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

jnorth55

EssexHebridean 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'. <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. 

THAT is not what is causing the issue. I have only given more detail when I have been asked by the solicitor for documents going back decades. I've already explained this repeatedly. I've tried just saying that I no longer have them because of the number of years. I've also tried just sending a few months of statements or saying 'savings acquired through employment over decades'. I have not created a situation where I am trying to hide anything & the fact that you say that is again you gaslighting. I'm not trying to hide anything because I have nothing to hide. The only thing I don't have is the documents showing the source of the income from decades ago. 

If you can explain, without further gaslighting, how anyone can respond to a solicitor asking for documents such as proof of wages from decades ago without saying 'I no longer have those' do let me know. You won't understand the situation if you keep jumping to conclusions. 

EssexHebridean

There is literally no gaslighting happening - people are trying to help you, and yet you are just levelling false accusations at them. Taking someone's own comments and responding to them is NOT gaslighting them. 

Someone suggested very early in the thread that you provided suitably redacted images of the communications you have received from the various solicitors you are have run into problems with. That might help people to understand what precisely is leading to these almost unheard of requests for information that nobody could ever expect you to have retained.  By "suitably redacted" I mean with not only your identifying information being removed, but also that of the firms/fee earners involved.

noitsnotme

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

There is literally no gaslighting happening - people are trying to help you, and yet you are just levelling false accusations at them. Taking someone's own comments and responding to them is NOT gaslighting them. 

Someone suggested very early in the thread that you provided suitably redacted images of the communications you have received from the various solicitors you are have run into problems with. That might help people to understand what precisely is leading to these almost unheard of requests for information that nobody could ever expect you to have retained.  By "suitably redacted" I mean with not only your identifying information being removed, but also that of the firms/fee earners involved.

I think you need to look up what gaslighting is because you are doing that. 

I don't remember anyone asking for redacted images but as I have explained the most recent solicitor talked to me rather then send any emails etc.  I have explained, repeatedly, the one thing I was asked to supply that I couldn't yet you continue to imply various other things. 

Jude57

jnorth55 said:

EssexHebridean said:

There is literally no gaslighting happening - people are trying to help you, and yet you are just levelling false accusations at them. Taking someone's own comments and responding to them is NOT gaslighting them. 

Someone suggested very early in the thread that you provided suitably redacted images of the communications you have received from the various solicitors you are have run into problems with. That might help people to understand what precisely is leading to these almost unheard of requests for information that nobody could ever expect you to have retained.  By "suitably redacted" I mean with not only your identifying information being removed, but also that of the firms/fee earners involved.

I think you need to look up what gaslighting is because you are doing that. 

I don't remember anyone asking for redacted images but as I have explained the most recent solicitor talked to me rather then send any emails etc.  I have explained, repeatedly, the one thing I was asked to supply that I couldn't yet you continue to imply various other things. 

As you're making much of only one solicitor actually speaking to you, I have to think, as an earlier poster said, that you're being declined service by a more junior (though authorised by the firm) employee in at least some instances. You don't seem to have stated how many different firms you've approached but I'm assuming it's at least two. In that case, I'd be making an appointment to meet, in person, a senior partner of the chosen firm. I'd take whatever documentary evidence I had and would explain the situation face to face. Yes, the meeting will cost you a senior partner hourly rate but surely that's a small price to pay to either resolve the issue or finally get clarity on what, if anything, is so unusual about your circumstances that solicitors aren't willing to act for you.

jnorth55

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

Indeed & I'm not suggesting that a new system is set up. One suggestion that I mentioned is simply to have the AML check process available as a separate service that can be done prior to putting in offers etc. 

What I find odd about some of the comments is that in other areas we wouldn't tolerate a system that works like this, at least not one without some kinds of process for ensuring people who get stuck in the cracks aren't simply ignored. 

On the general point I think some people who think this is only a small number of people affected aren't thinking ahead. App only accounts can be hard to get even recent statements from & with more & more people using them as their main account such issues might well increase. 

jnorth55

Jude57 said:

jnorth55 said:

EssexHebridean said:

There is literally no gaslighting happening - people are trying to help you, and yet you are just levelling false accusations at them. Taking someone's own comments and responding to them is NOT gaslighting them. 

Someone suggested very early in the thread that you provided suitably redacted images of the communications you have received from the various solicitors you are have run into problems with. That might help people to understand what precisely is leading to these almost unheard of requests for information that nobody could ever expect you to have retained.  By "suitably redacted" I mean with not only your identifying information being removed, but also that of the firms/fee earners involved.

I think you need to look up what gaslighting is because you are doing that. 

I don't remember anyone asking for redacted images but as I have explained the most recent solicitor talked to me rather then send any emails etc.  I have explained, repeatedly, the one thing I was asked to supply that I couldn't yet you continue to imply various other things. 

