HSBC won't port our mortgage and we can't afford to stay here. Lowest point ever.

TTMCMschine

No they're not. Most families can manage if one person loses their job even if they have to tighten their belts. That level of debt is not common.

I'm suggesting that they would be better off financially if they avoided any more debt, including a mortgage.

Merlot

Hi, I have been searching for Martin's advice on re-mortgages etc, and I can highly recommend L & C, we use them 6 months ago, they are whole of market and the mortgage approval came in within 2 days, if you are struggling with debt, check out Charcoal as Martin recommends. In the meantime I hope the Halifax can lend to you and wish you luck with the proposed move and the baby, you have alot on your plate.

There are many great local, small, fees-free, whole-of-market brokers in the UK. Find one in the phone book, give them a call, ask the questions and then go face to face, that way.

Obviously, it's impossible for me to review every one of them, so I've concentrated on the four predominant UK-wide mortgage brokers; Charcol, Savills, Chase de Vere Mortgages and London & Country. All are true ‘whole of market' operators, the difference is in their charges.

The first three primarily operate face to face, while the fourth, London & Country, provide a telephone-only service thus it's cheaper to operate so can afford to be fees free. Therefore it's a bit of a no-brainer. If you want a national mortgage broker London & Country wins on price and has good customer service feedback.
Special Note for those with Credit Problems

For those who have a poor credit history (see Your Credit Rating article) and are only eligible for 'sub-prime' deals (ie not high street lending), in this case Charcol* joins London & Country, as it wipes its fee for those with credit problems, though it only offers telephone not face-to-face advice for those taking this up, and technically its service isn't "whole-of-market" it operates of a panel of lenders, but as its a very large panel the difference is negligible.

ZTD

TTMCMschine wrote: »

No they're not. Most families can manage if one person loses their job even if they have to tighten their belts

.

References? Or is this an 88.6% of statistics are made up on the spot?

If a £2M stockbroker loses his job, his wife isn't going to be able to work at Tesco to service a £4M mortgage.

And debt to income ratio of 2 is very conservative. But sub-prime according to your definition.

TTMCMschine

ZTD wrote: »

.

References? Or is this an 88.6% of statistics are made up on the spot?

If a £2M stockbroker loses his job, his wife isn't going to be able to work at Tesco to service a £4M mortgage.

And debt to income ratio of 2 is very conservative. But sub-prime according to your definition.

The OP states that she earns half of the household income, so comparing a £2million wage to a minimum wage as in your example is nonsense. Her bank is acting responsibly, not lending her money that she cannot afford.

A debt to income ratio of 2 is not conservative at all. Its lunacy. What if you add the mortgage in - what does it become then 7? 8? Its too much.

SUESMITH_2

TTMCMschine wrote: »

The "whole sub prime thing" isn't nonsense, it is a very real threat to the global economy because people have been given access to far too much debt, which realistically they could never afford. I'm sorry to say it, & I'm certainly not having a go at you or trying to upset you, but you are a prime example of a sub-prime consumer.

The reason I say that is because of the enormous amount of debt that you have coupled with a mortgage that will, if you suffer any kind of financial shock like losing your job for example, push you straight over the edge leaving your creditors no way to get their money back.

I personally would suggest that maybe you should sell the house & then instead of buying somewhere else try renting somewhere closer to work. Then you can avoid the costs, will actually be paying less every month (renting is far cheaper than buying), & you can really hammer the debts. That'll put you in a far better position to buy later.

Sorry, please don't take that the wrong way - I rent, it's not bad at all. We pay £400 per month for a massive Victorian terraced house that would be at least double that price if we were buying it.

you are very lucky to get something that cheap - where we live that wouldnt even get you a 1 bed terrace with no garden.

TTMCMschine

SUESMITH wrote: »

you are very lucky to get something that cheap - where we live that wouldnt even get you a 1 bed terrace with no garden.

Maybe, but its still cheaper to rent than to buy.

