Broker advised that banks would not need certified accounts...Banks say they do

arthur_22

My accounts are almost stupidly straightforward which is why I don't use an accountant. I've cheered up at the fact that you guys are surprised that they won't accept the tax returns, so hopefully this means that there is someone out there who will accept the proof I can offer...will have to do some ringing round tomorrow.

I did think this might be a problem which is why I specifically went to two separate mortgage brokers for an initial meeting thingie and asked them both whether I would need certified accounts...and both said no. Humph.

Thrugelmir

GMS wrote: »

Personally I cannot see why HSBC would not take SA302 documentation. You may well be right about them not knowing their own policy!!

There is a considerable difference between a self employed person declaring his income and an accountant certifying the same.

The accountant is in effect giving a rubber stamp to accuracy of the declared figues. The HMRC could at some point in time decide to review the self-declared income going back a number of years. The outcome of such an investigation could raise any number of issues. Resulting in an additional tax liability, interest and penalties.

FD and HSBC are the same Company for lending purposes.

GMS

If you supplied full accounts to the lender the chances are they would not know how to read them anyway. The Inland Revenue proof should be sufficient.

HSBC are declining a massive amount of cases at present, possibly in an attemot to control busines levels. You need to speak to an underwriter or a manager and explain the situation to them. If they still wont accept SA302's then you may need to find another lender.

opinions4u

GMS wrote: »

If you supplied full accounts to the lender the chances are they would not know how to read them anyway.

:rotfl:
I did spend my first 6 months underwriting mortgages where if anything self employed came in front of me I turned in to a quivering wreck.

Basic accounts for lending purposes are actually fairly easy to understand, once you've accepted that different accountants show things (or not) in different ways.

But I could well believe a demand for accounts was made out of fear of not understanding any other documentation.

Thrugelmir

opinions4u wrote: »

Basic accounts for lending purposes are actually fairly easy to understand, once you've accepted that different accountants show things (or not) in different ways.

Its not the accounts themselves that are at issue. But whether the accounts as presented represent a true and fair view. It doesn't actually take much working out to ascertain if a self employed person is not recording a significant amount of revenue through the books of account.

Most recent case I know of. Is the plumber who was investigated by the HMRC and his booked sales didn't equate to the number of bathroom suites he'd purchased in the previous trading year.

Yes it can be as basic as that.

casperlarue

My husband is self-employed and FirstDirect accepted copies of his self-assessment forms signed by an accountant as proof of income. No SA302 provided, just 3 years self-assessment.

arthur_22

We've given up on First Direct, and I'm applying with another lender. Who when I phoned their customer service line said I needed three years audited accounts. But when I phoned their underwriters direct (you can phone their underwriters direct!) said I needed accounts OR my SA302s from the tax man.

So that does make me wonder whether some of the above statements are true, and the frontline people don't know what the underwriters are doing...

Senior_Paper_Monitor

Regularly the case I'm afraid Mr 22 !!