exiges Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 It's harder to repossess when there's kids involved.. so lenders want higher rates or more security Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topher Bear Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Well, thats me buggered then! Trying to save up deposit with two kids and only one income. Not a single parent just think it's better that we look after our kids than pay someone else to! If this is new, it could be related to loss of child tax credit and benefit, families with children are going to have lower income from april. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red11 Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I always knew the little blighters were expensive but this is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellow Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I always knew the little blighters were expensive but this is ridiculous. Isn't this making them less expensive, as you can't borrow as much and therefore the average family home will be cheaper, and your mortgage lower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Wow! Something that actually disadvantages people with children? Bring it on. It's only fair because people with children have a better chance of getting a council house etc., as they have more points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Well, thats me buggered then! Trying to save up deposit with two kids and only one income. Not a single parent just think it's better that we look after our kids than pay someone else to! If this is new, it could be related to loss of child tax credit and benefit, families with children are going to have lower income from april. cant you sell the kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 just typical families, you understand An application to Nationwide Building Society via a broker channel could mean that a childless couple might possibly borrow £207,700. This sum drops to £174,200 for a couple with 2 children and to £170,400 for couples with 3 or more. Nationwide claims it could be more generous for customers that apply to them directly. Nevertheless, a childless couple could receive £225,000, dropping to £222,000 with 2 children and £217,000 with 3 or more. thats a salary for the breadwinner of £70K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) just typical families, you understand An application to Nationwide Building Society via a broker channel could mean that a childless couple might possibly borrow £207,700. This sum drops to £174,200 for a couple with 2 children and to £170,400 for couples with 3 or more. Nationwide claims it could be more generous for customers that apply to them directly. Nevertheless, a childless couple could receive £225,000, dropping to £222,000 with 2 children and £217,000 with 3 or more. thats a salary for the breadwinner of £70K? i dont think theyve deflated that much on mortgage forms have they? Edited January 30, 2011 by Tamara De Lempicka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 i dont think theyve deflated that much on mortgage forms have they? I contacted the FSA to ask what percentage of mortgages were non-income verfied in 2010. Q1 2010: 43% Q2 2010: 37% Q3 2010: 32% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Fur Q Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I would re-word this headline as "Mortgage lenders penalise people with less money". Kids cost money therefore you have less money to spend on your mortgage. Changes like this are exactly what the banks need to be making to stop people taking on unaffordable debts. In a bizarre way I find it reassuring that the banks are doing this without being forced by the FSA. Perhaps they are trying to pre-empt the possible lending clampdown with a few concessions? Maybe then they can carry on with stupid income multiples... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppa Pig Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Or lenders assess risk of lending? http://newswestmidlands.com/families-penalised-by-mortgage-lenders/521890/ Oh well, so long as they're not hard working families then I suppose it's okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 However it was fair to take child benefit etc... into account and give people a bigger mortgage? If you've got kids you've got an expense that's very difficult to cut back on unless you a complete heartless twit and are prepared to dump your kids into care if times get tough. Cynically that would be a very good cost saving measure but I doubt many would do it, although with teenagers the temptation could be too hard to resist. Still house prices can only go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wild card Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Some lenders have always done this in their affordability calculations and I have to say I agree with it. However the same lenders,determined by the applicants credit score would then process the mortgage with no income checks. Always thought that was just plain odd! Am particularly talking about what used to be Abbey tho Yorkshire BS did it too. Children cost a bloody fortune. After 18 you are no longer responsible for them legally so you have the choice as to whether to help them or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 snip Children cost a bloody fortune. After 18 you are no longer responsible for them legally so you have the choice as to whether to help them or not. tell that to the student loans company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Er, how do the lenders know a childless couple won't have a kid after getting the mortgage? And perhaps more than one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Er, how do the lenders know a childless couple won't have a kid after getting the mortgage? And perhaps more than one. They make sure they lend them so much money they have to both keep working? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Children cost a bloody fortune. After 18 you are no longer responsible for them legally so you have the choice as to whether to help them or not. ...and they get dearer the older they get...especially once the child tax credit and child benefit stops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLegallyBlonde Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) This should have been happening for years, we went into see a mortgage advisor in 2006, three kids with us and pregnant. Your man gets his calculator out and advises us we can borrow an amount which would be 80% of hubby's take home pay interest only. And then got upset when I suggested the kids and I needed to eat too. I'd suggest ours cost us at least 25% of our take home pay to feed and clothe. Edited January 30, 2011 by iLegallyBlonde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.