A convincing P60 is not proof that the income is genuine. P60 fraud detection should combine checks on the document’s source, comparison with payroll evidence and PDF analysis for signs of alteration. For self-employed applicants, review the SA302 alongside its matching tax year overview. Treat discrepancies as reasons to investigate, not automatic proof of fraud.
We recommend separating two questions: does this file show signs of manipulation, and does the supporting evidence justify the income used in the lending decision? Neither a familiar layout nor a clean software result answers both. This is a UK-specific workflow for lenders, brokers and affordability teams, not a substitute for your lender’s evidence policy.
What a P60 and an SA302 actually establish
A P60 is employer-issued evidence of pay and tax for a tax year. GOV.UK’s P60 guidance says employees working for an employer on 5 April must receive one by 31 May, on paper or electronically. Someone with several jobs receives a separate P60 for each job.
That matters at intake. A paper P60 is not inherently suspicious, and a single P60 should not be assumed to cover every employment. Ask which job and period it supports before using the figures.
An SA302 is a Self Assessment tax calculation used as evidence of earnings after a return has been submitted. It is not restricted to one HMRC-branded PDF format. HMRC explains that applicants who file through commercial software should print the calculation from that software, while the tax year overview can still be printed from their HMRC account.
For lenders on HMRC’s published acceptance list, a tax calculation is accompanied by a tax year overview. HMRC also tells applicants to check their individual lender’s requirements. Do that rather than imposing a universal number of years or insisting that all genuine calculations look identical.
For other jurisdictions and business tax filings, see our broader article on checking tax returns and VAT filings. Here, the job is narrower: deciding what to compare in a UK income-document pack.
P60 fraud detection starts with like-for-like comparisons
To verify a P60 PDF, start with the person, employer and tax year. Then compare the relevant employment pay and tax fields with payroll evidence covering the same period. Record missing months or additional employment before deciding that a difference is unexplained.
Do not compare annual P60 pay directly with bank deposits and call the difference fraud. GOV.UK’s payslip guidance distinguishes earnings before and after deductions, including tax and National Insurance. Use the payslip to bridge the figures: employment pay and tax on one side, net pay received on the other.
| Evidence | Recommended check | Mistake to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| P60 | Match the applicant, employer and tax year to the case | Assuming one document covers every job |
| Payslips | Compare equivalent pay and tax fields for the same employment and period | Comparing a partial year with a full year |
| Bank credits | Reconcile net pay to receipts and investigate unexplained differences | Expecting gross pay to equal the deposit |
| Employer clarification | Resolve the specific discrepancy through an independently checked contact route | Treating an applicant-supplied contact as independent confirmation |
Our recommendation is to write down the discrepancy precisely. “Income looks wrong” is not actionable. “The net pay on this payslip does not match the corresponding receipt” gives the reviewer something to resolve.
Fake SA302 verification: compare tax figures, not imagined income
The tax year overview is not another detailed income calculation. Broker guidance from 1st Call 4 Mortgages describes comparing its tax figure with the corresponding SA302 for the same year. It does not support inferring someone’s income from a tax amount alone.
Start by pairing the correct years and confirming the documents belong to the same applicant. Compare the relevant tax liability figures, rather than treating an outstanding balance as interchangeable with the calculation’s total. If the figures do not reconcile, ask the accountant or applicant for an explanation and supporting records before progressing the case.
For example, suppose the tax calculation and overview in an application show different tax figures for the same year. This is an illustrative review scenario, not a customer case. The next step is to establish whether you have the correct, current pair and what each figure represents. It is not to reverse-engineer a salary or accuse the applicant of forgery.
Two agreeing PDFs are useful corroboration, but should not be treated as independent source verification when both came from the applicant. Where a concern remains, seek confirmation through your authorised source-checking process.
What PDF checks add to the review
VerifyPDF’s document fraud detection software examines metadata, content layers and font or structural inconsistencies, then returns a trust score, fraud-risk rating and warnings. The product page explains those checks and the dashboard and API options. Use it to assess where automated screening could fit before an underwriter reviews the pack.
Keep the output tied to a question. If a warning concerns how the document was produced, ask how the applicant obtained and exported it. If it concerns a pay figure, compare that figure with the supporting payroll evidence. A warning is useful when it leads to a review action.
We would ask any supplier being evaluated to demonstrate its results on representative documents your team is authorised to use. Include genuine payroll exports and legitimate accountant-generated calculations, not just obvious fakes. Agree what should trigger review before using the results in live decisions.
Limitations: neither matching figures nor a clean PDF proves income
Automated analysis should support the lending decision, not claim to certify it. Do not interpret a low-risk result as HMRC confirmation, employer confirmation or proof of affordability. Equally, an unusual software name should not override HMRC’s explicit acceptance of commercial-software calculations.
Avoid rules that reject every scan. GOV.UK permits paper P60s, so request an original electronic version where available and define an alternative verification route where it is not. Record the format limitation instead of treating it as evidence of dishonest intent.
There is a trade-off here. Requesting clarification adds work and may delay a case. Skipping it leaves the discrepancy unresolved. Set escalation rules that distinguish missing evidence from contradictory evidence, and give a reviewer responsibility for deciding what additional information is proportionate.
A practical income-document review workflow
Use this sequence as a review checklist, adapted to your lender’s requirements:
- Request the evidence pack. Identify the employment or Self Assessment years being assessed. For SA302 evidence, confirm the required tax year overviews and accepted calculation formats.
- Preserve the submitted files. Keep the original uploads and record their source before making working copies or extracting figures.
- Run the file checks. Review the software’s warnings alongside the visible document. Do not make a rejection rule out of an unfamiliar layout alone.
- Reconcile equivalent figures. Compare P60 fields with payroll records, net pay with bank credits and the relevant SA302 tax figure with the same-year overview.
- Resolve and document exceptions. Request clarification through an authorised route, record the supporting evidence and name the reviewer who made the decision. Keep unresolved cases in review rather than silently treating them as verified.
The checks above remain separate from the decision about how much the applicant can afford. A complete document pack still needs an affordability assessment.
Put the evidence before the approval
A P60 or SA302 should lead to a defensible income assessment, not just a completed upload field. Check equivalent figures, investigate file warnings and keep the explanation for any discrepancy with the case.
Contact VerifyPDF about your UK income-document workflow to discuss dashboard or API screening and the results your reviewers need. Bring your accepted document formats and escalation rules. That gives the conversation a concrete starting point.