• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Anyone from Nixon Williams online tonight, I need help!!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Craig@InTouch View Post
    NW are a good outfit and it's unlikely that they're deliberately trying to be obtrusive. It's more likely to be the case that the accountants reference request is asking for both salary+dividends figures AND company figures.

    From experience, if the above is the case, they should be able to confirm the first bit of salary and dividends but not the company figures (if the accounts have not been prepared and finalised) as the underwriters are usually very strict on what information can be disclosed on the reference.

    And NW being a professional firm, they won't be able to state your company figures until they are prepared, signed off by you and filed (finalised) if the reference says only final figures can be shown. So as Martin has arranged to speak to you tomorrow morning first thing, he may be able to find a solution for you to satisfy both the underwriters and yourself.

    P.S. about nursery fees, speak to NW about child care costs.

    Debatable.

    qh
    He had a negative bluety on a quackhandle and was quadraspazzed on a lifeglug.

    I look forward to your all knowing and likely sarcastic and unhelpful reply.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by quackhandle View Post
      Debatable.

      qh
      Which part of the statement do you find debatable, or is it both bits?
      Best Forum Advisor 2014
      Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
      Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
        Which part of the statement do you find debatable, or is it both bits?
        Both.

        qh
        He had a negative bluety on a quackhandle and was quadraspazzed on a lifeglug.

        I look forward to your all knowing and likely sarcastic and unhelpful reply.

        Comment


          #14
          Hi quackhandle,

          I tried contacting you privately shortly after you posted to find out why you feel it is debatable that we are a good firm, or whether we would deliberately try to be obtrusive when dealing with a reference request for a clients mortgage application. If you have had concerns I would appreciate any feedback you can provide. I can be contacted at martin.brennan(at)nixonwilliams.com.

          To clarify our position, we will always do all that we possibly can to assist our clients by providing a reference to support their application for a mortgage, job application, visa extension etc. It is not in our interests to be deliberately obtrusive and we would only be unable to provide a reference where we do not have the necessary information.

          In respect of this particular matter, the reference form specifically asked for final accounts figures, we were not in a position to provide this information as the accounts were yet to be completed (the yearend had only just passed). Having spoken to the client on the evening this thread was created, we completed the statutory accounts and reference the following morning.

          Martin

          Comment

          Working...
          X