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

Herzlos

jnorth55 said:

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 it's the *only* explanation. There must be some factor that's being missed that explains why your situtation is different and causing the problems. 

jnorth55 said:

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.

That could have been useful to mention 15 pages ago. I'm sure it had been suggested a few times and wasn't clarified. 

But that on it's own shouldn't be an issue; lots of people retire early and live frugally with what looks like disproportionate amounts of savings.  "Held some senior posts in a businesses before going self employed and retiring to live off of savings" sounds completely normal. 

silvercar

I wonder if you are interpreting ‘source of funds’ too literally. Most people with large savings accumulated over years would just say that. “This is my savings account that I have been saving in with excess income from year dot when I had a lucrative career”. Is it you that is interpreting it too literally? Maybe you are answering with ‘I can’t prove where the money came from because I haven’t kept records longer than 7 years and so I can’t show you where the money came from’. Can you see how the former is going to sound more convincing than the latter?

artyboy

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

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 it's the *only* explanation. There must be some factor that's being missed that explains why your situtation is different and causing the problems. 

jnorth55 said:

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.

That could have been useful to mention 15 pages ago. I'm sure it had been suggested a few times and wasn't clarified. 

But that on its checks do often own shouldn't be an issue; lots of people retire early and live frugally with what looks like disproportionate amounts of savings.  "Held some senior posts in a businesses before going self employed and retiring to live off of savings" sounds completely normal. 

AML checks do generally scrutinise transactions that are outside the norm of the individual making them - so a big purchase where the individual only normally earns and spends small amounts is clearly going to attract more attention. 

In this case, some solicitors might well go overboard in wanting to trace the money back to the year dot... but in reality, if you can demonstrate that a persons outgoings have been below their income for a decent period, not to mention that their income was greater in the past, and also that there have been no unusually large deposits into that person's accounts in the last year or so, then realistically you have done your job in establishing that that financial crime is not at play here.

Part of the problem is that some solicitors - as I have said - take an overly CYA attitude to these checks, and a lot of this stems from the fact that they are small firms without the more sophisticated knowledge of KYC that you'd get at larger banks and FS firms.

The OP might find that they'd get an easier time if they used a conveyancer that outsources these checks to one of the third party KYC vendors to do on their behalf - typically they have a better grasp of how this can be handled.

user1977

artyboy said:

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

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 it's the *only* explanation. There must be some factor that's being missed that explains why your situtation is different and causing the problems. 

jnorth55 said:

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.

That could have been useful to mention 15 pages ago. I'm sure it had been suggested a few times and wasn't clarified. 

But that on its checks do often own shouldn't be an issue; lots of people retire early and live frugally with what looks like disproportionate amounts of savings.  "Held some senior posts in a businesses before going self employed and retiring to live off of savings" sounds completely normal. 

AML checks do generally scrutinise transactions that are outside the norm of the individual making them - so a big purchase where the individual only normally earns and spends small amounts is clearly going to attract more attention. 

I wouldn't expect a "normal" solicitor to bat an eyelid at a client of...mature age with a six figure sum in their savings account, especially once they've verified that they've held it for years. Perfectly normal to expect somebody to have accumulated savings, capital gain on previous properties, inheritances etc. Exactly how they acquired it all isn't of great concern if that was decades ago.

A 20 year old student turning up with half a million in their account will warrant more investigation...

jnorth55

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

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 it's the *only* explanation. There must be some factor that's being missed that explains why your situtation is different and causing the problems. 

jnorth55 said:

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.

That could have been useful to mention 15 pages ago. I'm sure it had been suggested a few times and wasn't clarified. 

But that on it's own shouldn't be an issue; lots of people retire early and live frugally with what looks like disproportionate amounts of savings.  "Held some senior posts in a businesses before going self employed and retiring to live off of savings" sounds completely normal. 

I did mention some of that but the point is it shouldn't matter as, as stated, I wanted to use savings that I'd had for some decades for this purchase & it was the 'proof of source' of those that are causing the issue, NOT anything to do with proof I have of all financial activity since then. 

