, as offered back in 2020, and again now, is to not behave in a way that makes people think "hang on, this person seems a bit concerning - we probably need to dig a bit deeper here". I (and others) aren't exaggerating when we say that the system does do what it's intended to - remembering of course that the whole idea of the current system IS to root out those who are up to no good. Appearing to be behaving in a way that encourages suspicion - so by making a drama about "not being able to prove income" or "I don't have records to prove X, Y or Z" is an excellent way of appearing to be evasive, and to be trying to hide something. Provide the information initially requested with no further comment or embellishment - chances are it will be perfectly adequate.

You're gaslighting again. The implication, again, is that there must be something in my attitude or behaviour. The frustration I have expressed towards some comments here, or indeed when referencing how the situation in general is on a forum & has nothing whatsoever to do with how I interact with solicitors, which has always been in an appropriate way. 

jnorth55

Grumpy_chap said:

I think the only way we would be able to understand this would be if the OP can advise 

1.  Exactly how the original question is phrased?
2.  Exactly the answer the OP provides.
3.  Exactly the follow up request from the Solicitor.

If the manner in which the OP communicates in this thread is replicated in their dealings with the Solicitors I can see how the response at (2) has been found to be unsatisfactory.

Again, the frustration I have displayed on here has been to people refusing to believe it happens or repeatedly saying 'something else is going on'. 

As I have stated a number of times I go through the process as normal with solicitors & when they come back asking for proof of source of funds & that they want more information other than 'savings' etc. I give as much information as I am asked for & if I am asked for proof such as decades old pay slips or savings statements I let them know I don't have these. 
I have had conversation with solicitors (not the ones I have dealt with on this issue) around the difficulties of providing proof of source of income & they have confirmed to me that there are no guidelines about how to deal with that when it is reasonable because of when the savings were acquired for example. They have commented that there is an increasing issue around how 'standard' transactions mean that anything that is even slightly outside of that mean that firms often simply turn business down & that clients then have to simply try another firm, leading to more costs, delays & sometimes sales falling through. 

If some people on threads like this prefer to spend time only looking at the explanation being something I am doing they might get to the point; which is what should happen is this happens to anyone, even if there's absolutely nothing in anything that have done that is a problem, but they simply don't have proof of source of income from savings going back decades. If the only answer is 'try another solicitor' then I have no idea why anyone thinks that's a system that is working as it could. Even the most basic financial institution or credit rating firm has ways to analyse patterns in a customers saving & spending that assists in establishing 'good standing' but the checks under discussion can come up against the brick walls outlined &, as far as I can tell from my experience & other similar situations, it usually nothing to do with the checks that actually can be done or what they establish but asking clients for things that are unreasonable or in some circumstances simply not possible to get. 

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

It seems that the OP has now stepped away from the thread anyway after not receiving the answers that they actually wanted, but instead having the way things work explained to them. Early in the thread they were asked to provide suitably redacted screenshots of communications from the various solicitors as this would help to inform the responses being given - but for whatever reason they declined to provide that helpful information. 

Grumpy_chap said:

I think the only way we would be able to understand this would be if the OP can advise 

1.  Exactly how the original question is phrased?
2.  Exactly the answer the OP provides.
3.  Exactly the follow up request from the Solicitor.

If the manner in which the OP communicates in this thread is replicated in their dealings with the Solicitors I can see how the response at (2) has been found to be unsatisfactory.

Yes - exactly my point, too! 

I suspect in 2, 3 or 5 years they will be back with the same question, and still ignoring the facts in the matter. Next time we get someone in the door at  my firm who comes across as a bit shady I will be wondering...!  

What 'facts' am I ignoring? & if you really think anything I have said is shady then you shouldn't be in this area of business. I've given details of how long I've had savings etc. but I have reacted when people, including yourself, have repeatedly questioned me as to whether there is something else going on. Next time you try to return a faulty item perhaps the shop should refuse & say that there's something odd going on or that 99.9% of customers haven't had an issue. I'm sure you will have been in that sort of situation at some point, or now people who have. It can be extremely frustrating & time consuming. Now try to think what it's like when it's a situation that involves decades of saving hard & not being able to progress because you followed guidance to shred financial documents after a certain number of years &, as stated in the initial post, actually didn't think you'd be buying somewhere anyway. So, you go online & ask the question & what comes back at you is 'you must be doing something wrong' or 'this doesn't happen' or 'they system works for most people'. 

jnorth55

user1977 said:

Elliott.T123 said:

jnorth55 said:

 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.

This is the same thing, some solicitors are always going to be extra extra sure because if anything were to come back at a later date they are liable. 

Also bear in mind that they potentially can be fined for not making adequate checks, irrespective of whether any of their clients were actually found to be up to anything criminal.

Thanks for the comment but it does, again, show why I have found this frustrating. Asking anyone for wage slips from the 1980's or 90's isn't an 'adequate check', it's unreasonable &, unless someone has hoarded every bit of paper, impossible for the client to comply with. Whatever the system there are usually mechanisms for dealing with even very rare situations that the system either hasn't been designed to deal with or where it simply doesn't work in a specific instance. 

silvercar

Can you ask around locally for recommendations for property solicitors who have dealt with cash purchases?