Usually, no — and this surprises everyone who's been through a mortgage application. A rolled-up bridging loan has no monthly payments, so there's nothing to afford, so there's no affordability test. No payslips, no SA302s, no bank statements combed for gym memberships. The property, the plan and the exit carry the decision.
What lenders verify instead
Identity and source of funds, always — the anti-money-laundering rules don't bend for anyone. The credibility of your exit, forensically: if you're refinancing onto a buy-to-let mortgage, expect the lender to sense-check that the rent will support it and that a term lender would actually take you on. Your track record with similar projects, if works are involved. And your credit history gets read, not scored — a pattern of walking away from secured debt matters; an old mobile-phone default does not.
The exception: serviced bridges
Choose to pay the interest monthly and income walks straight back into the room. The lender now needs evidence you can make the payments, so bank statements, rental schedules or accounts appear on the checklist. That's the trade: bigger net advance in exchange for underwriting your cash flow. It suits landlords with strong rental income and irritates everybody else.
Why this isn't recklessness
People hear "no income checks" and think pre-2008. The discipline sits elsewhere: the lender is secured on an asset at 70–75% loan-to-value with a defined route to repayment, which is a fundamentally different risk from unsecured lending against a salary. The system works because the exit is underwritten hard, not because nobody is paying attention.
Bring proof of income anyway if it's strong. It costs nothing to include, it colours the whole file favourably, and on a marginal deal it can be the thing that nudges an underwriter from "maybe" to "yes".