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

Jude57

jnorth55 said:

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. 

You seriously can't find a firm of solicitors who would give you an appointment with a senior partner to discuss property issues? You don't need to go into detail about the nature of the issues at the initial point of contact, just make an appointment. I'm free this afternoon so as an exercise, I've just rung two random firms in my city and neither asked for much beyond what I told them, which was that I had property issues I wished to discuss. I didn't actually make appointments but I certainly could have. It's my experience that, if you can afford to pay for the time of a senior member of the firm, reception staff, secretaries and assistants won't probe into your business too far at that point.  If local solicitors won't even allow you to do that, there's either something else at play which you deny there is, or your local solicitors don't want potentially lucrative business.

Edited to add that I looked at the firms online, found out the name of the senior partner who specialises in property matters and asked for an appointment with them by name. 

jnorth55

Jude57 said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

You seriously can't find a firm of solicitors who would give you an appointment with a senior partner to discuss property issues? You don't need to go into detail about the nature of the issues at the initial point of contact, just make an appointment. I'm free this afternoon so as an exercise, I've just rung two random firms in my city and neither asked for much beyond what I told them, which was that I had property issues I wished to discuss. I didn't actually make appointments but I certainly could have. It's my experience that, if you can afford to pay for the time of a senior member of the firm, reception staff, secretaries and assistants won't probe into your business too far at that point.  If local solicitors won't even allow you to do that, there's either something else at play which you deny there is, or your local solicitors don't want potentially lucrative business.

I didn't even know you could do that. I though you meant as part of the process when someone has or is instructing a solicitor. I've only dealt with the conveyancing departments of firms. I'll try what you have suggested but it is frustrating that the actual issue is obviously not a reasonable demand from solicitors & anyone would have to go through yet more processes, when all it would take was for the guidance to be less vague or at least give more details on long standing savings etc. 

noitsnotme

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

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.

You should have! a statement printed out is not accepted for any form of identification or proof based process. Think about it. If the AML checks are there to weed out ML's why would any solicitor think a statement printed out by the client is valid.

All mine were printed. I downloaded PDF statements from my banks and printed them on my trusty 20 year old Brother B&W printer. Stapled them and handed them over.

This does rather indicate that the system isn't fit for purpose on another issue then, as if the client can print off the statements & there isn't any corroboration process then they could easily be altered. 

How do they corroborate traditional bank statements that have been sent in the post?  Any 12 year old with a computer and a printer could produce something that looks exactly like a statement posted out by a bank.

Impossible, as they are printed by different types of printer & are on official paper. 

Even if that's true, do you think a solicitor knows what this special paper looks and feels like?  This thread needs locking, it's gotten beyond ridiculous.

*edited - because I don't want to end up on the naughty step!

user1977

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

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.

You should have! a statement printed out is not accepted for any form of identification or proof based process. Think about it. If the AML checks are there to weed out ML's why would any solicitor think a statement printed out by the client is valid.

All mine were printed. I downloaded PDF statements from my banks and printed them on my trusty 20 year old Brother B&W printer. Stapled them and handed them over.

This does rather indicate that the system isn't fit for purpose on another issue then, as if the client can print off the statements & there isn't any corroboration process then they could easily be altered. 

How do they corroborate traditional bank statements that have been sent in the post?  Any 12 year old with a computer and a printer could produce something that looks exactly like a statement posted out by a bank.

Impossible, as they are printed by different types of printer & are on official paper. 

Entirely possible as in many cases the postal statements are identical to the downloadable pdfs and are not printed on some special type of printer or paper. In practice I'd expect solicitors to be pragmatic on this point, and in any event they're hardly likely to know whether Trumptonshire Building Society have a special watermark on their statements.

user1977

monkey-fingers said:

I'm actually surprised we don't have solicitors on this forum.

We certainly do. Who said we don't?

jnorth55

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

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.

You should have! a statement printed out is not accepted for any form of identification or proof based process. Think about it. If the AML checks are there to weed out ML's why would any solicitor think a statement printed out by the client is valid.

All mine were printed. I downloaded PDF statements from my banks and printed them on my trusty 20 year old Brother B&W printer. Stapled them and handed them over.

This does rather indicate that the system isn't fit for purpose on another issue then, as if the client can print off the statements & there isn't any corroboration process then they could easily be altered. 

How do they corroborate traditional bank statements that have been sent in the post?  Any 12 year old with a computer and a printer could produce something that looks exactly like a statement posted out by a bank.

Impossible, as they are printed by different types of printer & are on official paper. 

Entirely possible as in many cases the postal statements are identical to the downloadable pdfs and are not printed on some special type of printer or paper. In practice I'd expect solicitors to be pragmatic on this point, and in any event they're hardly likely to know whether Trumptonshire Building Society have a special watermark on their statements.

The guidance states that print-outs are not usually acceptable, though it is at the discretion of individual firms. I don't know which banks you use but all the statements I have are clearly not printed on the sort of printers people tend to have & they're not on normal printer paper. It could be that you don't know much about the difference but if you really think the financial institutions you use sends official documents using the same paper & printing process that anyone can then I'd suggest changing your bank! 

jnorth55

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

jnorth55 said:

Chief_of_Staffy said:

jnorth55 said:

noitsnotme said:

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.

You should have! a statement printed out is not accepted for any form of identification or proof based process. Think about it. If the AML checks are there to weed out ML's why would any solicitor think a statement printed out by the client is valid.

All mine were printed. I downloaded PDF statements from my banks and printed them on my trusty 20 year old Brother B&W printer. Stapled them and handed them over.

This does rather indicate that the system isn't fit for purpose on another issue then, as if the client can print off the statements & there isn't any corroboration process then they could easily be altered. 

How do they corroborate traditional bank statements that have been sent in the post?  Any 12 year old with a computer and a printer could produce something that looks exactly like a statement posted out by a bank.

Impossible, as they are printed by different types of printer & are on official paper. 

Even if that's true, do you think a solicitor knows what this special paper looks and feels like?  This thread needs locking, it's gotten beyond ridiculous.

*edited - because I don't want to end up on the naughty step!

If a solicitor can't tell the difference of an official document & a print-out that would use a totally different type of printing then they shouldn't be a solicitor.

Grumpy_chap

I wonder whether the OP's communication is in any way contributory to the issues that have been experienced.

Whether the OP realises it or not, their tone in this thread often comes across as combative and evasive.

If the same manner is used when dealing with Conveyancing Solicitors that may be the very thing that is causing the Solicitors to dig deeper to complete the KYC and AML checks.

Herzlos

jnorth55 said:

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. 

We know that part. What we still don't know is what I asked you:

"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. "

No solicitor would have asked you for such an unusual request without accompanying it with a justification, and I can't believe you didn't ask "why?".

What exactly did they say?

fistfulofsteel

OP, are you neurodivergent? This whole thread reads like an ND person frustratedly seeking clarity over a process that doesn't have black and white rules and neurotypical people getting angry because they think the communication style is wrong.