Benefit fraud

sangie595

dktreesea wrote: »

I don't see why including a risk of drop in income if the couple start a family is discriminating on gender. Yes, it may look like that if they take the smallest income away (and it happens to be the wife's) and see if the mortgage is still affordable, but who is to say who would be the stay at home parent if there was one, and if not, then presumably the bank would be right to consider the impact of childcare costs down the line.

Because discriminating on the grounds of maternity and/ or parental responsibility is also unlawful discrimination?

borkid

@sangie sorry I think you misunderstood. I was saying the other situations were insurable against ie redundancy and illness, not preganancy. I agree having children is a choice.

borkid

dktreesea wrote: »

I don't see why including a risk of drop in income if the couple start a family is discriminating on gender. Yes, it may look like that if they take the smallest income away (and it happens to be the wife's) and see if the mortgage is still affordable, but who is to say who would be the stay at home parent if there was one, and if not, then presumably the bank would be right to consider the impact of childcare costs down the line.

By your reasoning any couple say under the age of 50 then should only have one salary taken into account for mortgage purposes.

dktreesea

sangie595 wrote: »

Because discriminating on the grounds of maternity and/ or parental responsibility is also unlawful discrimination?

Yes, once the person is pregnant or has given birth. But what about discriminating against a couple because of something that may or may not happen at a future date?

NYM

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, once the person is pregnant or has given birth. But what about discriminating against a couple because of something that may or may not happen at a future date?

Lenders are lawfully entitled to consider an applicants future family planning when calculating affordability. It's not discrimination.

dktreesea

borkid wrote: »

By your reasoning any couple say under the age of 50 then should only have one salary taken into account for mortgage purposes.

I had been under the impression that a mortgage depended on your household income for the current and the last 2 or 3 years, not whatever the bank manager's crystal ball is telling them going forward. But perhaps banks with large losses get really risk adverse?


A different group of people entirely, but in theory our bank, for example, will calculate the mortgage period up to the age of 75 years for the oldest of the applicants. But in practice, if the couple are 50 or over, I wonder if they really do that.


Someone who works at one of the local housing associations was saying to me that they have tenants who, if they were applying now, wouldn't be entitled to a housing association home because of their income, which has risen over time. But because they already have their tenancy, they can't be charged mid market rents (I don't see why not). Are they people who would have normally moved on to owning their own home but can't because the banks are being too conservative about how much people can borrow?

Mojisola

NYM wrote: »

Lenders are lawfully entitled to consider an applicants future family planning when calculating affordability. It's not discrimination.

Almost all women could be refused a mortgage if their potential for giving birth at some time in the future was part of the financial assessment.

sangie595

NYM wrote: »

Lenders are lawfully entitled to consider an applicants future family planning when calculating affordability. It's not discrimination.

I would like to see your evidence for this, because I would consider it still unlawful discrimination, and therefore actionable. You do not need to currently be a parent or pregnant for discrimination to occur. Discrimination on the basis of "might" become a parent or pregnant is still discrimination on the grounds of sex or parental responsibility - both of which are categories of unlawful discrimination.

And, as others have observed, if this were the case in practice, virtually nobody would ever get a mortgage unless they had exceptionally high earnings; and no risk of ever becoming pregnant or a parent with cultivate responsibilities.

NYM

sangie595 wrote: »

I would like to see your evidence for this, because I would consider it still unlawful discrimination, and therefore actionable. You do not need to currently be a parent or pregnant for discrimination to occur. Discrimination on the basis of "might" become a parent or pregnant is still discrimination on the grounds of sex or parental responsibility - both of which are categories of unlawful discrimination.

And, as others have observed, if this were the case in practice, virtually nobody would ever get a mortgage unless they had exceptionally high earnings; and no risk of ever becoming pregnant or a parent with cultivate responsibilities.

The Guardian had an article on it and it's taken me ages to find it again..:(

New Affordability Rules

and this online....Mortgage Advisor

sangie595

NYM wrote: »

The Guardian had an article on it and it's taken me ages to find it again..:(

New Affordability Rules

and this online....Mortgage Advisor

You should read the articles again. They don't say what you said they say! in both cases the articles do not refer to family planning. They relate specifically to income during and after an existing pregnancy. There is nothing wrong with looking to evidence the income that somebody will have - so asking for evidence that they intend to return to work, for example. I would expect them to consider such things. If someone knows that they will not be returning to work after the pregnancy, or that they haven't made up their mind, then it would be wrong of them to believe a mortgage should be calculated on their income.

But the articles also make it clear that making assumptions based on child bearing capacity (that is, someone might become pregnant at some time) is unlawful discrimination, as is asking them whether they are pregnant.

Considering known about changes in income is a generic question - no different than someone being told that their department will be closing in six months and everyone made redundant. But they cannot ask about family planning, and if there is evidence that they have taken such a thing into account, they will face legal action, and action by the regulators.