Mortgage advisor says we do not have to mention IVA ?

[goodlifeagain]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by TzeKin

80 ltv is the best offer anyone can get..post iva.

That is the bullseye.

No point in trying for higher...really...unless you are prepared to wait and wait and then see house prices go up even more.

Post iva under two years my credit file is as strong as it can be and I hit 80 ltv.

Credit cards are easy to get.

That's not true. My husband and I were accepted by Woolwich on a 95% mortgage under the NewBuy scheme less than a year after receiving our completion certificates.

[sponge]

what your saying is that the IVA was still on your credit record goodlifeagain? Which is really wierd I was reading the "new rules" of one of the big high street mortgage lenders....And if you even enter an IVA during "term" they can make you sell your home...ekkk I was reckoning this would only happen if you were an unsecured creditor of the same banking group at a total guess!

[TzeKin]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by goodlifeagain

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by TzeKin

80 ltv is the best offer anyone can get..post iva.

That is the bullseye.

No point in trying for higher...really...unless you are prepared to wait and wait and then see house prices go up even more.

Post iva under two years my credit file is as strong as it can be and I hit 80 ltv.

Credit cards are easy to get.

That's not true. My husband and I were accepted by Woolwich on a 95% mortgage under the NewBuy scheme less than a year after receiving our completion certificates.

That is really good to hear!
How many years have your iva elapsed since you applied to the Woolwich and did you go direct?

When I spoke to Shaun the specialist broker they couldn't offer anything like that??

[nonewdebt]

Why would Woolwich accept one person for home loan and say no to another who had also been on an IVA? What consistency.
Irishram have posted that Woolwich have a six year discharge policy on IVA before giving out home loans to applicants.

Something smells fishy with goodlifeagain's cliams.

[goodlifeagain]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by nonewdebt

Why would Woolwich accept one person for home loan and say no to another who had also been on an IVA? What consistency.
Irishram have posted that Woolwich have a six year discharge policy on IVA before giving out home loans to applicants.

Something smells fishy with goodlifeagain's cliams.

You know how that comes across right?

Read Woolwich's lending criteria for intermediaries, and that's not what they say:

"Lending to a customer with a history of bankruptcy OR who has been the subject of a Debt Relief Order (DRO) or an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) can be considered provided any bankruptcy, DRO or IVA was registered more than 6 years ago from the date of submission of any mortgage application and no longer shows on the credit reference bureau information.

It is not acceptable to lend where we are aware that any applicant is currently bankrupt or subject to a DRO and/or IVA.
"

Note that - REGISTERED. Not completed, not discharged. REGISTERED.

Before you start slinging accusations around of impropriety, get your facts straight. There's nothing 'fishy' about my 'claims'. They're not claims, they're facts.

I'm not going to bother contributing any more, as I didn't come here to have my opinions held up to scrutiny, I came to help, but thanks to your unpleasant tone I no longer feel welcome. Thanks for all the support.

[Michael Peoples]

GLA. Your input is invaluable but I agree the tone of some comments was not very pleasant. I am delighted that you have been able to produce back up and show that you are neither a liar nor a mortgage fraudster so stay around and hopefully anyone who cast aspersions will apologise.

I for one will be bearing in mind what you quoted from Woolwich as it gives great hope for others in their IVAs.

[Foggy]

Hi GLA. I would like to echo Michael's comment.

Emotions run high when sorting out mortgages at the best of times ... post IVA even more so. I imagine even the lenders mis-read that distinction too, leading to unfounded rejections.

[Christabelle_sparkle]

Thanks for the info GLA
I am pleased that you sorted a mortgage post IVA, That has given us some hope.

[Adam Davies]

Hi

There are many of us with mortgages post IVA. You just need to research well and use a good broker

I am on a 2.3% above base lifetime tracker

Regards

[TzeKin]

Good to know what can be achieved and everyone likes to hear a success story.
So Woolwich and Halifax are prime contenders.That is two lenders at least who will play!

However, just to clarify things out a bit,the advice I got was if you can do higher deposit the better as there is the bank and government loan part of help to buy where interest is accrued.

