to think I'm a victim of sex discrimination

[herethereandeverywhere]

My existing mortgage company has refused our application to extend our mortgage (so that we can move house) because I am on maternity leave. They have stated that they can't be sure I will go back to work

A few things to consider:

1. I have a job. I will return on exactly the same terms, full time same salary. My employer is under a legal obligation to treat me just as I was before I went on maternity leave, why should the mortgage provider be any different?
2. I have confirmed my intention (to the mortgage company) to return to work full time.
3. Insurance companies are not allowed to cite pregnancy as a reason for increased insurance premium (due to increased perceived risk) - why are mortgage providers any different?
4. Surely my husband (in fact any non-mother) could also choose to not return to work at any point during or following a mortgage application. Why is the case of a mother on maternity leave different?

Fuming. Have never ever felt so discriminated against. I'm insulted that my word is not enough. I'm mistrusted because I'm a mum!

the assumption that dh wont jack his job in is entirely different and not comparrible at all.

Mortgage lenders lend based on current circumstances. If you are currently both working time then both your word that you won't jack your job in is sufficient because you are both currently employed and earning money.

But being on maternity leave you are currently not earning the money that is required to secure the amount you will be borrowing. If the situation was reversed and your dh was on a six month career break and said "I'm going back to work in six months, honest," they still wouldn't take that into account.

It has nothing to do with the fact you're a woman - it just happens that more women have to take extended periods of time out of work, hence the perceived discrimination.

YANBU and I'm surprised if there isn't a valid discrimination claim here.

If not, what's to stop a mortgage provider from deciding to stop taking into account a woman's salary at all when a couple applies for a mortgage, on the assumption she will be going on leave during the course of the mortgage?

I bet if you did a 'hands up' here on Mumsnet you would find a lot of women who have given up professional, well paid jobs to look after their children, and some of those will have earnt more than their partners. You can't base assumptions on the people that you know, as a SAHM I personally know lots of professional women who are on career breaks at the moment. They don't go around with labels on saying ex-civil servant, ex-lawyer, ex-doctor etc.

The fact is that having a child will impact on your finances. Yes, you might go back to work but your DH may then give up to be a SAHD, or you might employ a nanny, or start paying nursery fees. The mortgage company should take it into account IMO.

I think that would be discrimination chandellina, making an assumption that all women will go on mat leave and then not return at some point in the future and therefore not taking their salary into account at all.

But whether taking actual current income into account when assessing for a loan and not taking the OP's word for it that she will be returning to her previous salary is discrimination isn't quite as clear cut. I have no knowledge of (non-employment) discrimination claims so I don't know. But I can see the mortgage company's point.

As wannabe said, if the OPs DH was on a career break, they may not be happy to take his income into account at this point either even though he might also have the right to return to work on his previous salary just as the OP does.

Yes, moomaa, of course they should take changing circumstances into account, but there is a big difference between saying "have you factored in the cost of a nanny or either of you giving up work" rather than assuming the OP will just be the one to quit.

I strongly suspect this could be discrimination. there's a mner here who spoke to the Equality and Human Rights Commission and is taking her case to the financial ombudsman - apparently it's not yet been tested in court. so all very intersting.

That's interesting hatwoman, I was about to say surely there is likely to be some case law about this as it can't be a very unusual situation.

some low-quality googling seems to indicate that it's illegal in the US. but can't find a proper source (just some local newspaper article). fascinating as this is I must do somw work

If this isn't discrimination I don't know what is.

I think what the OP has experiences is discrimination. It really can't be otherwise.

Then again expecting fair treatment from a mortgage company is a bit naive particularly in this climate. They have to make generalisations that is their business.

Any business that involves making an assesment of risk (as a mortgage company has to do when deciding on giving a mortgage) has to make assumptions based on things like gender

It quite obvously is discrimination in the broadest sense but I've never really understood how it is possible in the society we have now for it to be any other way.

I really wouldn't waste time fighting this level of discrimination, it is endemic. there are plenty of other examples that might be changed with enough will. I'm not sure this is one of them.

