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

user1977

jnorth55 said:

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, wuldn'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. 

All that's likely to do is push up the costs for everyone, as well as slow things down for the vast majority of cases where there isn't any significant enquiry required.

jnorth55

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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, wuldn'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. 

All that's likely to do is push up the costs for everyone, as well as slow things down for the vast majority of cases where there isn't any significant enquiry required.

It should do the opposite. Solicitors often take several weeks even for simple checks whereas if there was an online system that, at least, checked the information held by various official departments & banking to verify some level of stable standing it should take minutes & not cost much at all. The system as it stands simply isn't keeping up with changes in banking or how people will build up or access documents going forward. 

silvercar

We helped each of our kids with a deposit in 2022 and again in 2024, different solicitors. Both required proof of funds, but showing savings account balances that had existed for over a year with the statement that funds had accumulated over savings over many years was enough proof of funds. We also had to provide proof of ID and address and that we had taken independent legal advice on the consequences of gifting a deposit. It wasn’t complicated.

user1977

jnorth55 said:

user1977 said:

jnorth55 said:

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, wuldn'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. 

All that's likely to do is push up the costs for everyone, as well as slow things down for the vast majority of cases where there isn't any significant enquiry required.

if there was an online system that, at least, checked the information held by various official departments & banking to verify some level of stable standing it should take minutes & not cost much at all.

Who's setting that up and at what cost?

Bear in mind that many financial institutions have enough trouble getting their own legacy systems talking to each other, never mind creating some online way to extract current and past accounts from everywhere (and verify that it's the same jnorth55 who held all those accounts and is the same one the current enquiry is about).

BungalowBel

We also helped our son with a deposit.  The receptionist at the solicitors demanded proof of funds.  They were from an inheritance, and I had moved money around from the original bank account (so that it was now spread over several accounts). Plus I had spent some.  I showed her the bank account with the required amount of money in it, plus a solicitor's letter showing that I had received an inheritance, plus my a copy of  my aunt's will also stating this.  She still said it wasn't enough as I couldn't provide a 'paper trail' of the money's movements from the day it originally went into the account, a couple of years previously. 

I told her to ask the solicitor themselves  if it was enough.  It was.

So make sure you are talking to someone high enough to make their own decisions and not just work from a set of rules.

Elliott.T123

I have bought multiple houses with large amounts of cash, some coming as a gift from others, some coming as an inheritance and some from a sale of a partners house.

Every single time with 3 different solicitors a bank statement showing the funds in an account for 6 months has been enough evidence.

Either:
1. You are the unluckiest person ever and have managed to find the most picky solicitors in the country
2. There is something about your situation that flags with solicitors making you high risk (I know you have said there isn't but there may be something you are missing)

The system works fine for 99% of people you show a bank statement showing the funds have been in there for a while and everyone is happy and moves on.

Get a recommendation from a friend or family member who has moved house and used a solicitor that didn't require 30 years of paperwork and use them.

Keep_pedalling

This does not reflect my experience at all. We had to provide proof of funds for substantial deposits we gifted to our children for house purposes, and all we had to do was provide statements from or S&Ss ISA prior to the gifts and one from our current account showing the amount transferred from those ISAs and the payments going to our children.

Last year we downsized and when we put an offer in on a bungalow before our house was on on the market market we did so as cash buyers because we thought there was a risk that that the offer would not be excepted otherwise. Again all we had to do was provide statements from our ISAs. These were recent statements but  did contain dates individual funds were purchased. We were never asked the origin of the money which would have been a combination of saving and inheritance. 

As it turned out we sold our house within 5 days of going on the market to a cash buyer who again had no problem in providing proof of funds. 

eddddy

jnorth55 said:

It should do the opposite. Solicitors often take several weeks even for simple checks whereas if there was an online system that, at least, checked the information held by various official departments & banking to verify some level of stable standing it should take minutes & not cost much at all. The system as it stands simply isn't keeping up with changes in banking or how people will build up or access documents going forward. 

A number of companies offer online systems to solicitors which have "open banking" integration for AML checking.

In simple terms, with the client's consent, the solicitor can 'log in' to the clients bank account and view transactions, download details, etc.


But HMRC don't provide any interface for accessing PAYE and/or company tax information - so it's not possible to give solicitors online access to that.

(Maybe that could happen in the future if credit card companies, loan companies, credit reference agencies etc fund the development costs - because that capability would be useful for them.

Then solicitors could also use that service, with their clients' consent, but they might be charged high fees, which would increase the cost of AML checking for their clients.)


As for wage slips, it's hard to imagine a service where every employer in the country uploads wage slip information into a centralised database.


But if it did all come together, I guess AI based systems could then analyse all the info gathered about a client, to decide whether the client passes the AML checks, or whether further investigation is needed.

silvercar

Keep_pedalling said:

This does not reflect my experience at all. We had to provide proof of funds for substantial deposits we gifted to our children for house purposes, and all we had to do was provide statements from or S&Ss ISA prior to the gifts and one from our current account showing the amount transferred from those ISAs and the payments going to our children.

Last year we downsized and when we put an offer in on a bungalow before our house was on on the market market we did so as cash buyers because we thought there was a risk that that the offer would not be excepted otherwise. Again all we had to do was provide statements from our ISAs. These were recent statements but  did contain dates individual funds were purchased. We were never asked the origin of the money which would have been a combination of saving and inheritance. 

As it turned out we sold our house within 5 days of going on the market to a cash buyer who again had no problem in providing proof of funds. 

We paid the solicitor direct. So different solicitors do have different systems. In fact, in both cases, they were happy as long as the money came from accounts in our name(s); they didn't even need to be the account that we showed as proof of funds. Of course, this does open the risk that the actual money used wasn't from a verified source, but neither solicitor seemed too bothered as long as it was an account in our name.

Herzlos

Since this came up 5 years ago, I'm assuming that you kept bank statements since to show that the money in your savings has been there for at least 5 years now? Are they saying that is insuffient and they need you to prove that you were paid it by a now-defunct company from the 80's? 

Is there anything unusual about where the money is? It's too old for Crypto, but is it offshore or in some unconventional saving/investment mechanism?

It seems pretty unreasonable they'd need to go back further than records are kept (6 years) for something as mundane as, say, £100k in an ISA or Premium Bonds.