Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
After the many discussions on here, thought this might interest some.
Recently been looking at a new mortgage, and what has struck me is the issue of how ACs are now done. When I got my last mortgage, quite a few years ago, they literally didn't even other asking me/missus for more than one payslip, gave a loose credit check (done out of my sight) and nothing else.
Just recently, now they are asking for at least last 3 payslips (from us both), and then the real change - bank statements. The interesting thing is how they vary the different lenders. Some state they probably won't need to see a bank statement (just payslips), others say most recent statement showing earnings, some said usually 3 months of banks statements, and one even said potentially up to 6 months of bank statements to apply.
The latter two (3 months standard) IMO are completely intrusive, just as we've debated about ACs on here.
Seems this has changed over the years for sure, but the era of being 'snooped and spied on' is certainly here. Why they want to see what takeaways I order is a mystery to me, and downright wrong IMO. When I can clearly prove my income in my payslips.
Recently been looking at a new mortgage, and what has struck me is the issue of how ACs are now done. When I got my last mortgage, quite a few years ago, they literally didn't even other asking me/missus for more than one payslip, gave a loose credit check (done out of my sight) and nothing else.
Just recently, now they are asking for at least last 3 payslips (from us both), and then the real change - bank statements. The interesting thing is how they vary the different lenders. Some state they probably won't need to see a bank statement (just payslips), others say most recent statement showing earnings, some said usually 3 months of banks statements, and one even said potentially up to 6 months of bank statements to apply.
The latter two (3 months standard) IMO are completely intrusive, just as we've debated about ACs on here.
Seems this has changed over the years for sure, but the era of being 'snooped and spied on' is certainly here. Why they want to see what takeaways I order is a mystery to me, and downright wrong IMO. When I can clearly prove my income in my payslips.
Show More
"Why they want to see what takeaways I order is a mystery to me, and downright wrong IMO."
Guessing they want to see if you're paying debt repayments, child maintenance etc etc that you "forgot" to tell them about?
Guessing they want to see if you're paying debt repayments, child maintenance etc etc that you "forgot" to tell them about?
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!
Of course, ironically is they will see some of my 'gambling related' transations - no doubt that will suddenly be a question I get...
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.
And lenders really don't want to be repossessing for several reasons.
So why did this kind of intrusive check into every anal detail of finance activity not happen in the past, if it was so essential?
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.
Loan-to-value percentages back up, income multiples back up, house price growth (which was a get-out-of-jail-free card for lenders) stagnant.
So chance of borrowers defaulting while in negative equity higher.
And - as second again says - the lenders had their knuckles rapped last time this went wrong.
So chance of borrowers defaulting while in negative equity higher.
And - as second again says - the lenders had their knuckles rapped last time this went wrong.
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.
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.
I can see some of that reasoning, fair enough.
I still think needing to see 3 months of every single transaction you make overbearing and intrusive.
I still think needing to see 3 months of every single transaction you make overbearing and intrusive.
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
affordability checks to have a bet...totally unacceptable on all levels
You have to factor in the security they are getting from you too though - so no, I don't personally see the need for such a detail of information personally. Is it ok to ask for 5 years of bank statements, or to see every other account you might hold e.g. savings/shares etc. if anything goes in this kind of stuff? Where does the 'limit' end?
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;
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;
I should add, we are putting up around 70% of the new house value as our deposit as a lump of cash - if that isn't enough for them to hold onto...
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 !!!!
The United Kingdom in 2024 !!!!
There is no standard procedure - different lenders will ask different questions. It may vary depending on the underwriters evaluation of the application.
The bottom line is they are lending you money so they can ask for anything they consider relevant.
So chill out (unless you are worried about something you have not disclosed)
The bottom line is they are lending you money so they can ask for anything they consider relevant.
So chill out (unless you are worried about something you have not disclosed)
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.
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.
So chill out (unless you are worried about something you have not disclosed)
My investments, including some gambling related, are relatively complex. Just don't want them sniffing and sitting asking endless questions, around everything I do (or don't).
My investments, including some gambling related, are relatively complex. Just don't want them sniffing and sitting asking endless questions, around everything I do (or don't).
Cider, good evening.
We have become like the U S A, people are exploiting very weak employment laws ! At the N H S and local government you can now be disciplined for not adressing peoples' individual pronouns ! So a non binary person will insist on being a ''they'' or ''them!''
What I always find so astonishing is that 0.00000001 % of the population set the agenda !
We have become like the U S A, people are exploiting very weak employment laws ! At the N H S and local government you can now be disciplined for not adressing peoples' individual pronouns ! So a non binary person will insist on being a ''they'' or ''them!''
What I always find so astonishing is that 0.00000001 % of the population set the agenda !
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539