MSE News: People over 40 'denied mortgages'

minislim

so it seems there a very limited age gap you can a normal mortgage in then.

as most cannot afford to buy till they're 30 and then they cannot get on in their 40's

banks far too often try to find the easiest way to not give out a mortgage!

in our case they couldn't grasp how someone in their 20's had saved up such a sizable deposit at such a young age.

even after proving where every single transaction had occurred in the last 7 years they still weren't for accepting it.

it was only the threat of legal action that got the ball rolling.

mrginge

Well i'm sorry to shatter the illusion that some people seem to think this is evil banks screwing people over.

Problem: houses are too expensive
Consequence: less people can get mortgages
Solution: build more houses

Of course, the obvious flaws in this incredibly simple plan are firstly the mass of vested interests who couldn't bear to see a supply increase and the inevitable drop in their profits, secondly the spineless excuse for (successive) governments who haven't got the balls to do the socially responsible thing for fear of alienating their business associates or nimby constituents.

Expect more years of inaction and increasing housing problems.

Pincher

What about dying? Just because your credit score is high, you won't catch cancer?


The idea that a person won't lose their job for 25 years is just absurd. A school friend in a Whitehall department has seen his colleagues decimated left, right and centre. They moved some jobs to Wales, and you are welcome to follow the job and relocate!? Can't wait for you to accept early retirement. I suspect he only got spared because his age meant that he gets reduced retirement benefits, whereas somebody one year older retains full/more benefits, so has to be got rid of ASAP.


All they have to do is require some kind of mortgage insurance.
Everybody pays the same interest rate, but different premium on the insurance. Typically, the house is worth more than the mortgage, and even in a negative equity scenario, the pay out is more like 10~20%. Assuming the insurance company has to pay out in 5% of cases, the premium can't be very high. Obviously if you have a really bad credit history, forget it.

woodworm001

I had a quick look at Santanders Lending Criteria on the intermediaries website and it states that their maximum age is 75 for repayment mortgages ...

Where any loan part is on an Interest only basis the mortgage term cannot exceed the applicant's 65th birthday.

75 years maximum at the end of the mortgage term where no loan part is on Interest only.

We do not lend above an applicant's intended retirement age and we will not accept any case where your clients’ selected or anticipated age of intended retirement is over 75 years.

For existing Santander mortgage customers moving home who are borrowing the same or less, we may consider applications where the mortgage term currently runs past the applicants’ selected retirement age. The term exceeding retirement cannot be extended any longer.

We undertake regular checks to assess the plausibility of your clients’ selected or anticipated age of retirement on all applications and we may request further information or evidence to support this.

www.santanderforintermediaries.co.uk/content/mortgages/lending-criteria

movilogo

The idea that a person won't lose their job for 25 years is just absurd.

Fully agree. We have professions nowadays which didn't exist 10 years back. 25% of all employees in their current job for less than 2 years.

The whole lending market needs a re-thinking. However, if any event brings down prices of houses, then it is a good thing.

amnblog

Just because a Lender says they will lend to age 70 or 75 - do not assume that they will calculate affordability based on a term to that age.

Leon_W

I have a couple in their mid fifties. Hardly past it.


They have a very sizeable deposit and are renting at the moment @ £1100 pm .


They would like to buy but are of modest means. A repayment mortgage over 10 years is out of the question as the repayments are deemed "unaffordable" by lenders as the term is short.


My calculated mortgage repayment figure over a slightly longer term is £750 which is £250 less than their rental per month.


I can't help them so they are destined to rent for the rest of their lives. Where is the rent going to come from when they do retire ? Housing benefit ?

amnblog

According to many of the posters on here it is their own fault for not putting their ducks in order when they were younger Leon.

Leon_W

That is such a stupid argument amnblog. How does anyone know what is round the corner ?


My client above is a widower and met his new partner on Plenty of Fish. Lovely couple but my hands are tied.


If a mortgage was available on an interest only basis the payment would be around £300pm. "Unaffordable !! " they cry.


I tell you what will be unaffordable in 20 years time. The rent. And who is going to pick up that tab ?

Mortgage_Mark_2

Leon_W wrote: »

I have a couple in their mid fifties. Hardly past it.


They have a very sizeable deposit and are renting at the moment @ £1100 pm .


They would like to buy but are of modest means. A repayment mortgage over 10 years is out of the question as the repayments are deemed "unaffordable" by lenders as the term is short.


My calculated mortgage repayment figure over a slightly longer term is £750 which is £250 less than their rental per month.


I can't help them so they are destined to rent for the rest of their lives. Where is the rent going to come from when they do retire ? Housing benefit ?

*£350 less

It's all nonsense, and incredibly short sighted with this sort of situation becoming increasingly common.