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

jnorth55

EssexHebridean said:

noitsnotme said:

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.

Yes - I got that, and inadvertently I may have helped anyone who wants to to create a slightly better fake than they otherwise could!  

Unsurprisingly I see a fair amount of other people's bank statements - although very rarely my own these days, and while there are sometimes odd differences, yes, generally speaking, it's pretty standard paper (ironically enough quite a few organisations actually use a lower grade paper than most of us would feed into our own home printers) and the sort of print that you can get from any standard but high-end printer. It's not like banknote printing where the paper AND print processes were always quite different from anything you could easily recreate yourself. 

Misinformation isn't helpful. If you don't know about print processes I have no idea why you are trying to sidetrack this thread by talking about them. Ink jet & laser are very different from matrix. As for paper stock, which is an area I work with, there are differences between normal stock & that supplied to large financial institutions for their official correspondence. If some solicitors are ok with print out that are easily altered & some stick to the guidance, and common sense, then that is another indication that the system isn't working as it should. Which gets back to the point of this thread. If you are saying a print-out via the client, which can be altered, is ok but being honest & saying for valid reasons that even fit with guidance on financial documents prior to the introduction of AML checks, that you don't have old documents should be seen as less valid then what does that say about the system?