when to prove deposit?

merkat1

Hi guys,

i've asked a few questions before and everyone has always been very helpful, so here's my next one...

we are saving for our first house atm and dream house has come on the market we have £19k deposit and we hope to get the property for £160k (if after our 2nd viewing with parents we still want to put an offer in)

This would obviously mean getting a 90% mortgage, the best one i have found is the 5.45% post office mortgage fixed 2 years which would make our repayments £896pm

However in 3 months time we would have just enough for an 85% mortgage (24K deposit), the best one i have found is post office fixed 2 year at 4.29% making my repayments £745pm

As you can see its quite a difference per month but the question is, when in proceedings do you have to prove your deposit?

Ideally i would like to be able to borrow the 5k off a family member and would be able to pay that back in 3 months but im not sure anyone would have that spare.

Other option i looked into would be borrowing the money (ie a loan) but we have no debt and didnt really want to go down that road incase is effected our credit rating!?

Hope i can get some advice...thanks x

Pincher

Anything that you do with the intention to circumvent the anti-laundering rules is by definition money laundering.

Get your relatives to buy you some Premium Bonds.
This kind of thing used to be popular with grannies.
No doubt some spoilsport bureaucrat has decided to
return granny's cheque because the cheque must be in the name
of the Bondholder, due to anti-laundering etc.

merkat1

so your relatives can't lend you money?! is that counted as laundering?

Pincher

I don't know that they return granny's cheque,
I'm just saying it seems to have dwindled in popularity.

Any money movement that the Revenue considers having the "intention" of evasion is potentially money laundering, until you give a convincing argument otherwise.

The best thing is to not raise their suspicion in the first place. I know somebody who lost his business because one single incoming item was not accounted for, and the Revenue decided to charge tax on an "estimated" trading volume, which basicaly wiped him out. Fortunately the wife had a good stash elsewhere, but who wears the trousers now?

Cool_man

thumps up for your article, great post...