As you're making much of only one solicitor actually speaking to you, I have to think, as an earlier poster said, that you're being declined service by a more junior (though authorised by the firm) employee in at least some instances. You don't seem to have stated how many different firms you've approached but I'm assuming it's at least two. In that case, I'd be making an appointment to meet, in person, a senior partner of the chosen firm. I'd take whatever documentary evidence I had and would explain the situation face to face. Yes, the meeting will cost you a senior partner hourly rate but surely that's a small price to pay to either resolve the issue or finally get clarity on what, if anything, is so unusual about your circumstances that solicitors aren't willing to act for you.

I'd certainly do that but I've yet to find a solicitor who would do that. As mentioned it isn't actually about anything 'unusual' because I don't even get to the point of going into any details. 

noitsnotme

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

Indeed & I'm not suggesting that a new system is set up. One suggestion that I mentioned is simply to have the AML check process available as a separate service that can be done prior to putting in offers etc. 

What I find odd about some of the comments is that in other areas we wouldn't tolerate a system that works like this, at least not one without some kinds of process for ensuring people who get stuck in the cracks aren't simply ignored. 

Who is going to pay for that?  Like I said, lobby your MP.  Going round and round in circles with a bunch of strangers on an internet forum is achieving nothing.

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

On the general point I think some people who think this is only a small number of people affected aren't thinking ahead. App only accounts can be hard to get even recent statements from & with more & more people using them as their main account such issues might well increase. 

I've been using app only banking for years (Monzo and Starling).  I've literally just checked on Monzo and can easily retrieve statements from as far back as when I opened account.  If it worries you that much then diarise downloading statements once a year and keep your own digital copies and/or print out your own hard copies.

jnorth55

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

Indeed & I'm not suggesting that a new system is set up. One suggestion that I mentioned is simply to have the AML check process available as a separate service that can be done prior to putting in offers etc. 

What I find odd about some of the comments is that in other areas we wouldn't tolerate a system that works like this, at least not one without some kinds of process for ensuring people who get stuck in the cracks aren't simply ignored. 

Who is going to pay for that?  Like I said, lobby your MP.  Going round and round in circles with a bunch of strangers on an internet forum is achieving nothing.

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

On the general point I think some people who think this is only a small number of people affected aren't thinking ahead. App only accounts can be hard to get even recent statements from & with more & more people using them as their main account such issues might well increase. 

I've been using app only banking for years (Monzo and Starling).  I've literally just checked on Monzo and can easily retrieve statements from as far back as when I opened account.  If it worries you that much then diarise downloading statements once a year and keep your own digital copies and/or print out your own hard copies.

Who is going to pay for that? The client, as they so as part of the whole process already. The only difference is that solicitors could offer it as a standalone service, so that people can do it when they want. That would also speed up the buying process as it reduces delays once offers are in. 

I have no idea why people keep jumping to conclusions or ignoring what has already been said. I have extensive documentation of all accounts etc. going back a number of years. I get statements regularly or download them whilst doing SE returns. 

Why do you assume that I mention the digital account thing for no valid reason? If you look into it you will see that there are a large number of people who have had issues with getting statements from them. You're confusing seeing them in the app & getting physical copies. 

noitsnotme

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

Indeed & I'm not suggesting that a new system is set up. One suggestion that I mentioned is simply to have the AML check process available as a separate service that can be done prior to putting in offers etc. 

What I find odd about some of the comments is that in other areas we wouldn't tolerate a system that works like this, at least not one without some kinds of process for ensuring people who get stuck in the cracks aren't simply ignored. 

Who is going to pay for that?  Like I said, lobby your MP.  Going round and round in circles with a bunch of strangers on an internet forum is achieving nothing.

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

This thread is just going round in circles, from both sides.  The 'system' is not perfect and there will inevitably be some people that fall through the cracks.  Unfortunately no-one is going to spend millions of pounds creating a new system to help what is most probably a very small minority of people.  Lobby your MP, perhaps they will take it further on your behalf.

On the general point I think some people who think this is only a small number of people affected aren't thinking ahead. App only accounts can be hard to get even recent statements from & with more & more people using them as their main account such issues might well increase. 

I've been using app only banking for years (Monzo and Starling).  I've literally just checked on Monzo and can easily retrieve statements from as far back as when I opened account.  If it worries you that much then diarise downloading statements once a year and keep your own digital copies and/or print out your own hard copies.

Who is going to pay for that? The client, as they so as part of the whole process already. The only difference is that solicitors could offer it as a standalone service, so that people can do it when they want. That would also speed up the buying process as it reduces delays once offers are in. 

I have no idea why people keep jumping to conclusions or ignoring what has already been said. I have extensive documentation of all accounts etc. going back a number of years. I get statements regularly or download them whilst doing SE returns. 

Why do you assume that I mention the digital account thing for no valid reason? If you look into it you will see that there are a large number of people who have had issues with getting statements from them. You're confusing seeing them in the app & getting physical copies. 

You brought up the statement issue, not me!  The banks offer certified copies via the apps.  You can get physical copies by downloading from the app and printing them out.  I have NEVER had a problem using these printed out statements with anyone that has needed them, including a solicitor.

What a complete waste of time this thread is.