Affordability checks, another angle...

*didn't even bother

I don't see the issue though longbridge - when you take out a mortgage you show you have earnings to cover their monthly payments - whatever else I spend money on is none of their business, and if I fail to pay them they get the flamin' house off me!

But if you have (let's say) 3k in takehome pay every month but are obligated to pay £1k in loan repayments and £1k in child maintenance that's not the same as having £3k in takehome without those outgoings in terms of what you can afford spend on mortgage repayments?

And lenders really don't want to be repossessing for several reasons.

After the last crash I think the lenders were told off for giving out loans to people who could not afford them so they are probably just covering themselves.

second again • June 27, 2024 2:24 PM BST
After the last crash I think the lenders were told off for giving out loans to people who could not afford them so they are probably just covering themselves.

^this

before the crash you could self-certify income, if putting down a decent deposit and 100%+ mortgages were available on three payslips.

them lending you a sum of money...perfectly reasonable imo for them to ask for whatever information they deem will satisfy their risk assessment of you

affordability checks to have a bet...totally unacceptable on all levels

It isn't just security, if they don't fully demonstrate that the loan was affordable, the whiny customer will be off to the ombudsman asking for compensation.

they have to look at

the income of the customer, net of income tax and national
insurance; and, as a minimum

(b) (i) the customer's committed expenditure; and
(ii) the basic essential expenditure and basic quality-of-living
costs of the customer's household;

.....
the source of evidence may be independent of the customer even
where it is supplied by the customer; for example, in the form of
payslips, bank statements or tax returns;

My Grandson's pregnant wife got asked what gender she like to be identified as... it's her third child !

The United Kingdom in 2024 !!!!

here you go halcyon

Sending a card to a colleague who has said they do not want their birthday celebrated could count as harassment, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The conclusion came in the case of a tax worker who has successfully sued HMRC after bosses sent her a birthday card when she expressly said she did not celebrate it.

Kani Toure was off sick with work-related stress when she asked for correspondence to be kept to a minimum and via email, the tribunal heard.

However, in the month that followed she was contacted “more than once every other day”, before being sent a birthday card despite informing her boss the previous year she did not want one.

Ms Toure, who suffers from a pituitary gland tumour that is exacerbated by stress, is now in line for compensation after winning several claims of race and disability harassment and discrimination against the government department.

The tribunal in south London heard Ms Toure, a French national of African origin and a Muslim, started working as a customer service consultant at HMRC’s Croydon office in October 2019.

In March 2020, at the start of the first pandemic lockdown, she started working from home.

Four months later, after difficulties claiming utility expenses, she told Hugh Henderson, her boss, via email that she had been discriminated against “mostly because of my foreign accent and origin”, although this was ignored.

Then on Ms Toure’s first birthday at HMRC on Aug 2 2020, Mr Henderson mentioned in a meeting that it was her birthday.

“He had a practice, at that time, of keeping a list with the birthdays of each member of his team on it,” the tribunal heard.

The next day, Ms Toure emailed him saying although it had been “very kind”, she wasn’t celebrating her birthday for “personal reasons” and asked her details be taken off any celebratory list, which she was.

By September 2020, the tribunal heard Ms Toure felt she was being “left out” of training opportunities and in November 2020 she submitted a formal, 11-page long grievance which contained “a number of allegations against a range of colleagues”.

As a result, she was transferred to HMRC’s Canary Wharf office on a temporary basis for six months. The tribunal heard that she was told she would have to withdraw her grievance if she wanted the transfer to be made permanent.

In June 2021, she saw occupational health, where a report found the tumour caused her pituitary gland to produce too much of a hormone called prolactin, which could trigger migraines.

She was subsequently on sick leave from June 30 2021.

In the month that followed, she was sent 11 emails to check she was “alright” as well as a birthday card.

The panel heard this “repeated contact” had “exacerbated” her symptoms.

Ms Toure remained absent from work until she was sent a letter in November 2021, warning her that she faced “formal steps regarding her sickness absence”.

Ms Toure then took HMRC to the tribunal, making over 20 allegations of race and disability harassment, as well as discrimination and victimisation. Ten of her claims were successful.

July election, obviously.