Repeated source-of-funds checks: what to give your bank

Repeated source-of-funds requests usually mean the bank is still trying to understand a transaction or ongoing account activity for financial-crime controls. The fastest response is a clear explanation plus documents that show where the specific money came from.

Source of funds answers “where did this money come from?”

The FCA distinguishes source of funds from the route the payment took. Saying 'it came from Barclays' may describe the transfer path but not the economic source. A property sale, salary, inheritance, business invoice, investment sale or private loan is the underlying explanation the bank may need.

For a £45,000 credit from a solicitor, a completion statement plus the solicitor payment reference can explain more than a generic bank statement.

Start with a dated baseline. Separate the transaction being questioned from your wider finances. Write the amount, date, payer, reason for the money and the document that proves each step, such as a completion statement, payslip, invoice, probate document, gift letter or statement showing the transfer path. Keep a screenshot, statement or provider message for the figures that matter.

Ask the bank to narrow the request

If you have already sent documents twice, ask: 'Which transactions remain unexplained, and which document do you still need?' This turns an open-ended compliance conversation into a finite task.

Keep the bank's request wording. 'Proof of income' is different from 'source of £18,500 received on 12 September'. Sending payslips when the questioned money was an inheritance will not resolve the mismatch.

Worked example: if £38,000 came from selling a car and then moved through two of your own accounts, provide the sale agreement, incoming credit and both transfer records in order. A bank reviewing £38,000 needs the chain, not twenty unrelated screenshots of normal account activity.

For repeated source-of-funds checks, cross-check the expected result against the actual result in 'Ask the bank to narrow the request'.

Before relying on “Ask the bank to narrow the request” for Repeated source-of-funds checks: what to give your bank, capture a dated baseline. That may be a statement entry, app status, tariff figure or support reference. A dated baseline makes later changes easier to explain and gives the bank a precise issue to investigate for “Ask the bank to narrow the request” on Repeated source-of-funds checks: what to give your bank.

Build one chronology instead of a pile of screenshots

Use a short cover note: date, amount, sender, reason, attached evidence. Number the files. Example: 1) 4 Sep £12,000 from ABC Solicitors - house-sale proceeds - completion statement attached; 2) 9 Sep £6,500 from Jane Smith - family gift - donor statement and gift letter attached.

Do not edit statements or crop away context the bank may need. If a document contains unrelated sensitive transactions, ask whether redaction is acceptable rather than altering it silently.

Use a fixed sequence. ask the bank what fact remains unverified: origin of the money, ownership, relationship to the payer, business purpose or source of wealth. Answer that specific gap and use the same chronology each time so different review teams do not receive inconsistent descriptions. After each step, note what changed and what did not.

Treat “Build one chronology instead of a pile of screenshots” as a check you should be able to prove later when dealing with Repeated source-of-funds checks: what to give your bank. Keep the relevant figure or status and the date you checked it. If support is needed, lead with that evidence and the outcome you want rather than a long reconstruction.

Repeated requests can still be legitimate

Financial Ombudsman material shows banks may need source-of-funds evidence as part of ongoing monitoring and can temporarily restrict accounts while checks take place. A repeated question does not automatically prove poor service; the bank may have found that earlier evidence did not answer the specific issue.

However, losing documents, changing requirements without explanation or leaving a customer with no meaningful update can become a service complaint.

Timing can change the practical outcome. repeat requests are not automatically evidence that the bank lost your documents. A later transaction, a different compliance question or a document that does not cover the relevant period can trigger a new request, so compare the wording before assuming the bank is asking exactly the same thing. Build a buffer around any bill date, completion, trip or tax-year deadline.

Complain with a document log if the process breaks down

Record the date of each request, what you supplied, confirmation of receipt and any restriction on the account. If the bank asks for the same item for the third time, your complaint can point to the exact duplication.

Focus on process and impact: £75 late fee because access was restricted, documents submitted on three dates, no explanation of what remained outstanding. The Financial Ombudsman can assess whether the bank's handling was fair and proportionate.

If the normal route fails, move from retrying to evidence. keep a document log with the date sent, channel, file name and any case reference. If the process becomes circular, complain about the handling and identify which evidence was already supplied, what the bank asked again and what practical harm the repeated request caused.

A useful way to apply “Complain with a document log if the process breaks down” to Repeated source-of-funds checks: what to give your bank is to make the next action conditional on a specific fact. Write down the relevant balance, payment status, deadline or eligibility rule and verify it against the bank’s current information before proceeding for “Complain with a document log if the process breaks down” on Repeated source-of-funds checks: what to give your bank.

Separate source of funds from source of wealth

Banks can ask related but different questions. Source of funds concerns the origin of the money used in a particular transaction; source of wealth concerns how you accumulated your overall wealth. A £200,000 investment account might therefore require both an explanation of this £25,000 transfer and broader evidence of business income or asset sales.

Ask which question the bank is trying to answer. Sending a single payslip to a source-of-wealth review, or ten years of tax returns for one identifiable house-sale payment, creates work without necessarily resolving the concern.

Use one closing decision rule. source of funds asks where particular money came from; source of wealth is broader and asks how overall wealth was accumulated. Answer the question actually asked and avoid volunteering contradictory estimates. If you cannot evidence a historic cash event precisely, state what you can prove and where uncertainty remains. Recheck the live account terms or tariff on the day you act.

Sources and verification

• Financial Ombudsman - Evidence in banking complaints
• Financial Ombudsman - Frozen accounts and blocked payments
• FCA - Consumer information

MyBankAnswers uses official provider and UK regulatory sources wherever practical. Information is general and does not constitute financial advice.