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

EssexHebridean

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!

It is actually usually possible to detect pretty much immediately whether a statement you are being handed is a posted one or not, but it’s not anything to do with the paper as such. Far more simply, the posted ones are almost always folded in a sharp crease (because they’ve been done by machine, not by hand) and they are also usually less “pristine” than ones that have been printed out by the account holder. Not the most technical approach in the world, but it gives you enough of a solid base to be able to say “You’ve printed these from your online banking haven’t you” with sufficient conviction that if they have been, the person usually just says “yes” without trying to deny it further. 😂

user1977

jnorth55 said:

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.

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! 

Why? There's no particular requirement for them to use special paper or printers. I'm looking at various examples now (including for example from the Nationwide) and they appear to be on standard A4 paper and churned out by a colour laser printer.

noitsnotme

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

I was trying to come up with a way of saying this without incurring the wrath of the forum admin.  You’ve covered it nicely.  The common denominator is the OP.

noitsnotme

EssexHebridean said:

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!

It is actually usually possible to detect pretty much immediately whether a statement you are being handed is a posted one or not, but it’s not anything to do with the paper as such. Far more simply, the posted ones are almost always folded in a sharp crease (because they’ve been done by machine, not by hand) and they are also usually less “pristine” than ones that have been printed out by the account holder. Not the most technical approach in the world, but it gives you enough of a solid base to be able to say “You’ve printed these from your online banking haven’t you” with sufficient conviction that if they have been, the person usually just says “yes” without trying to deny it further. 😂

The point I was making to the OP is that if anyone really wanted to fake a proper bank statement, it wouldn’t be that difficult.

Ive just looked at some real bank statements that were received in the post and there is nothing at all special about the paper they are printed on.  It’s just standard paper printed on by a laser jet printer, as described by the poster above.

I’m not sure if the OP is just deliberately trying to wind everyone up or is just imagining issues that don’t actually exist.

Myci85

fistfulofsteel said:

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.

I've been wondering the same thing. 

artyboy

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!

Seconded.

if this situation were really so endemically bad across the industry as the OP is implying, the start-up I'm working with would already have £billions of contracts.

More's the pity, it doesn't.

jnorth55

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

This was actually said in another reply. My 'tone' has been in response to people replying with insults of gaslighting. This is a forum & of course its a different situation that dealing with a solicitor someone wants to act for them. Again, as already mentioned several times, I haven't even had the chance to speak to the ones I'm referencing anyway. Only one actually arranged a phone call & that was when they asked about proof of source of income & said they'd require documents showing the initial source of the savings. I then explained, as anyone would - no 'tone' - about when they were acquired & that I didn't have documents going back that far. There wasn't much else said. I didn't express any frustration or question the system to them of course. 

Obviously i'm not going to give too much personal info on here, especially given some of the insults I've already received, but I admin various forums connected to the industry I work in & they're known for being respectful spaces because the admins kick out people who gaslight. 

jnorth55

Herzlos said:

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?

I have replied to questions like this already, but I'll try again. 

I go through the process to instruct a solicitor & they ask the usual questions about details of property & whether I'm using a mortgage or not. When I say I'm a cash buyer they tell me what they need is proof of source of income. As I have already said the first time this happened, more than 5 years ago, I sent recent statements showing that, in effect, the savings had been sat in accounts for awhile & explained that the savings were acquired decades ago from wages & the other sources mentioned in the initial post. The first firm just replied saying without proof of source of income they wouldn't act & advised that the AML checks required that in all instances. The most recent example, which prompted this thread, the firm did arrange a phone call with me & more or less asked the same questions. I've explained what they said in another reply today. 

jnorth55

fistfulofsteel said:

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.

! I have no idea why this forum allows this kind of comment. Your showing your prejudice there. If someone is ND they deserve respect & not to have their ND used as an explanation of why some people have thrown insults at them or repeatedly questioned what they have said. I'm not as it happens, but there's no way I'd recommend this forum to anyone who is. I work with ND people on a regular basis. 

jnorth55

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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.

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! 

Why? There's no particular requirement for them to use special paper or printers. I'm looking at various examples now (including for example from the Nationwide) and they appear to be on standard A4 paper and churned out by a colour laser printer.

Why? Not sure how to reply to that but if you're ok with an official document being the same as one anyone can print off themselves then that's up to you. The guidance this thread is about states that print-outs are not acceptable unless certified, which usually means having each page stamped by your bank. Whether some firms do that or not shows that the system is down to luck & I simply think that's an issue, both for legit folks & in how it weeds out others.