mortgage for over 65

Wh05apk

holly_hobby wrote: »

So you agree this initial statement wasn't correct (in respect of the traditional mge arrangement being discussed).

H

No, I know of at least one lender who does not state a maximum age, whether in practice they would allow beyond 85 I am not sure, but they state no maximum.

but your point being?

holly_hobby

I've made it ....

You don't know of lenders as first inferred, you now say you know of 1 lender who may offer this facility, but you don't actually know for sure, if they do go beyond typical redemption age of 75-85 yrs .... but instead have assumed they do, as you can't find a max age from the info/criteria you have read - which you'll accept isn't quite same thing, as ...

"some lenders do not have a maximum age".

As a v helpful post to all, whom is the lender whom you assume from your reading has no maximum age, and would refer the OP to ? As apparently from reading posts on this thread from other advisers, you are the only mge adviser who apparently knows of them.

Holly

Wh05apk

holly_hobby wrote: »

I've made it ....

You don't know of a lender as first inferred, you now say you don't know if they actually go beyond typical redemption age of 75-85 yrs .... but instead have assumed they do as you can't find a max age in their criteria - which you'll accept isn't quite same thing, as ...

"some lenders do not have a maximum age".

As a helpful post to all, whom is the lender whom you assume has no maximum age and would refer the OP to ?

Holly

!!!!!! Holly get a life, the lender has been mentioned - National Counties - their criteria states:
"Your clients age

Minimum: 18
Maximum: There is no maximum age limit.
MORTGAGE TERM

Minimum: 5 years
Maximum: 40 years
Where the mortgage term extends beyond your clients retirement age they will be asked to explain how the loan will continue to be affordable in retirement."

I am trying to be helpful, unlike some comments from some posters who sound just like the bloke down the pub!

holly_hobby

Thanks I already have a lovely life .... but thanks for the free advice !

Ah ... yes I see it was Kidmugsy (not an adviser ) who mentioned them from a newspaper article they had read in the Telegraph ....

Hopefully the above quoted criteria (I also found on their website) is both accurate and current (as you say although referring to them and quoting, you haven't actually validated this info or used them, and have admitted you have no idea if they do actually exceed 85 yrs).

If this is current criteria, it will be a v tight evaluation due to FSA RL requirements.

Well done you though ... you just may have stumbled on something here ....

Holly

Simon_gloster

One final note from me on this one......fast track is around today.


75% LTV or under, employed/self emp usually. Lenders score cards whether thru a broker or direct will ALWAYS request proof of income for those within 5 years of their 65th birthday or anticipated retirement, whichever comes first.

And to be silly, it'll be a 19 yr term as it has to end beforw their 85th birthday.

Minimum term decline written all over it. If they go for a cheaper property then it's a whole new ball game.

Burridge60

Professional commenter's - Please compare the renting versus mortgage more accurately and fairly.

Why would someone want to acquire a volatile investment grade asset based on retirement income.

What happens about long term care?

Is this asset purchase for the children more than the individuals who need housing.

Surely future income needs is better addressed with the £25,000 they have in hand than buying a property?

Burridge60

not a good end to this thread Best to rent

holly_hobby

Burridge60 wrote: »

Surely future income needs is better addressed with the £25,000 they have in hand than buying a property?

At present purchasing is largely more cost effective than renting ... however that is only whilst rates are at their current level (and dependant upon any mge sorced).

Personally, I do think its madness at this stage of life, but I assume the OPs parents feel renting is "dead money", and want the security of a long term residence (which of course can not be promised under any AST offered by private landlords).

However, paying interest only or having a never ending or over extend ending mge term will really be no difference to them, than renting. In addition to their exposure to the cost of upkeep, maintenance of the property and emergencies (inc those arising from utility issues such as broken down/reqd replacement of heating system, etc, ect - which would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord). But their desire for longterm residenital security I can understand (if this is the driving factor).

Furthermore, when renting there are means tested benefits that may be claimed to assist rental costs where appropriate, which would not otherwise be available to mortgagors.

Sometimes though, you can't make people see what they don't want to ..

A good point well raised and expanded on B60 (Thurls. having prev touched on it, in his earlier post).

Holly

Simon_gloster

I am trying to be helpful, unlike some comments from some posters who sound just like some bloke down the pub!

Had to reply as i assume your referring to me.... I have been to the pub at some stage.....and you know nothing of my past. What you initially spoke about in this thread is bulls**t and you know it.

jamesd

emz123456 wrote: »

my mum is desperatly unhappy renting and really wants her own home, she is making herself ill with the worry. having owned her own houses for over 40yrs she cannot get used to it.

Is there any possibility that one or more family members alone or in combination could buy part of the property and rent the portion the parents don't own to them?

The rent could then under an arrangement with the parents be used to effectively pay off the mortgage and the property ownership could be gradually transferred to them over time.

Some lenders will not require a buy to let mortgage when there is a family member living in the property. Others might do it as BTL, not sure about family restrictions on those loans. Having the parents as part owners may also be prohibited but them lending the £25,000 to the buyer(s) in a different loan separate from the property purchase may be a way around that.

Alternatively, is there any possibility of family members helping to reduce the loan size (and hence repayment amount or term) or of reducing the property cost? Family members might, say, be willing to consider a personal loan taken out in their own name to help provide a larger deposit to fund the purchase, which could be repaid by the parents over time.

Family members might also be able to help if your parents could buy a property that needs refurbishment at a reduced price, then could perhaps borrow to pay the refurbishment costs. That would perhaps lower the purchase price and help with the mortgage affordability check issues.

Are there any shared ownership schemes in the area run by housing associations that your parents might qualify for? They might then be able to start with a mortgage that meets affordability rules on 25% or 50% of the purchase value and gradually buy more as they are able to.

With the brokers indicating that it will be difficult and maybe not possible, sorting out a range of alternatives that a broker may be able to use to find a viable package may be helpful. Finding out what the price or owner type requirements for a suitable property to be purchased are can help. Then your parents could seek out such a property.

One option to boost income that might be viable is to defer the state pensions. Those increase by a little over 10% a year for each year of deferral. After three years they would be 34% higher, after five years 63% higher. Family members might be able to help by subsidising your parent's living costs during this time, or while they save enough income to meet any property deposit value and purchase value constraints to make it affordable. This isn't a fast solution but may be one possibility to help to improve the affordability picture. You can defer the state pensions after starting to take them, once only for that, can defer before taking and then a second time after. Your father's income could perhaps be increased from £600 net + £563 state pensions to £600 net (less £28 more tax to cover higher state pensions) plus £754 after three years of deferring. That increases net income from £1163/£13956 to £1326/£15912. An extra two thousand Pounds a year of income should be helpful.

Deferring for up to three years for a man and up to five for a woman is generally considered good for those in normal health. Your father's health may reduce his life expectancy and reduce the normally optimal number of years for him.

It's a problem to be solved, with flexibility perhaps on property value, owner or other aspects of the purchase, with the objective of making your mother happier with their situation and lowering their ongoing costs.