firstDirect, discrimination?

d123

JohnJack81 wrote: »

@Ampersand --> Mythed is an acceptable spelling a kin to a true and genuine loss of words and or understanding about an action, place, event or even a name, miffed is also acceptable but where do you think the phrase came from? Try looking it up...

Not in English it isn't, have you looked in a real dictionary? The correct word is miffed.

Mythed appears to be urban slang, and even in the online "urban dictionary" (only place it appears), it says:

Mythed
A true and genuine loss of words and or understanding about an action, place, event or even a name.
'Mythed' is a kin to baffled, baffed and snookered.....
Mythed should be added to the Oxford dictionary because its sooo necessary.

by SimpleSimon May 07, 2008
13 7

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mythed

meer53

Having a perfectly healthy baby is not guaranteed either, the mother may not be able to return to work once it's born, or she may choose not to return. Until the baby is in your arms, no-one can say with any certainty that they will be returning to work.

Thrugelmir

GingerBob wrote: »

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.

Think you missed the sarcasm in the post that was made.

Let_Us_See

So far 34 posts and amnblog is the only adviser to stick his head above the parapet!

From personal experience I have never experienced any lender discriminating against a applicant purely on the grounds of pregnancy. They do, and should, consider the increased family cost of a new child, together with actual income during maternity, and perhaps lower income due to a phased return to full time work. Consequently, I would have thought the problem was affordability rather than the pregnancy. If you have proof it is purely the pregnancy then it is discrimination.

kingstreet

I thought I gave a pragmatic answer in #25.

One lender doesn't want you, but there are plenty who will.

Let_Us_See

kingstreet wrote: »

I thought I gave a pragmatic answer in #25.

Apologies KS I did note your practical response.

betmunch

Let_Us_See wrote: »

So far 34 posts and amnblog is the only adviser to stick his head above the parapet!

I havent as I don't think I can add anything.

For what it's worth I don't think it's discrimination at all.

Lenders can accept or refuse any type of income they choose.

This application fails the lenders affordability check.

End of story.

minimike2

It's the year 2006. Banks have lax mortgage lending criteria. Many people are being given 125% mortgages. Money given out without much in the way of assessing affordability realistically.

It's the year 2008. There is a global recession and near-collapse of the financial system. Banks around the world lambasted for handing out mortgages without much in the way of assessing affordability realistically. Public outcry. Citizens blame the banks for their evil ways.

It's the year 2014. Mortgage regulation in the UK is overhauled following years of preparation by the new regulator to ensure the evil banks lend responsibly and ensure affordability assessments are carried out with all potential borrowers.

Citizens cry out at the evil banks because they won't lend to protect them from unaffordable loans.



You can see where this is going...... Lenders are damned if they do, damned if they dont.


I had someone self employed recently. Business running a few years. Cash business. More than happy to tell me they were creaming the cash off the business enabling them to show profits of £0 and under £2k for the last two years, then had the nerve to have a pop at me when I kindly declined to deal with them on the basis they were committing tax evasion and were not mortgageable - The sense of entitlement was just unbelievable. "I do what I have to do" "It's rediculous I cant get a mortgage, why shouldn't I? I pay everything on time every month".


The world changed. The public raged at the banks for their evil ways, yet now seem to want them back. People need to move on and understand it is no longer 2006.