Are banks discriminating against "stay at home mums"

silver1410

I have just had the strangest call with my bank.

I have a small personal loan with them and decided to take my credit card bill and add it to my loan.

I am a stay at home mum.



My income comes from my ex husband. Spousal support and child maintenance.

Because I am a stay at home mum I cannot now top up this loan. My circumstances have not changed since the initial loan but new rules seemingly state that stay at home mums who are paid in this way, to stay at home and look after the house and children etc are now second class citizens???

If I was receiving tax credits or if I was receiving incapacity benefit I would be allowed the loan.

IF I was STILL married and living with my husband I would still not be entitled to a loan!!!!!!!!

I cannot believe how they have made me feel.

Surely this just can't be right. Surely the last 4 years banking history and the fact that I have never missed a payment must mean something

Their reasoning is that if my ex decided to stop payments tomorrow I would have no income.

Surely if someone lost their job tomorrow they too would be in the same boat.

Tixy

All lenders will look at your income and your debt to income ratio as well as your credit history. Just because you have never missed a payment before that alone is not enough to get new credit.

Surely you cannot know for sure that you would have got the loan even if all your income was from a salary but for the exact same amount as you receive now.

Lenders do a risk assessment on each and every potential customer and are entitled to lend to whoever they choose so I don't think its discrimination no.

ILW

No Job, No loan, hasn't it always been the same?

silver1410

Tixy wrote: »

All lenders will look at your income and your debt to income ratio as well as your credit history. Just because you have never missed a payment before that alone is not enough to get new credit.

Surely you cannot know for sure that you would have got the loan even if all your income was from a salary but for the exact same amount as you receive now.

Lenders do a risk assessment on each and every potential customer and are entitled to lend to whoever they choose so I don't think its discrimination no.

They didn't even do a risk assessment. The very first statement out of their mouths was, "We see you receive X every month" are you employed or is this a bill pay" as in maintenance.

silver1410

ILW wrote: »

No Job, No loan, hasn't it always been the same?

No, or I wouldn't have the loan in the first place. I have an income.

Tixy

Lenders are tightening up on everyone they lend to, its an entirely different market place now to a couple of years ago. Anyone not employed is finding it hard to get loans (including self-employed people etc).

HETTY

ILW wrote: »

No Job, No loan, hasn't it always been the same?

Definitly not i got 2 bank loans and a number of credit cards whilst on income support. Not a good idea at all

Mrs_Ryan

ILW wrote: »

No Job, No loan, hasn't it always been the same?

Nope... my mum got 2 loans with 2 separate banks on 2 separate occasions despite being medically retired and on IB.

bodmil

silver1410 wrote: »

No, or I wouldn't have the loan in the first place. I have an income.

Sorry, but surely the money you get from your ex-husband is for his children, not to support you.

Rossy.

bodmil wrote: »

Sorry, but surely the money you get from your ex-husband is for his children, not to support you.

This i agree with,

Me and my partner have a 6 month old son, We don't live together yet but i'm there daily, each month on pay day i give her £300 to make sure she gets what he needs i.e food,clothes etc

She doesn't see it as an income as its money for him not for her

immoral_angeluk

silver1410 wrote: »

Their reasoning is that if my ex decided to stop payments tomorrow I would have no income.

Exactly. You are high risk to lenders as your income isn't secure. Benefits/maintenance can be stopped at any time and therefore people with only this form of income are much higher risk that someone who is in a job. Bare in mind, that your point about people could lose their job and be high risk is true, but you would only be deemed high risk if you hadn't been in your job for very long. If you've been with your employer a fair while then your seen to be in stable employment and therefore have regular income.