Mortgage broker - ask me anything

Myci85

Hi all, 

Does anyone have experience/knowledge of Accord's views on 17th century half timber frame cottages? We applied through them for a mortgage on a different house with the kitchen in a single skin brick extension and they declined on valuation as not happy with the single skin brick. Wondering if they'd be as picky with the above cottage we've seen. The half timber is on just one side of the cottage, the other side has been extended so the timber frame is not on the external wall.

K_S

Myci85 said:

Hi all, 

Does anyone have experience/knowledge of Accord's views on 17th century half timber frame cottages? We applied through them for a mortgage on a different house with the kitchen in a single skin brick extension and they declined on valuation as not happy with the single skin brick. Wondering if they'd be as picky with the above cottage we've seen. The half timber is on just one side of the cottage, the other side has been extended so the timber frame is not on the external wall.

@myci85 Couldn’t give a definitive answer but generally speaking -

- timber frame isn’t usually an issue in itself as long as there is stone/brick cladding. If there is a part of the main building that is just timber and nothing else, I would expect that to be an issue.

- Accord will probably say ‘subject to valuer comments’ if asked

- the closest decline I can think of to the above is a valuer declining a property because it was too rural with poor access and no services. It was a mainstream lender but not Accord. 

In your place I’d just ask the Estate Agent about mortgageability as they (or the vendor) should have an idea. Not about Accord specifically but mainstream lenders in general. As far as I can tell the property hasn’t changed hands since 2002, in spite of being listed for sale in between in 2013, so there perhaps might be issues with getting a mortgage, who knows.

Myci85

K_S said:

Myci85 said:

Hi all, 

Does anyone have experience/knowledge of Accord's views on 17th century half timber frame cottages? We applied through them for a mortgage on a different house with the kitchen in a single skin brick extension and they declined on valuation as not happy with the single skin brick. Wondering if they'd be as picky with the above cottage we've seen. The half timber is on just one side of the cottage, the other side has been extended so the timber frame is not on the external wall.

@myci85 Couldn’t give a definitive answer but generally speaking -

- timber frame isn’t usually an issue in itself as long as there is stone/brick cladding. If there is a part of the main building that is just timber and nothing else, I would expect that to be an issue.

- Accord will probably say ‘subject to valuer comments’ if asked

- the closest decline I can think of to the above is a valuer declining a property because it was too rural with poor access and no services. It was a mainstream lender but not Accord. 

In your place I’d just ask the Estate Agent about mortgageability as they (or the vendor) should have an idea. Not about Accord specifically but mainstream lenders in general. As far as I can tell the property hasn’t changed hands since 2002, in spite of being listed for sale in between in 2013, so there perhaps might be issues with getting a mortgage, who knows.

Thank you KS. Yes I'll be asking if they know about mortgageability, and if they know what the infill panels are made from. You've done some good digging, haha, I'd seen it was on the market in 2013 and not sold, so I will definitely be asking what the circumstances were for not selling then. 

We've been stressing for so long about if we could get a mortgage due to my partner's employment circumstances, credit history etc, that it has been so disheartening to be declined due to the property we liked after all that! 

KE48

Why might a lender say they can lend significantly less when porting and borrowing more than taking out a new 5 year fix? Is the affordability assessment different between options? 

K_S

KE48 said:

Why might a lender say they can lend significantly less when porting and borrowing more than taking out a new 5 year fix? Is the affordability assessment different between options? 

@ke48 How significant? And is there still a difference if you were taking out a 2 year fix and not a 5? It could have something to do with the ported part ending in <5 years and hence being subject to a higher stress-rest compared to the 5 year fix. Still shouldn’t be a huge difference though.

Generally speaking, the lender’s system uses the same affordability calculator for both so if the inputs and requirements are consistent, they should give results that aren’t too far off each other.

KE48

K_S said:

KE48 said:

Why might a lender say they can lend significantly less when porting and borrowing more than taking out a new 5 year fix? Is the affordability assessment different between options? 

@ke48 How significant? And is there still a difference if you were taking out a 2 year fix and not a 5? It could have something to do with the ported part ending in <5 years and hence being subject to a higher stress-rest compared to the 5 year fix. Still shouldn’t be a huge difference though.

Generally speaking, the lender’s system uses the same affordability calculator for both so if the inputs and requirements are consistent, they should give results that aren’t too far off each other.

Thank you! Around 100k less on the porting vs new which is why I’m questioning it. The fix was has around 4.5 years left. I am wondering if it’s something to do with how the info has been provided as I’ve been told I meet affordability for a new 5 year fix. I had assumed I could port and borrow more and perhaps increase the term on the ported product if needed for affordability. I wasnt given that option, just told I couldn’t borrow enough with the porting option which means a significant ERC. I will speak to my broker tomorrow I just thought it worth asking here as it’s been niggling at me all weekend. 

