firstDirect, discrimination?

GingerBob_3

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Nothing as long as the mortgage continues to be paid


If you find that you can't afford the mortgage because of your increasing family and stop paying the mortgage, they'll get a court order and evict you. That's what they'd do about it

You know, I never realised that. Thanks for your explanation.

JohnJack81

@TravelBugHappy -> Was going to leave this be, however think it requires saying. At no point have I said anything about sexual discrimination, it is you that have jumped to this opinion. I can see how you have come to the conclusion as we are talking about pregnancy, however at no point have I claimed discrimination because she is female. There is nothing to stop my OH going back to work after maternity and I become a stay at home father.

I am also under the understanding that children do come at a cost, child care, food, clothing for at least the next 18 years, so would understand a 'child coefficient' being used. That is fully understandable. But to be able to take ABSOLUTELY NO INCOME from my partner, this is what I believe is wrong.

There seems to be a fair bit in the media about this and would post links if I could. I haven't posted enough, despite being on here for a few years...

TravelBugHappy

Well what kind of discrimination was you suggesting when you titled your thread 'First direct discrimination'?

To be honest I'm most surprised that your surprised at what the bank has said about statutory maternity pay.

Good luck with your application though - I'm sure there are lenders that will take account of some part of your wife's SMP. Maybe use a broker if you struggle to find one.

kingstreet

Different lenders approach different issues in different ways.

You can rail against one lender's treatment of this issue, or look for another lender which takes a different approach.

Brokers do this all the time as lenders take commercial decisions on the business they want and the business they don't.

Thrugelmir

JohnJack81 wrote: »

But to be able to take ABSOLUTELY NO INCOME from my partner, this is what I believe is wrong.

Lenders may have a board level policy of not assuming anything. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

questionss

How much does your partner earn? Do you have any idea how much childcare will cost? Do you have family to help minimise childcare costs.

I was at full time hours easily a higher rate tax payer. I lived in London commuter zone. When my first child was born it took over half my take home pay to cover childcare. Nursery and childminder costs were similar. Even now I'm further out nursery is still £60 a day; friends not far away pay £74. In the northwest my sister on law pays £43.

Can you afford your move?

Lungboy

Can you salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers? It might help your affordability.

getmore4less

What surprised me is the OP bothered looking to remortgage in the first place when their current lender Nationwide is also known, like FD, as a "good" one and has decent retention deals.

Looks like they went ahead with a FD application without understanding the market/options... choice of lender made because Martin like them.

danielanthony

This is definitely one of the most serious cases of discrimination in the 21st century I have heard of.

Definitely take this to the courts in Europe OP, your fundamental human right to a mortgage you deem appropriate should not be meddled with by the people actually with the money aka Evil Banks. I mean, lending to people who might not be able to pay it back and blaming the people who gave them the money rather than those asking for it is a well known method of economic suicide (or growth if you're a socialist).

GingerBob_3

danielanthony wrote: »

This is definitely one of the most serious cases of discrimination in the 21st century I have heard of.

Definitely take this to the courts in Europe OP, your fundamental human right to a mortgage you deem appropriate should not be meddled with by the people actually with the money aka Evil Banks. I mean, lending to people who might not be able to pay it back and blaming the people who gave them the money rather than those asking for it is a well known method of economic suicide (or growth if you're a socialist).

Quite. But taking it to the European Court is probably a step too far. There are financial regulators who should be able to handle this sort of banking malpractice, but as ever, they are not proper regulators and tend to side with big business.