Should the Government regulate mortgage Applications?

manhattan

ad9898 wrote: »

Should the government regulate mortgages ?, absolutely, 3.5x single salary, 2.5x joint, no 'interest only mortgages' unless you have a proper investment vehicle to repay it (just like it used to be), no self cert unless you have proof of being self-employed. No mewing unless you are extending your property or adding some real value ( this doesn't mean a BMW X5, holiday to Disneyland or a 50' plasma either)

A minimum of 10% deposit, to prove that you can actually save money instead of p*ssing it down the drain on a credit card.

And last but not least.... absolutely NO mortgage offer without proof of income, i.e 3 months wage slips.

Did you hear that last bit mortgage brokers/advisers ? Proof of income, just in case you didn't.

HPI would then keep in line with wage inflation and this sorry mess could have been avoided.

Good call, i like it. :T

ad44downey

Incisor wrote: »

And what good would that do? Any city spiv worth his salt who wants an 8 times salary mortgage for £2,000,000 on his £250,000 salary will instantly find a way of getting a salary of £666,666.

Only by telling porkie pies. Anyway under the new regime they'd have to prove they earned £666,666. If they're unable to, they'd get prosecuted for attempted mortgage fraud.

Sapphire

ad9898 wrote: »

Should the government regulate mortgages ?, absolutely, 3.5x single salary, 2.5x joint, no 'interest only mortgages' unless you have a proper investment vehicle to repay it (just like it used to be), no self cert unless you have proof of being self-employed. No mewing unless you are extending your property or adding some real value ( this doesn't mean a BMW X5, holiday to Disneyland or a 50' plasma either)

A minimum of 10% deposit, to prove that you can actually save money instead of p*ssing it down the drain on a credit card.

And last but not least.... absolutely NO mortgage offer without proof of income, i.e 3 months wage slips.

Did you hear that last bit mortgage brokers/advisers ? Proof of income, just in case you didn't.

HPI would then keep in line with wage inflation and this sorry mess could have been avoided.

That's how it was when I got my first mortgage – and it kept property prices at a reasonable level in relation to wages.

neverdespairgirl

chucky wrote: »

i'm not denying that this was an individual case out there.

but none of these three guys were unemployed. each one had dificulties re-paying the mortgage payments. i think that you need to re-read the article - unless i got it seriously wrong

I've re-read it, and it looks fairly clear to me that the chap mentioned was unemployed when he took out the mortgage:

We had to pay interest at 9.8%, which I was advised was the best I could get at the time because of credit problems, as neither my wife nor I were working.
To meet the payments, my wife worked part-time at a doctor's surgery and I started to run my own catering business.

chucky

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I've re-read it, and it looks fairly clear to me that the chap mentioned was unemployed when he took out the mortgage:

We had to pay interest at 9.8%, which I was advised was the best I could get at the time because of credit problems, as neither my wife nor I were working.
To meet the payments, my wife worked part-time at a doctor's surgery and I started to run my own catering business.

yes you are right, apologies poppysarah!!

i'm very surprised that a lender would lend to someone who was unemployed, with such little equity. i'm even more surprised that they did so with so little equity in the property because it seems that they contributed £15k, the mortgage was £167k and the Govt £16k. This assumes that the property was worth around £200k, leaving them £169k LTV - which is 83.5%.

unless there are different rules in Right to Buy and you can't get re-posessed it's a very strange story. it has no logic.

apologies again poppysarah

thanks for reading my post so thoroughly again NDG

neverdespairgirl

chucky wrote: »

thanks for reading my post so thoroughly again NDG

Sorry if I sounded over-critical, I agree that it's utterly bizarre someone would lend a couple that much money when they weren't working.

moanymoany

ad9898 wrote: »

Should the government regulate mortgages ?, absolutely, 3.5x single salary, 2.5x joint, no 'interest only mortgages' unless you have a proper investment vehicle to repay it (just like it used to be), no self cert unless you have proof of being self-employed. No mewing unless you are extending your property or adding some real value ( this doesn't mean a BMW X5, holiday to Disneyland or a 50' plasma either)

A minimum of 10% deposit, to prove that you can actually save money instead of p*ssing it down the drain on a credit card.

And last but not least.... absolutely NO mortgage offer without proof of income, i.e 3 months wage slips.

Did you hear that last bit mortgage brokers/advisers ? Proof of income, just in case you didn't.

HPI would then keep in line with wage inflation and this sorry mess could have been avoided.

Didn't it used to be very similar to this? It should certainly go back to it.

chewmylegoff

according to your mortgage application you seem to have annual earnings six times more than you have declared to the HMRC.

please can we have the missing tax now?

oh, what's that, you don't want to put six times your actual earnings on this form. ahhh that's better.