MSE News: People over 40 'denied mortgages'

Typhoon2000

Hasn't default retirement age been abolished?

samba

woodworm001 wrote: »

Good grief, I'm 42 in January and just applied to Santander - should I have asked for a 23 year mortgage?

Anyone had experience of this recently?

You should be alright as you will be expected to retire at 67. I am 43 next year, and just applied for a mortgage and was only allowed a term of 24 years.

This is not a problem for me as I intend to pay it off early, but it may affect people over 40 who like to rate-hop - they can only do this now if they also reduce the term accordingly.

woodworm001

I said my retirement age will be 68. Thanks

Thrugelmir

tizerbelle wrote: »

Aren't they aware that the default retirement age of 65 was scrapped 3 years ago? Very few jobs now are allowed to retire you at 65 (or whatever their usual retirement age is) so you can, should you wish, carry on working until you keel over - assuming they don't sack you for capability reasons before that date!

Simply not possible to know what someones situation may be like once they reach their late sixties. Not least their health and physical capability to do their job. My partner is already suffering from rheumatism in her fingers and is well short of retirement age.

If someone wishes to have a mortgage past their normal retirement age. All they need to do is start a pension scheme at an early age. Thereby providing a source of income with which to service the mortgage.

So much hot air being puffed over nothing.

Credit-Crunched

James_B. wrote: »

"Being denied". Yet more emotive language from a site that seems determined to encourage people to take on debts that they can't afford, then blame the banks when it all goes wrong.

I honestly believe that the journalists and moderators here must have morals so out of line with decent society that I'm surprised that they can function in it.

I agree, this looks like it was constructed for a primary school newspaper.

The word denied, indicates that the person has an inherent obligation to have the mortgage approved.

It should read

"Mortgage lenders adopt a more sensible approach to lending into retirement, to ensure that come that time, the individual does not put their home at risk as their lack of personal pension would prevent them from making payments on a secured debt, thus putting them at risk of repossession"

This from the man who promotes stoozing, or what ever he calls it. Not really a great practice considering most of the posts I see on this forum, hardly financially literate and sensible.

getmore4less

THey are only being denied what they can't afford(by the ruules).

If they asked for less money over shorter terms there would be no problems.

MABLE

I took our mortgage out when I was 45 and should have finished at 77 years. However with over payments mortgage free January 2015.

amnblog

Today many lenders would calculate affordability for you on that mortgage based on a 19 term.

shrewd_shrew

Ekkk im 40 and by next feb will only just have managed to save enough for a deposit to buy. Its taken me 3 years.

amnblog

There we go Shrew.


A number of lenders will calculate your affordability based on a maximum term of 24 years - this can start to restrict your options.


The way affordability is calculated today it can drop like a stone once calculation is made based on terms of 20 years and under.