Refused mortgage due to payslips not matching bank statements

opinions4u

I'd have to back the lender here.

If an application is borderline you look for reasons to lend. You ask for more information. If that information is inconclusive you ask for something else until you either give up or get something to "hang your hat on".

In this case the discrepancy, while small, reeks of a fiddle. I'm not saying it is in this case, but from the point of view of an underwriter who doesn't know you or your employer it stinks. If it's already borderline you don't put your name to something where the proof of income is dubious.

antrobus

opinions4u wrote: »

....In this case the discrepancy, while small, reeks of a fiddle... .

Agreed.

I'd assume, on the basis of the discrepancy, that the payslips had been concocted by someone that didn't really know what they were doing, and that it was likely that the same £1500 (or whatever) was being swished around some bank accounts to create the impression of an income from an employment that did not in fact exist. And I've seen it done.

Of course the assumption might be inaccurate. But why take the risk? It's not as if there's a shortage of would be borrowers out there.

Dave_Ham

Have some of you actually read the initial information provided?

Say the employee gets paid £1412.23, they the 23p yes pence is not paid in so a maximum of 10p difference each month.

I know fraud starts small, but....

If Abbey had seen the money transfer straight out or not consistent in any other way, then this may have been noted.

I am not in a position to judge if this is moody or not, although on the face of it is appears all above board...

And if not, it will not beat Nationwide either...

opinions4u

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Have some of you actually read the initial information provided?

Say the employee gets paid £1412.23, they the 23p yes pence is not paid in so a maximum of 10p difference each month.

I know fraud starts small, but....

If Abbey had seen the money transfer straight out or not consistent in any other way, then this may have been noted.

I am not in a position to judge if this is moody or not, although on the face of it is appears all above board...

And if not, it will not beat Nationwide either...

It reeks of the employment not stacking up.

Dave_Ham

opinions4u wrote: »

It reeks of the employment not stacking up.

Only time and Nationwide will tell?

I think it is strange at worst, sloppy at best from the employer.

If supported by a valid p60, then surely irrevelant...

Wh05apk

Dave_Ham wrote: »

Only time and Nationwide will tell?

I think it is strange at worst, sloppy at best from the employer.

If supported by a valid p60, then surely irrevelant...

I think the point is, that there is no "real" reason for the payslip to differ from the bank statement, it takes milliseconds longer to type .76 rather than .00, so if genuine this is really just the employer "trying to be clever" if they just want to pay whole pounds then adjust the payslip and make a balancing payment at the end of the year.

From a lenders fraud detection point of view, payslips are a first starting point, with little things like this, and tax/NI not being calculated correctly sure signs for them to start delving deeper.

maninthestreet

opinions4u wrote: »

It reeks of the employment not stacking up.

HMRC are quite happy for people to 'round down' any income figures to the nearest £, and round up any tax deducted to the nearest £, when submitting a tax return. Does this 'reek' of anything?

KingElvis

What an unusual and work heavy way to process a payroll...dubious.

opinions4u

maninthestreet wrote: »

HMRC are quite happy for people to 'round down' any income figures to the nearest £, and round up any tax deducted to the nearest £, when submitting a tax return. Does this 'reek' of anything?

Yes. It reeks of clearly established principles for submitting a tax return.

holly_hobby

Hi all ...

I side with Dave H on this, the P60 should be able to clearly document and support the annual income that has been declared on the application. 3mths payslips are usually to determine if the annual income delcared is standard renumeration, or actually includes ad hoc bonuses etc .... whilst of course verifing other areas. Indeed I did think that the standard submission was P60 and lastest 3 mths payslips .. so can't see the issue if this is genuinely the sole reason for the decline, and the applicant gave an explanation that can be verified by the employers accountant.

To paint a picture of how ridiculous this decline and the arguements are - is that my Hubbys company pay salaries on the last working day of every month, and not a set date i.e 25th etc. Naturallly his net pay therefore differs monthly - not by huge amounts but it differs all the same, depending upon how many working days there were in that month. Personally I have NEVER seen anything like it in all my yrs in FS and seeing 1000s of payslips/P60s (inc my own for all the yrs I was an employee myself) - but his employer refuses to change their payroll method to a set date. And this company is a Multi National PLC (HO Japan) ..... so no, issues like this aren't always a fiddle by the emloyer/employee or dubious accounting practices ... just the way in my Hubbys case, the way their payroll has been set up by the Directors, and indeed I would play mary hell if our lender had declined our mortgage on this, bearing in mind Hubbys P60 clearly confirmed his annual income as that declared in our app.

Personally I also believe that there other "grey" arears with this app - with the slight discrepancy being the top hat for the UW - which doesn't mean to say it will fail elsewhere as Dave rightly points out.

Hope this helps

Holly