Historical mortgage question

Computer_Beginner

A query for the older generation out there...
Not really important, but out of interest;

I was speaking to an older relative recently. They mentioned that a few years ago (about 1975-1985 period), they were advised that banks would not give mortgages on houses (not flats) that were three stories high (or more I guess?).

Anyone know why this would be?

My immediate thought was possible maintenance issues with the roof etc. But that seems a bit extreme - not that much more expensive to get scaffolding up an extra level, is it?

My relative didn't know the reason why, they'd been told by someone else, when they were searching for a house to buy.

I have read that mortgages were 'rationed' back then, so whether this had anything to do with it, I don't know.

Someone else I spoke to thought it may have been due to the fact that rental laws were different back then and the banks may have been nervous about people turning these houses into HMOs?* (This being the pre-AST days of Rigsby and Rising Damp etc).

I know more recently, HMO regulations have specified three story houses as being of interest to licensing regulations.

Any ideas...?

*actually, they used the term 'doss house' - maybe there was no such term as HMO back then?!

ACG

BankS or the bank they went to?

It is not uncommon in todays world that certain lenders will not lend on certain properties where as others will.

It might have just been a quirk of that particular lender. I cant answer your question however, as I was born in 1984 so a bit before my time.

davidmcn

I've never heard of any such general policy. Were they told this by someone who would actually know, or just another layperson who may have got the wrong end of the stick from a friend of a friend of a bloke down the pub?

Waterlily24

I've never heard of that either. I worked for one of the big building societies (now a bank) up until about 1975, so could have been different after I left but doubt it.

kingstreet

I've been in the business since 1984 and this rings no bells with me. Saying which there weren't that many three storey houses around then either...

Waterlily24

I've just remembered that the village I lived in while working for the building society had some new houses built in the valley and they were 3 storey town houses. Garage and kitchen on the ground floor, living area 1st floor and bedrooms second floor. One of the ladies who worked with me bought one and had a mortgage. It was brand new when they bought it.

Computer_Beginner

kingstreet wrote: »

I've been in the business since 1984 and this rings no bells with me. Saying which there weren't that many three storey houses around then either...

These houses were built around 1800-1900 (at a guess).

Computer_Beginner

davidmcn wrote: »

I've never heard of any such general policy. Were they told this by someone who would actually know, or just another layperson who may have got the wrong end of the stick from a friend of a friend of a bloke down the pub?

It was the relative who was looking to make the purchase who made the comment. He'd bought quite a few houses in his time, so I expect he had some experience of lenders etc. But my understanding is that there was less choice of mortgage lenders back then.

kingstreet

Computer_Beginner wrote: »

But my understanding is that there was less choice of mortgage lenders back then.

Quite the opposite.

Before the trend for mergers and the "big is beautiful" approach there were lots more smaller lenders.

Think of Nationwide Building Society as an example. It is made up of;-

Nationwide
Anglia
Cheshire
Staffordshire
Derbyshire
Portman
Dunfermline
The Mortgage Works
UCB HomeLoans.

Santander has Abbey National, Burnley, National & Provincial, Alliance & Leicester and some of Bradford & Bingley.

Yorkshire BS has Norwich & Peterborough, Chelsea etc.

The market these days is probably more sophisticated but there is markedly less choice due to fewer lenders.

bouicca21

When I were a lass ... some lenders didn't like Victorian conversions.


As a shot in the dark, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up, maybe it was less about the number of storeys and more about badly drafted leases?

katejo

Computer_Beginner wrote: »

A query for the older generation out there...
Not really important, but out of interest;

I was speaking to an older relative recently. They mentioned that a few years ago (about 1975-1985 period), they were advised that banks would not give mortgages on houses (not flats) that were three stories high (or more I guess?).

Anyone know why this would be?

My immediate thought was possible maintenance issues with the roof etc. But that seems a bit extreme - not that much more expensive to get scaffolding up an extra level, is it?

My relative didn't know the reason why, they'd been told by someone else, when they were searching for a house to buy.

I have read that mortgages were 'rationed' back then, so whether this had anything to do with it, I don't know.

Someone else I spoke to thought it may have been due to the fact that rental laws were different back then and the banks may have been nervous about people turning these houses into HMOs?* (This being the pre-AST days of Rigsby and Rising Damp etc).

I know more recently, HMO regulations have specified three story houses as being of interest to licensing regulations.

Any ideas...?

*actually, they used the term 'doss house' - maybe there was no such term as HMO back then?!

My parents bought a 3 storey house in 1982 and they definitely needed a mortgage for it.