However, help to buy is still with its honorable intension resting on the mantra of,buy now pay later in excess and the consequences it reaps.No examples are needed.Very precarious.

Dangerous high loan multipliers of 6x is offered? Has no lessons been learn? Barratt will offer 4x your salary.Sensible.

In Canada,a country that did not come under the bonfire of the credit crunch 80/100 mortgage is maximum permitted.Many believe that this is the defining point of what is affordable. I would agree.We should not have help to buy. That is the long term reality.

For those who wants help to buy,
in actual fact, you only need 75ltv (20 plus 5 plus 75 in loan ratios)
if you want just a new build and not any other older property.
So if Woolwich saids here is 75/100 of the loan.If your 5/100 of the property in cash is affordable then you have the deal.
I believe many can get this if your deposit stretch far enough.

[goodlifeagain]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by TzeKin

Good to know what can be achieved and everyone likes to hear a success story.
So Woolwich and Halifax are prime contenders.That is two lenders at least who will play!

However, just to clarify things out a bit,the advice I got was if you can do higher deposit the better as there is the bank and government loan part of help to buy where interest is accrued.

However, help to buy is still with its honorable intension resting on the mantra of,buy now pay later in excess and the consequences it reaps.No examples are needed.Very precarious.

Dangerous high loan multipliers of 6x is offered? Has no lessons been learn? Barratt will offer 4x your salary.Sensible.

In Canada,a country that did not come under the bonfire of the credit crunch 80/100 mortgage is maximum permitted.Many believe that this is the defining point of what is affordable. I would agree.We should not have help to buy. That is the long term reality.

For those who wants help to buy,
in actual fact, you only need 75ltv (20 plus 5 plus 75 in loan ratios)
if you want just a new build and not any other older property.
So if Woolwich saids here is 75/100 of the loan.If your 5/100 of the property in cash is affordable then you have the deal.
I believe many can get this if your deposit stretch far enough.

We didn't use Help to Buy, we used NewBuy.

[TzeKin]

New buy or help to buy it is based on the same notion.You are still coughing up 5/100 of the cost.
One thing though, on newbuy you do not need to a first home buyer.

95 mortgages is not an aspiration like paying 40/100 tax.It is dangerous.

[Michael Peoples]

If the mortgage payments are affordable the house price is irrelevant if your intention is to stay there. It does not matter what size of the deposit but to me the affordability is the key.

Many people cannot buy due to the high cost of renting which means saving is impossible. If they can get a property with monthly payments that they can afford then the mortgage is a good thing. I accept what has been said about high multiples and that is more dangerous than the percentage loan to value.

My own property has dropped by at least 50% from the peak and may even be in some negative equity. However, we can afford the mortgage payments and some day the property will be ours whatever the value. Renting does not give this to aim for nor does it give security of tenure.

Finally paying 40% tax is not an asperation. I already pay too much and paying less tax is what I want not paying more. This is alright for a multi-millionaire to spout who lives off our taxes and has a gold plated pension also paid by us!

[goodlifeagain]

If one intends to purchase a house and live in it until one dies, what's the problem with a 95% mortgage? In the four months we've had it, we've already overpaid 6K (which equates to around 3.4% of the house price), so to make a sweeping statement about 95% mortgages being dangerous is in itself dangerous.

We wanted a 95% mortgage because we didn't have a sufficiently large deposit saved to purchase at less than 95% LTV, as we didn't have time to save another 5% before the house would be completed and there was no equity in our existing home.

We knew full well that in respect of affordability, we could afford double the required repayments on the 95% mortgage, and that we would therefore overpay monthly. We're not exposed to any 'danger' as a result. At the current rate of repayment, we should have paid off our dangerous mortgage within 9 years.

Yes, we're fortunate that my husband has secured higher paid work now and so have I, but you can't state categorically that 95% mortgages are wrong for everyone.

Incidentally, I aspire to pay less than 40% tax.

[nittykitty]

Hi GLA,

I'm very interested in your contribution! I have just completed my IVA and I am desperate to move house due to expanding family in the last 10 years.

I was considering a new buy scheme if possible. Did you use a broker to obtain your mortgage or go straight to the lender?

My CC should be with us in the next few months.