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

jnorth55

jnorth55 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

This is what seems very odd - the fact that you are going through a conversation that results in being asked to provide payslips from decades ago.  Solicitors are intelligent people and will not want to be wasting their time asking for or reviewing irrelevant paperwork.

While simply "savings" is a very brief answer, a simple "ISA funds built up over the past 20 years through regular monthly contributions out of income" backed up with the account paperwork for the past year or so would ordinarily be sufficient.

Back to what I asked before:

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

Additional steps if appropriate to reach the point of rejection.

I really struggle to see how anyone here will be able to assist if the position continues to remain concealed.  Remember, no-one here knows who you actually are as the forum is anonymous.

You keep ignoring that I have already answered this; I go through the process, as standard & when the solicitor comes back & asks for proof of source of funds I give detailed information. They then ask for proof in terms of documents showing the source; the only documents that would do that are wage slips, company accounts & bank statements going back decades. There isn't any further conversation. I am told, as others have been, that they require proof of the source. Apart from in one instance when the solicitor actually spoke to me I have no idea whether the others even bothered to grasp that they were asking for documents going back decades. 

I've said, repeatedly, that the amounts were acquired decades ago, so the example you've given, about ISA's doesn't work. I explained in the initial post where the savings were from. 

Some commenting might misunderstand the term 'proof of source of income' & think it means proving where the money is coming from when applied to a potential purchase (ie. 'savings' or 'wages') whereas what it means, or is interpreted as meaning, is proof of the initial source. 

Chief_of_Staffy

Having completed & moved on Friday, I have to say proof of funds was probably the most efficient and quick aspect of the process. Perhaps the only efficient and quick aspect. I was a cash buyer and I transfer savings frequently between multiple savings accounts to get the best of the miserable set of interest rates available. All I did was provide printouts of six months' worth of statements for the relevant accounts to my solicitor, plus my current and business account (which I wasn't even asked for). A few minutes of looking through those and I was asked the origin of one large transfer, which I verbally gave, then asked for a summary of what work I did, for which I replied with a few sentences. That was it, about 10% of the time I've spent trying to change the residential address on my driving licence.

jnorth55

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Having completed & moved on Friday, I have to say proof of funds was probably the most efficient and quick aspect of the process. Perhaps the only efficient and quick aspect. I was a cash buyer and I transfer savings frequently between multiple savings accounts to get the best of the miserable set of interest rates available. All I did was provide printouts of six months' worth of statements for the relevant accounts to my solicitor, plus my current and business account (which I wasn't even asked for). A few minutes of looking through those and I was asked the origin of one large transfer, which I verbally gave, then asked for a summary of what work I did, for which I replied with a few sentences. That was it, about 10% of the time I've spent trying to change the residential address on my driving licence.

Thanks. That sounds like a positive experience then. The difference in the situations is at the point where they asked you for origin of that large transfer when I have been asked they wanted to see proof in the form of documents from when the money was initially acquired. 

artyboy

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Having completed & moved on Friday, I have to say proof of funds was probably the most efficient and quick aspect of the process. Perhaps the only efficient and quick aspect. I was a cash buyer and I transfer savings frequently between multiple savings accounts to get the best of the miserable set of interest rates available. All I did was provide printouts of six months' worth of statements for the relevant accounts to my solicitor, plus my current and business account (which I wasn't even asked for). A few minutes of looking through those and I was asked the origin of one large transfer, which I verbally gave, then asked for a summary of what work I did, for which I replied with a few sentences. That was it, about 10% of the time I've spent trying to change the residential address on my driving licence.

Thanks. That sounds like a positive experience then. The difference in the situations is at the point where they asked you for origin of that large transfer when I have been asked they wanted to see proof in the form of documents from when the money was initially acquired. 

And based on the many posts here, I think @Chief_of_Staffy 's experience is very much more the norm than yours. For that matter, mine as a cash buyer was equally easy, albeit using a slightly different verification process.

So it does keep coming back to the question of what it is about the context to your transaction, financial history, whatever, that seems to keep giving you problems. Yes there will always be solicitors that over-egg their checks, but for you to keep running into them just sounds... odd.

jnorth55

artyboy said:

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

Having completed & moved on Friday, I have to say proof of funds was probably the most efficient and quick aspect of the process. Perhaps the only efficient and quick aspect. I was a cash buyer and I transfer savings frequently between multiple savings accounts to get the best of the miserable set of interest rates available. All I did was provide printouts of six months' worth of statements for the relevant accounts to my solicitor, plus my current and business account (which I wasn't even asked for). A few minutes of looking through those and I was asked the origin of one large transfer, which I verbally gave, then asked for a summary of what work I did, for which I replied with a few sentences. That was it, about 10% of the time I've spent trying to change the residential address on my driving licence.

Thanks. That sounds like a positive experience then. The difference in the situations is at the point where they asked you for origin of that large transfer when I have been asked they wanted to see proof in the form of documents from when the money was initially acquired. 

And based on the many posts here, I think @Chief_of_Staffy 's experience is very much more the norm than yours. For that matter, mine as a cash buyer was equally easy, albeit using a slightly different verification process.

