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

itsthelittlethings

jnorth55 said:

itsthelittlethings said:

jnorth55 said:

itsthelittlethings said:

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

Albermarle said:

Brie said:

I think that the problem is that different solicitors may have different ideas about what is required.  It's like banks requiring a passport from someone who never has, nor intends to leave the UK.  

This is the issue, some conveyancers are a bit over keen and others are more pragmatic.

Conveyancers keep telling me that as I can't provide proof of, for example, wage payments decades ago that's a problem

How many conveyancers/solicitors have actually told you that ? One ? Two ? 

To be honest I can't remember the number

So are you saying you have been to several firms of conveyancers and they have all told you that they need a paper trail going back decades? 

If so then you have just been incredibly unlucky, as that sort of absurd request is certainly not typical.

I have really tried to explain. Yes, it is increasingly common for 'proof of source of funds' to be asked for because solicitors don't have set guidance on this. What I'm saying is that there are situations where that isn't possible for quite legitimate reasons but the system doesn't seem to have considered that.

I think you’re misunderstanding what solicitors need to see.

How? I have been told that unless I can prove the source of funds, including the savings I had more than 20 years ago, which is the bulk of said savings, that is a problem. I've been dealing with this for a number of years now. 

You can go back five years or so and that’s not enough for them? And you’ve tried more than one solicitor?

I have repeatedly said yes. 

That does sound a bit much. Is there anything suspicious about your situation?

Martico

Put yourself in their position - is there anything in your financial status as presented to them that you think may be uncertain and so prompt questions? If you were an outsider signing off on yourself with no prior knowledge, would you be satisfied with what's been presented to you?

itsthelittlethings

I think the problem here is perhaps that your have something like 400k in cash which is making them more cautious than if it was a deposit of 40k.

jnorth55

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

itsthelittlethings said:

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

Albermarle said:

Brie said:

I think that the problem is that different solicitors may have different ideas about what is required.  It's like banks requiring a passport from someone who never has, nor intends to leave the UK.  

This is the issue, some conveyancers are a bit over keen and others are more pragmatic.

Conveyancers keep telling me that as I can't provide proof of, for example, wage payments decades ago that's a problem

How many conveyancers/solicitors have actually told you that ? One ? Two ? 

To be honest I can't remember the number

So are you saying you have been to several firms of conveyancers and they have all told you that they need a paper trail going back decades? 

If so then you have just been incredibly unlucky, as that sort of absurd request is certainly not typical.

I have really tried to explain. Yes, it is increasingly common for 'proof of source of funds' to be asked for because solicitors don't have set guidance on this. What I'm saying is that there are situations where that isn't possible for quite legitimate reasons but the system doesn't seem to have considered that.

I think you’re misunderstanding what solicitors need to see.

How? I have been told that unless I can prove the source of funds, including the savings I had more than 20 years ago, which is the bulk of said savings, that is a problem. I've been dealing with this for a number of years now. 

So you've spent the last five years being turned away from multiple firms of solicitors because they are demanding decades' worth of paperwork?

Although we've heard some rather odd stories from others here in the past (e.g. an inheritance triggering a request to see deceased granddad's payslips), I find it hard to believe that there are many solicitors wanting to go back decades for proof of funds. They'd hardly likely to be able to get any work done given how few clients would even have that information, and I can't see anyone relishing going through a thick wad of payslips, bank statements etc.

To be honest I do find the 'I can't believe this' thing doesn't really get this anywhere. I have been dealing with this for more than 5 years & as I said in that older post that I'd forgotten about, its affected my ability to actually look for a property. 

I'll try to explain again one aspects of this; when a solicitor asks how the purchase will be funded & you say cash they all explain that there will have to be proof of funds, of course. Then they ask for proof of the source of funds, no doubt because, unless someone is a multi-millionaire, its less common nowadays. A large percentage of the savings I want to use I had from my time in the industry I mentioned, more than 20 years ago & I don't have all the paperwork going back that far. Again, the daft thing about this & the same thing in other examples is that the AML rules only came in in 2017 & yet people are being asked for documents we used to be advised to shred after 5 or 6 years.

jnorth55

itsthelittlethings said:

jnorth55 said:

itsthelittlethings said:

jnorth55 said:

itsthelittlethings said:

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

Albermarle said:

Brie said:

I think that the problem is that different solicitors may have different ideas about what is required.  It's like banks requiring a passport from someone who never has, nor intends to leave the UK.  

This is the issue, some conveyancers are a bit over keen and others are more pragmatic.

Conveyancers keep telling me that as I can't provide proof of, for example, wage payments decades ago that's a problem

How many conveyancers/solicitors have actually told you that ? One ? Two ? 

To be honest I can't remember the number

So are you saying you have been to several firms of conveyancers and they have all told you that they need a paper trail going back decades? 

If so then you have just been incredibly unlucky, as that sort of absurd request is certainly not typical.

I have really tried to explain. Yes, it is increasingly common for 'proof of source of funds' to be asked for because solicitors don't have set guidance on this. What I'm saying is that there are situations where that isn't possible for quite legitimate reasons but the system doesn't seem to have considered that.

I think you’re misunderstanding what solicitors need to see.

How? I have been told that unless I can prove the source of funds, including the savings I had more than 20 years ago, which is the bulk of said savings, that is a problem. I've been dealing with this for a number of years now. 

You can go back five years or so and that’s not enough for them? And you’ve tried more than one solicitor?

I have repeatedly said yes. 

That does sound a bit much. Is there anything suspicious about your situation?

I do find comments like this actually explain the problem. There the presumption that there might be something suspicious when the cause of that is being asked for documents that not a lot of people would have. 

fwor

I wonder if there is something of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" about this? Given that 5 years ago you posted an almost identical thread about your bad experiences and frustration on the subject, is it possible that the solicitor is sensing this in your responses and misinterpreting it as you having something to hide?

jnorth55

Martico said:

Put yourself in their position - is there anything in your financial status as presented to them that you think may be uncertain and so prompt questions? If you were an outsider signing off on yourself with no prior knowledge, would you be satisfied with what's been presented to you?

Nothing except that I have savings that I've had for decades. That might not be as common as it once was, but it's not unusual.  

jnorth55

itsthelittlethings said:

I think the problem here is perhaps that your have something like 400k in cash which is making them more cautious than if it was a deposit of 40k.

I did say I was talking about a cash purchase. I'm not going to go into how much but it isn't as high as that. Not that that should matter. 

jnorth55

fwor said:

I wonder if there is something of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" about this? Given that 5 years ago you posted an almost identical thread about your bad experiences and frustration on the subject, is it possible that the solicitor is sensing this in your responses and misinterpreting it as you having something to hide?

I really don't know how to reply to this. I'm talking about multiple solicitors & going through the process as normal. I have all the records for more than 10 years for example, but I don't have proof of earnings (wage slips, older bank statements) from 20 or 30 years ago. I have nothing to hide & to be honest I wouldn't even know how to do so. 

jnorth55

Can I ask the people who are replying with 'I don't believe this' or 'Is there anything else going on' to try something; simply, for a minute, accept that what I've said is honest & there's nothing else going on. If you do that you might understand that there is a problem with the system because if anyone is asked for a bank statement or wage slip from more than 10 or 20 years ago it is almost impossible to get a copy & as I mentioned already, the advice used to be to not keep such documents for more than a few years.