Yanbu. I think it's very unfair and we're in a similar situation ourselves at the moment. I'm self employed and was on mat leave last year. I was getting mat allowance while I was off and then I started working again last nov. Some of the mortgage companies won't take into account that I was on mat leave and are counting my income as what I earned before going on mat leave and not taking my mat allowance into consideration OR the fact that I am now back in work so my tax return for this year will be better than last year. Halifax seem to be better than the others in that they actually seem to listen to your personal circumstances rather than just ticking boxes on a form.

Don't know why I said tax return there I meant earnings... Sigh

Do we not think that the banks have done enough irresponsible lending and its about time they made mortgage rules stricter?

Er, recession at least partly caused by worldwide poor lending practices, anyone?

I have seen a lot of posts on here about responsible lending by mortgage lenders but having had a quick scan on the internet I have seen that a lot of mortgage lenders will still take into account bonuses and overtime as well as an individuals basic salary.
Why are bonuses & overtime a more secure bet to lenders than a woman on maternity leave? In the current climate how are bonuses or overtime guaranteed at all? Surely they are taking the word of the individual that the bonus and/or overtime are going to be a guaranteed part of their salary.
To me the risk is just as great lending money on the inflated income as it is on a woman on maternity leave.

Because many contracts include bonuses.

But surely bonuses are only paid when certain criteria are met? How is it guaranteed that the criteria will be met on all occassions?

OP, if your tales of poor treatment at work are true then you need to move to another firm. I am an ex-MC lawyer (I left because we moved out of London and am now at a regional) and didn't ever encounter anything like the treatment you describe - despite working for one of the most conservative (small 'c') firms in the City.

NB Not all bonuses are discretionary/subject to targets Mideco - some people just get x% of salary as a bonus each year. Lucky things.

Because they weigh bonuses up on the basis of probabilities. Banks take SOME bonuses and overtime into account, not all.

Banks are private businesses and can lend to whoever they like on whatever basis they like. At the moment, the criteria are stricter as the banks are trying to build high quality loan books to offset the risk of default on the one they built during the last 10 years based on 6x earnings etc.

OP- lend me £100k. I dont have a job but I will get one soon and I promise I'll pay you back. Surely my word is my bond?

It can't. but the fact that there are worse lending practices does not make a lesser one ok, does it?

Mortgage lender should not (and in the OP's case will not) lend you more money when you are statistically less likely to be able to pay it back. Its not a judgement on the OP and it certainly is not discrimination. Its common sense, and I think it a welcome return to the banking sector.

If we're comparing to bonuses, last time we applied for a mortage, the bank asked for details of DH's last three bonus payments and assumed that future payments would be in line with past payments. Perhaps the bank could assume that the OPs future income will be in line with her past income in the same sort of way.

Financial products are inherently discriminatory. They are allowed to discriminate if they can show that there is a statistical reason for their discrimination.

So for example life insurance premiums are cheaper for women. This could be seen as discriminatory. But it is allowed as statistically men are more likely to die than women.

In car insurance, insurers are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of age - charginf very high premiums for young drivers as statistically they are more likely to have an accident.

With this situation, there is a statistical probability that a woman who is on maternity leave may not return to her job full time. Statistically many women do opt for lower paid options after having a child, or stop working entirely. The mortgage companies are allowed to take this statistical possibility into account in their lending criteria.

Some mortgage comapnies will take it into account - there will be something in their rates or calculations elsewhere to cover that additional risk that they are taking.

If it were made illegal for mortgage compabies to to do, they would comply. But the net result would be slighty higher rates for everyone, lower multiples allowed, tighter affordability calcuations, to take into account the fact that the mortgage companies were now having to take a risk that they could avoid before.

Imsonottelling
Exactly what I was trying to say but you said it much better

"But it is allowed as statistically men are more likely to die than women."

I think, statistically speaking, everyone is fairly likely to die.

But agree with you.

runnybottom

This is from the EHRC website.

The issue here is surely that the mother and father are in similar circumstances (both new parents) but only the mother's income is not considered for the mortgage.