So it does keep coming back to the question of what it is about the context to your transaction, financial history, whatever, that seems to keep giving you problems. Yes there will always be solicitors that over-egg their checks, but for you to keep running into them just sounds... odd.

There isn't anything, seriously, but there's nothing I can do to convince you of that of course. I've tried hard to explain that this happened more than once & that it's not even that the solicitors get to the point of doing the checks fully because when they ask for proof of source & I explain how long I've had the savings they're not interested unless I can provide proof of source of the savings. It might well be that I've simply been unlucky in choosing the solicitors, but that gets back to the other point of this question; what happens if, for whatever reason, someone gets stuck in some of the cracks, as there are in any system. 

ahfat41

I can only relate my son recent experience. Buying a flat in London with cash. Was asked proof of funds and explained to solicitor most from parental contributions from age 7 yrs, he is now in mid forties. The monies were in his names and in his own account. Recently there was a random audit and he was asked source of funds from parents contributions. We have been savings an ISA for him from the age of 18 yrs. This  we had to prove by statements. He was asked about his salary but there was no mention of payslips. Latest news I heard from solicitor, no further information required. I have kept statements dated years ago just in case. Am wondering whether I should still keep them or discard.

Herzlos

jnorth55 said:

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'. 

Those are the people trying to help you, though you don't seem to want to see that. 

People could take what you've said as the full story but then the only replies you'd get are "that's too bad". There's no advice you want to hear and nothing can be done. 

Or people can try to get to the root of the problem. What you say you're being asked to provide is highly unusual for what is a really normal source of funds. There has to be some reason why all of these solicitors are asking for this extra detail, but without knowing what that reason is there's nothing anyone can do to help. 

fistfulofsteel

Are you running into the issue of being a low earner (or no longer working?) who doesn't (didn't?) spend much, and no one can believe that it's possible for you to not only live on your income but also save money? I can relate to that.

jnorth55

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

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'. 

Those are the people trying to help you, though you don't seem to want to see that. 

People could take what you've said as the full story but then the only replies you'd get are "that's too bad". There's no advice you want to hear and nothing can be done. 

Or people can try to get to the root of the problem. What you say you're being asked to provide is highly unusual for what is a really normal source of funds. There has to be some reason why all of these solicitors are asking for this extra detail, but without knowing what that reason is there's nothing anyone can do to help. 

The frustration is when people have said 'there must be something else going on'. I understand how that's the easy explanation but I am trying to give an example of what happens when someone finds that they've done everything by the books so to speak but finds that simply because they don't have documents from decades ago they run into this issue. The root of the problem is that. Nothing else going on. 

When it comes to any comment that seems to say there isn't any advice that can sort this out that is when I try to discuss whether there are other ways the system could work for anyone that finds, for whatever reason, they are stuck. It's like any system, when it works ok it works, when it doesn't it's extremely frustrating at best. For example one would think, & some have perhaps found a solicitor who takes this attitude, that all the documents & other proof on the plus side outweighs anything that you aren't able to supply for understandable reasons. It's simply not a good system if someone finds luck of which solicitor they choose is part of the process. Even the time that takes could affect the purchase, not to mention any additional costs or other aspects.

I don't see it as helpful to gaslight or repeatedly imply there has to something else going on. The only explanation given, & its the same in other examples you can find online, is to do with documents that the client doesn't have for legitimate reasons. I've asked this already but not sure anyone of the negative repliers have done it; take a few minutes to think through what it's like in this position. You work for decades, save for decades, go through what is detailed in the initial post & then find that because you didn't keep old documents you simply can't prove where savings from decades ago came from. I have no idea how ML's work but I doubt they keep their money in normal savings accounts for decades, live in a small house, don't drink or smoke or go on extravagant trips & then try to buy a property that isn't more than the average for the area they're in.  

jnorth55

fistfulofsteel said:

Are you running into the issue of being a low earner (or no longer working?) who doesn't (didn't?) spend much, and no one can believe that it's possible for you to not only live on your income but also save money? I can relate to that.

Thanks, as you've actually recognised part of the issue, as already explained but as some seem unable to factor in to their understanding of the situation. I don't spend much at all & have saved hard for decades. Initially because I & my then partner were trying to save to buy a property without a mortgage & also build up the business we ran. I've been SE for some of the time since all of that & earn enough, though not much, so I don't need to dip into savings often. Some would say I live frugally. As mentioned, I also decided to sell a large amount of memorabilia to add to the savings. In short I've saved in ways that for most of my life would be seen as doing the right & sensible thing. So to have, even once, a solicitor appear to not even want to bother with checks because I don't have documents from bank accounts I haven't had for decades was, shall we say, something of a surprise. For it to happen again, & read about other similar examples indicates to me that there is an issue in the system. It might be down to some solicitors not understanding or wanting to bother with anything even slightly outside of what they consider standard, but for the potential purchaser it is an issue that there's nothing they can do to ensure it doesn't happen again simply because there is no way to get documents that old often, & it wasn't required or advised to have them before the checks came in.