I agree that, on paper, there isn't anything in my circumstances that should be an issue, which is my entire point; there's nothing in the guidance around AML that assist the client when something like this comes up. It is, as some have said, down to trying different solicitors, which is a sign that the system isn't working as it should in those instances. 

jnorth55

silvercar said:

I wonder if you are interpreting ‘source of funds’ too literally. Most people with large savings accumulated over years would just say that. “This is my savings account that I have been saving in with excess income from year dot when I had a lucrative career”. Is it you that is interpreting it too literally? Maybe you are answering with ‘I can’t prove where the money came from because I haven’t kept records longer than 7 years and so I can’t show you where the money came from’. Can you see how the former is going to sound more convincing than the latter?

This has already been discussed repeatedly. It isn't about my interpretation of 'source of funds' but how I have been told by more than one solicitor they interpret it. This is now a long thread so I'm sure people can't sometimes read through all the replies, but it's as long as it is partly because some people have asked the same questions that have already been answered or ones that have nothing to do with the situation. 

jnorth55

artyboy said:

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

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 it's the *only* explanation. There must be some factor that's being missed that explains why your situtation is different and causing the problems. 

jnorth55 said:

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.

That could have been useful to mention 15 pages ago. I'm sure it had been suggested a few times and wasn't clarified. 

But that on its checks do often own shouldn't be an issue; lots of people retire early and live frugally with what looks like disproportionate amounts of savings.  "Held some senior posts in a businesses before going self employed and retiring to live off of savings" sounds completely normal. 

AML checks do generally scrutinise transactions that are outside the norm of the individual making them - so a big purchase where the individual only normally earns and spends small amounts is clearly going to attract more attention. 

In this case, some solicitors might well go overboard in wanting to trace the money back to the year dot... but in reality, if you can demonstrate that a persons outgoings have been below their income for a decent period, not to mention that their income was greater in the past, and also that there have been no unusually large deposits into that person's accounts in the last year or so, then realistically you have done your job in establishing that that financial crime is not at play here.

Part of the problem is that some solicitors - as I have said - take an overly CYA attitude to these checks, and a lot of this stems from the fact that they are small firms without the more sophisticated knowledge of KYC that you'd get at larger banks and FS firms.

The OP might find that they'd get an easier time if they used a conveyancer that outsources these checks to one of the third party KYC vendors to do on their behalf - typically they have a better grasp of how this can be handled.

I have no idea how to find a conveyancer who specifically does that. I mentioned already that one solution for people with different circumstances would be if the checks could be done prior to actually instructing a solicitor in a potential purchase. It could be a service firms offer outside of the rest of the purchase process.

Again, as already mentioned, the frustration includes that I don't even seem to have got to the point of the checks been done, as once the 'proof of source...' is requested, in the form of documents, & I explain the initial source goes back decades & therefore I can't get copies of them, that is when the firms say they're not interested. 

Herzlos

jnorth55 said:

I did mention some of that but the point is it shouldn't matter as, as stated, I wanted to use savings that I'd had for some decades for this purchase & it was the 'proof of source' of those that are causing the issue, NOT anything to do with proof I have of all financial activity since then. 

I agree that, on paper, there isn't anything in my circumstances that should be an issue, which is my entire point; there's nothing in the guidance around AML that assist the client when something like this comes up. It is, as some have said, down to trying different solicitors, which is a sign that the system isn't working as it should in those instances. 

I agree that it shouldn't matter, but it does, which is why you're here and we're trying to figure out what is causing it to matter. 

What is the exact reason the solicitors have told you they need these extra checks? I can't imagine they'd give ask for that level of detail without an explanation. 

How are you describing your situtation to them? How are you describing the jobs you've had?

I can see a difference between:

"I had a senior position at a widget manufacturing company in the 80's and then started my own widget company before semi-retiring in the 90's with considerable savings"

and

"I worked for a taxi company in the 80's and then ran my own taxi company until the 90's before retiring with considerable savings". 

Purely because in some (all) areas, taxi companies were notorious for being fronts for drug dealing and laundering at the time. Ditto ice cream vans. 

I wonder if adding a dodgy sounding industry into the mix is putting you over a suspicion threshold. 

EssexHebridean

jnorth55 said:

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'. <snip>

What people are actually saying is that "the impression is being given that there is something else going on". 