K_S

KE48 said:

K_S said:

KE48 said:

Why might a lender say they can lend significantly less when porting and borrowing more than taking out a new 5 year fix? Is the affordability assessment different between options? 

@ke48 How significant? And is there still a difference if you were taking out a 2 year fix and not a 5? It could have something to do with the ported part ending in <5 years and hence being subject to a higher stress-rest compared to the 5 year fix. Still shouldn’t be a huge difference though.

Generally speaking, the lender’s system uses the same affordability calculator for both so if the inputs and requirements are consistent, they should give results that aren’t too far off each other.

Thank you! Around 100k less on the porting vs new which is why I’m questioning it. The fix was has around 4.5 years left. I am wondering if it’s something to do with how the info has been provided as I’ve been told I meet affordability for a new 5 year fix. I had assumed I could port and borrow more and perhaps increase the term on the ported product if needed for affordability. I wasnt given that option, just told I couldn’t borrow enough with the porting option which means a significant ERC. I will speak to my broker tomorrow I just thought it worth asking here as it’s been niggling at me all weekend. 

@ke48 Just to be clear, my comment was based on porting vs a new 5 year fix with the same lender. For example if you're with Skipton then porting the remainder of your current fix + additional borrowing with Skipton  VS  the full amount on a new Skipton 5 year fix.

If you're comparing porting with lender A vs a 5 year fix in the whole of market (any lender), then it is entirely possible that lender A will only lend 400k while lender B will allow 500k. Different lenders will have different affordability calculators, assumptions, etc. so you can get vastly different borrowing figures for the same inputs.

To get a very very rough idea of the numbers, you could try playing around with the lender's full affordability calculator. For example, if you want to check Halifax, just google 'Halifax for intermediaries affordability calculator', input your numbers and see what it returns. Similarly for other lenders.

KE48

K_S said:

KE48 said:

K_S said:

KE48 said:

Why might a lender say they can lend significantly less when porting and borrowing more than taking out a new 5 year fix? Is the affordability assessment different between options? 

@ke48 How significant? And is there still a difference if you were taking out a 2 year fix and not a 5? It could have something to do with the ported part ending in <5 years and hence being subject to a higher stress-rest compared to the 5 year fix. Still shouldn’t be a huge difference though.

Generally speaking, the lender’s system uses the same affordability calculator for both so if the inputs and requirements are consistent, they should give results that aren’t too far off each other.

Thank you! Around 100k less on the porting vs new which is why I’m questioning it. The fix was has around 4.5 years left. I am wondering if it’s something to do with how the info has been provided as I’ve been told I meet affordability for a new 5 year fix. I had assumed I could port and borrow more and perhaps increase the term on the ported product if needed for affordability. I wasnt given that option, just told I couldn’t borrow enough with the porting option which means a significant ERC. I will speak to my broker tomorrow I just thought it worth asking here as it’s been niggling at me all weekend. 

@ke48 Just to be clear, my comment was based on porting vs a new 5 year fix with the same lender. For example if you're with Skipton then porting the remainder of your current fix + additional borrowing with Skipton  VS  the full amount on a new Skipton 5 year fix.

If you're comparing porting with lender A vs a 5 year fix in the whole of market (any lender), then it is entirely possible that lender A will only lend 400k while lender B will allow 500k. Different lenders will have different affordability calculators, assumptions, etc. so you can get vastly different borrowing figures for the same inputs.

To get a very very rough idea of the numbers, you could try playing around with the lender's full affordability calculator. For example, if you want to check Halifax, just google 'Halifax for intermediaries affordability calculator', input your numbers and see what it returns. Similarly for other lenders.

Thank you. This scenario is comparing the same lender, not two different ones. I have used the intermediaries calculator and it’s coming out with the higher number. Super helpful to know that with the same lender, it probably shouldn’t be so different between the two so it’s worth further conversation. Really appreciate your responses. 

LL198585

Hi all quick question 

my partner house is worth 160 grand and owes 78 grand to Newcastle building society.

when she bought the house she was on 24 grand a year but now earns 10 thousand due to baby and  has my second income but I’m not in a position to get credit.

will she be able to borrow extra money to cover home improvements when she makes just 10 grand a year? Perfect credit and no other debts 

thanks in advance 

LL

K_S

LL198585 said:

Hi all quick question 

my partner house is worth 160 grand and owes 78 grand to Newcastle building society.

when she bought the house she was on 24 grand a year but now earns 10 thousand due to baby and  has my second income but I’m not in a position to get credit.

will she be able to borrow extra money to cover home improvements when she makes just 10 grand a year? Perfect credit and no other debts 

thanks in advance 

LL

@ll198585 Not likely on a 10k income as it wouldn’t meet affordability to borrow the existing loan amount of 78k, let alone any additional funds on top of that.