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

Martico

jnorth55 said:

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.  

In cash, rather than bank accounts? If so, then there's bound to be more scrutiny. If not, and it's been in savings accounts, then it strikes me as possible overkill by the solicitors

user1977

jnorth55 said:

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. 

But some of us have professional involvement in the "system" and it isn't ringing any bells as a typical issue. It's utterly routine for six-figure sums to be produced to solicitors for purchases (often from "the bank of mum & dad"), and it would be ridiculous for solicitors to be expecting proof of funds going back decades. So while I don't particularly doubt the veracity of what you're saying here, it sounds very very odd and doesn't demonstrate a general problem with the "system".

jnorth55

Martico said:

jnorth55 said:

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.  

In cash, rather than bank accounts? If so, then there's bound to be more scrutiny. If not, and it's been in savings accounts, then it strikes me as possible overkill by the solicitors

In accounts not cash.

fwor

jnorth55 said:

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. 

You misunderstand what I said completely. I was NOT saying that you have something to hide. What I was suggesting is that it's your reaction to their request for information that could be generating suspicion - because you seem to them to be overreacting?

jnorth55

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

But some of us have professional involvement in the "system" and it isn't ringing any bells as a typical issue. It's utterly routine for six-figure sums to be produced to solicitors for purchases (often from "the bank of mum & dad"), and it would be ridiculous for solicitors to be expecting proof of funds going back decades. So while I don't particularly doubt the veracity of what you're saying here, it sounds very very odd and doesn't demonstrate a general problem with the "system".

OK, but it does happen. I've kept various details of other examples & have also had some solicitors tell me that they have had the same issue with other clients. Some have sounded understanding & others, to be frank, not so much. 

Given that it can cause delays also, especially if a buyer has to try different solicitors, wouldn't it be an idea to have a system that someone could use to go through the checks before putting a bid in or getting a solicitor involved. 

jnorth55

fwor said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

You misunderstand what I said completely. I was NOT saying that you have something to hide. What I was suggesting is that it's your reaction to their request for information that could be generating suspicion - because you seem to them to be overreacting?

I haven't mentioned anything at all about my reaction to any solicitor! So I have no idea why you've jumped to that conclusion. When they ask for proof of funds I give them the extensive documentation I have. When they then ask for proof of source of funds I supply what I have from more recent savings but when they ask for documents from decades ago that is when I have to tell that I don't have those wage slips or bank statements that far back.

user1977

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

But some of us have professional involvement in the "system" and it isn't ringing any bells as a typical issue. It's utterly routine for six-figure sums to be produced to solicitors for purchases (often from "the bank of mum & dad"), and it would be ridiculous for solicitors to be expecting proof of funds going back decades. So while I don't particularly doubt the veracity of what you're saying here, it sounds very very odd and doesn't demonstrate a general problem with the "system".

Given that it can cause delays also, especially if a buyer has to try different solicitors, wouldn't it be an idea to have a system that someone could use to go through the checks before putting a bid in or getting a solicitor involved. 

There's nothing stopping you from checking upfront with solicitors what they'll need. Obviously there's a risk that might itself arouse suspicion, but generally I would expect them to give you a good idea of what evidence they'll require.

Martico

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

But some of us have professional involvement in the "system" and it isn't ringing any bells as a typical issue. It's utterly routine for six-figure sums to be produced to solicitors for purchases (often from "the bank of mum & dad"), and it would be ridiculous for solicitors to be expecting proof of funds going back decades. So while I don't particularly doubt the veracity of what you're saying here, it sounds very very odd and doesn't demonstrate a general problem with the "system".

OK, but it does happen. I've kept various details of other examples & have also had some solicitors tell me that they have had the same issue with other clients. Some have sounded understanding & others, to be frank, not so much. 

Given that it can cause delays also, especially if a buyer has to try different solicitors, wouldn't it be an idea to have a system that someone could use to go through the checks before putting a bid in or getting a solicitor involved. 

As I understand things (not in any way claiming expert knowledge), things are kept slightly vague and at the discretion of solicitors for the reason that a tick-box checklist would provide  crim money launderers with an easy-to-follow road map, so a broad guideline is deemed best

jnorth55

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

But some of us have professional involvement in the "system" and it isn't ringing any bells as a typical issue. It's utterly routine for six-figure sums to be produced to solicitors for purchases (often from "the bank of mum & dad"), and it would be ridiculous for solicitors to be expecting proof of funds going back decades. So while I don't particularly doubt the veracity of what you're saying here, it sounds very very odd and doesn't demonstrate a general problem with the "system".

Given that it can cause delays also, especially if a buyer has to try different solicitors, wouldn't it be an idea to have a system that someone could use to go through the checks before putting a bid in or getting a solicitor involved. 

There's nothing stopping you from checking upfront with solicitors what they'll need. Obviously there's a risk that might itself arouse suspicion, but generally I would expect them to give you a good idea of what evidence they'll require.

I'm not talking about that. Anyone can establish what kind of proof might be requested & should so they can prepare. What I'm talking about is a way for the checks to be done without having to go through the process of getting one solicitor after another involved. A centralised system where all the proof someone has is submitted & any clarification sought if needed & then a certificate of proof is given. 

jnorth55

Martico said:

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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. 

But some of us have professional involvement in the "system" and it isn't ringing any bells as a typical issue. It's utterly routine for six-figure sums to be produced to solicitors for purchases (often from "the bank of mum & dad"), and it would be ridiculous for solicitors to be expecting proof of funds going back decades. So while I don't particularly doubt the veracity of what you're saying here, it sounds very very odd and doesn't demonstrate a general problem with the "system".

OK, but it does happen. I've kept various details of other examples & have also had some solicitors tell me that they have had the same issue with other clients. Some have sounded understanding & others, to be frank, not so much. 

Given that it can cause delays also, especially if a buyer has to try different solicitors, wouldn't it be an idea to have a system that someone could use to go through the checks before putting a bid in or getting a solicitor involved. 

As I understand things (not in any way claiming expert knowledge), things are kept slightly vague and at the discretion of solicitors for the reason that a tick-box checklist would provide  crim money launderers with an easy-to-follow road map, so a broad guideline is deemed best

If that is the reason it's one thought up by someone who thinks such people can't work out ways to fool the system if they want to. Anyway, there is a 'tick box' list as there's all kinds of guidance of what proof is needed. The issue discussed in this thread is about when a solicitor asks for documents that someone doesn't have & had no reason to keep for more than a few years prior to the AML rules came in. 
I guess the issue you're getting at is that there needs to be a system where a solicitor can ask for whatever proof they think they need to, but whilst there are no doubt a vast number of examples where that was the best way to handle things & sales went through without any issues, I am giving an example of what happens when the system doesn't work.