The problem is that

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. 

That's the issue right there, I suspect. Several of us have already tried to explain that when that question is asked, you need to simply provide the basics - 6 months statements from the account(s) in question. Don't give "detailed information" - don't get bogged down in what you don't have, focus on what you do, and present it with no further embellishment or embroidery, no matter how tempting that might be, or how "helpful" you think you're being. It may not be that on the face of it "it looks like something is going on", it might be  that you're creating a situation where it appears you're trying to hide something, and THAT is what is causing the problem. As someone else said above, most solicitors will take the view that not getting bogged down in unnecessary stuff is the ideal, and so they aren't going to be trying to investigate things that don't need investigating.

Again - it's not that the system doesn't work - it's that for pretty much everyone, the system DOES work. There is a good old phrase about "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" - a system that works for literally almost everyone, as I said earlier I'd estimate 99.999% of people, isn't broken. In almost every case when someone can't get through proof of funds it's for one of two reasons - either that they are indeed up to something shady - or that they are giving the impression that they are up to something shady. For clarity - and to avoid further personal accusations - I am suggesting that you fall under the second of those. 

jnorth55

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

I did mention some of that but the point is it shouldn't matter as, as stated, I wanted to use savings that I'd had for some decades for this purchase & it was the 'proof of source' of those that are causing the issue, NOT anything to do with proof I have of all financial activity since then. 

I agree that, on paper, there isn't anything in my circumstances that should be an issue, which is my entire point; there's nothing in the guidance around AML that assist the client when something like this comes up. It is, as some have said, down to trying different solicitors, which is a sign that the system isn't working as it should in those instances. 

I agree that it shouldn't matter, but it does, which is why you're here and we're trying to figure out what is causing it to matter. 

What is the exact reason the solicitors have told you they need these extra checks? I can't imagine they'd give ask for that level of detail without an explanation. 

How are you describing your situtation to them? How are you describing the jobs you've had?

I can see a difference between:

"I had a senior position at a widget manufacturing company in the 80's and then started my own widget company before semi-retiring in the 90's with considerable savings"

and

"I worked for a taxi company in the 80's and then ran my own taxi company until the 90's before retiring with considerable savings". 

Purely because in some (all) areas, taxi companies were notorious for being fronts for drug dealing and laundering at the time. Ditto ice cream vans. 

I wonder if adding a dodgy sounding industry into the mix is putting you over a suspicion threshold. 

Herzlos said:

jnorth55 said:

I did mention some of that but the point is it shouldn't matter as, as stated, I wanted to use savings that I'd had for some decades for this purchase & it was the 'proof of source' of those that are causing the issue, NOT anything to do with proof I have of all financial activity since then. 

I agree that, on paper, there isn't anything in my circumstances that should be an issue, which is my entire point; there's nothing in the guidance around AML that assist the client when something like this comes up. It is, as some have said, down to trying different solicitors, which is a sign that the system isn't working as it should in those instances. 

I agree that it shouldn't matter, but it does, which is why you're here and we're trying to figure out what is causing it to matter. 

What is the exact reason the solicitors have told you they need these extra checks? I can't imagine they'd give ask for that level of detail without an explanation. 

How are you describing your situtation to them? How are you describing the jobs you've had?

I can see a difference between:

"I had a senior position at a widget manufacturing company in the 80's and then started my own widget company before semi-retiring in the 90's with considerable savings"

and

"I worked for a taxi company in the 80's and then ran my own taxi company until the 90's before retiring with considerable savings". 

Purely because in some (all) areas, taxi companies were notorious for being fronts for drug dealing and laundering at the time. Ditto ice cream vans. 

I wonder if adding a dodgy sounding industry into the mix is putting you over a suspicion threshold. 

I have already answered all of those questions! I'll do it again;

I have been asked for proof of source of funds in terms of documents showing how the money was earned & where it enters accounts. As the savings are older than I, reasonably, kept records that is the issue. 

I haven't even got to the point of describing the jobs I had etc. Only one solicitor actually bothered to speak to me & although that was to let me know they couldn't act without said documents when I explained in more detail they had nothing to say. I explained the industry & the positions I had within it, including the names of the companies, & details of the company I ran.