ZTD

TTMCMschine wrote: »

The OP states that she earns half of the household income, so comparing a £2million wage to a minimum wage as in your example is nonsense. Her bank is acting responsibly, not lending her money that she cannot afford.

I think you've misread it - she's not going to borrow any more money - merely move address.

TTMCMschine wrote: »

A debt to income ratio of 2 is not conservative at all. Its lunacy. What if you add the mortgage in - what does it become then 7? 8? Its too much.

I was talking *just* about the mortgage. Your definition of sub-prime is silly, and the example I gave was to show how silly it was. It labels a £2M pa stockbroker as sub-prime.

Even in more normal times with a debt (mortgage) to income ratio of 3.5 (as opposed to the current 6) and a couple earning the same money as each other, if one of them loses their job, that jumps to 7. As you say - that's too much. But a debt (mortgage) to income ratio of 3.5 is *not* sub-prime. Losing a job is a financially catastropic event. Sub-prime means that even without catastophes, people can't cope.

TTMCMschine

No, I didn't misread it. She can't afford it. Between them they'll have roughly £57K of post tax income. £80 odd K of debt is too much. A mortgage on top is far too much.

Suggesting that a £2 million per annum stockbroker couldn't be sub prime is very silly - it depends on how much they owe.

"Sub-prime means that even without catastophes, people can't cope." - Hence the reason they have £80K of debt & can't afford for her to not be working. Subprime actually means having too much debt, ie a less than prime debtor.

pandapaws

Thanks for the frank comments TTMCMschine, but renting is just not going to happen in this case! We've got extremely secure jobs that are in high demand/short supply throughout the country, full insurance through work so that in the case of any medical problems we'd receive a payout equal to 4x salary, and no problem whatsoever paying our bills each month as things are. We have high debt that we want to pay off, but we're not having any problems paying it, and we do have quite a comfortable lifestyle as well. I've also got a reasonable self-employment income which I'm not able to include for mortgage purposes which could easily be increased if I had the time to put more into it. When we move, we'll be much better off and pay off our debt even faster.

I can't agree with your comment that the bank are just being responsible - how can it possibly be responsible to try and keep us in a worse financial position that let us move to where we'd be much better off? Different if we were asking to borrow more, or taking a first time buy mortgage, but all we're trying to do is move our mortgage to a different house. And considering that half of our debt belongs to them in the first place, was given when I wasn't working, and we really couldn't afford - was that responsible lending then? HSBC gave us £20k of credit cards just 2 months ago - responsible? Not blaming them for our debt in any way, that was our decision. But is it right that they can hand out credit willy-nilly like that and then refuse to let us move house to help us pay it back more easily?

BTW, there's very little difference in rental and mortgage prices around here, there's nothing available to rent, and I don't see the point in doing it anyway - we'd still have to pay out all that money each month but have nothing to show for it. We're buying a house that will have about 50k equity in it because it needs a bit of TLC - that's got to be a better investment than lining the pockets of the buy-to-let brigade.

I don't agree that we're sub-prime either, and apparently neither do any of the mainstream lenders as we have little bother obtaining credit to switch balances etc. We have never missed a payment on anything - you say that sub-primers have been given levels of debt that they could never realistically afford to repay - we'll be debt free in approx 3 years. How can that be sub prime? Not as ideal as someone with a million quid in the bank looking to borrow a grand, but certainly not high risk.

ZTD

TTMCMschine wrote: »

Suggesting that a £2 million per annum stockbroker couldn't be sub prime is very silly - it depends on how much they owe.

As before - earns £2M, has a £4M mortgage no other debt. But if he loses his job he's in trouble. According to your definition - he's sub-prime.

TTMCMschine wrote: »

"Sub-prime means that even without catastophes, people can't cope." - Hence the reason they have £80K of debt & can't afford for her to not be working.

Not having a job is a financial castastrophe. I believe I said that earlier.

TTMCMschine wrote: »

Subprime actually means having too much debt, ie a less than prime debtor.

If you definition relies on a comparision to something else, that must be defined too. What is too much debt? What is a prime debtor? Someone with less debt than a subprime debtor perhaps?