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!

happysmiley - you've found one of the key issues - it's that word "blanket". the use of "blanket" policies in some areas has been found unlawful. (although the EHRC wording is poor, refering to "a" blanket refusal, which doesn;t make sense).

the thing to remember is that discrimination and differentiation are different. where there is reasonable, objective justification then differentiation is permitted. However pure use of stats to justify differentiation is legally difficult, as is any form of differentation based on gender - there have been European legal judgments (on immigration) that say different treatment by gender is so serious that it would be very unusual for there to be a reasonable justification. clearly this has happened in some areas - car insurance, for example. but it doesn;t mean it would necessarily translate into lending provision. I really want this issue to be tested in court as I think it's fascinating

Shriekingharpy that piece says that financial services may not discriminate on the grounds of sex, or because they are in part time employment as that would be indirect discrimination against women given that more women than men work part time.

With maternity leave though, it is not the same as a man who has become a new father. Maternity leave means that you are not in receipt of your normal income, you are away from your normal work for a long period of time having a life chaging experience, and the law says that you do not have to tell anyone whether you plan to return to work or not. We all know that most women tell their employers they will be returning whether they actually are or not.

A man who has become a new father does not (normally) have the same factors, and from a societal POV they are less likely to change their work practice/hours due to arrival of a child.

I would argue that if men were allowed to share pat leave, mortgage companies would be cagey about allowing for their full pre-leave pay as well.

If a man was on an unpaid sabattical, I do not think that mortgage companies would take his pre-sabattical earnings into account. I would be extraordinarily surprised if they did.

Plus if it is found to be discriminatory the extra costs attached will simpy be shared across the population, making things more expensive for everyone. At least with mat leave you have the option of waiting until back at work before making the deal.

the EHRC's point (although they don;t elaborate it well) is that differentiating between people based on how many hours they work can be indirect discrimination. This is because firstly it will effect more men than women and secondly it has no objective justification - the number of hours worked is irrelevant. it's earnings that count.

not the same issue as the OP's but a blanket policy not to give mortgages to p-t workers would almost certainly be discriminatory - for these two reasons

They are not in similar circumstances. He is working, she is on maternity leave. It would be the same if he was on a career break and she was working full time.
The issue is that she is not working full time, it is has little to do with why.

derr "will effect more women than men"

hatwoman it is fascinating.

There is a real problem meeting the two sides - one being a correct desire for no discrimination - the other being financial services to be allowed to assess risk reasonably.

The stuff that has gone to court so far was to do with age discrimination - my memory is hazy but UK were taken to court for having a default retirement age, and which age you can force your employees to retire. This would seem to be in contravention of discrimination laws. Round 1 went to UK, I'm not sure what has happened since.

The problem with financial services is that if you tie providers hands as to how they assess risk and who they insure, you end up making products so expensive that they are no longer viable.

I think as long as there are good statistical reasons for decisions it should be let go - otehrwise the majority lose access to valuable products IYSWIM.

being on mat leave and being on sabbatical aren't comparable. being on mat leave is, legally speaking, something you do because you are a woman. (who's just had a baby, obviously). which is why, many years ago, not allowing a woman time off work to have her baby and denying her the right to keep her job was realised to be discriminatory. the underlying logic is, ultimately, that sacking someone for having a baby, is sacking someone for being a woman.

Legally you only have to take 2 weeks though, taking longer is a choice IYSWIM like going on sabattical.

In both cases while there is an intention to return to work it may change during the course of the absence.

In any case some mortgage companies will lend to women on mat leave, taking their pre mat leave earnings into account - but I expect they are paying somewhere for the privilege. I think that is the interesting point here - whether it is discrimination is moot - it may well be decided that it is - but people need to understand that it will impact the terms etc for everyone.

That would only apply as discriminatory if maternity leave was the only type of leave that made them refuse. If the rule is; you can't extend a mortgage if you are on mat leave, paternity leave, parental leave, carers leave, career break, sabbatical, or any other kind of leave that means you are not engaged in your regular work practices and earning capacity.

A mortgage company behaving unreasonably??????

The OP and her DH are not in the same situation, he is working and earning and she is not. A fair comparator would be if both were taking a year off work, both confirmed they would be returning full time but the mortgage company only took the OP's DH's word for it, not hers.

In terms of the part time discrimination issue referred to by the EHRC it seems to me very unlikely that any mortgage company would refuse a loan purely based on the number of hours someone works a week. All I imagine they are interested in is how much their income is. Whether that income is earned over 40 or 4 hours a week wouldn't affect their decision.

Reducing the amount of the loan people can apply for in line with a reduction in income following a reduction of hours is obviously fair enough.

The mortgage company have to base their decision to lend on certain criteria.
The mortgage lender's decision isn't based on the fact that you are a woman, it is based on the fact that you are not working at the moment because you are on maternity leave and that there is no guarantee that you will be returning to work until your do actually return. I told everyone I was returning to work after DS1, that was the plan, however at the last minutes a medical issue arose for my son which meant that returning to work was out of the question. I only had to give my employer a month's notice of my intentions.
If you had been me in that situation, you would have been very relieved that the mortgage company didn't lend you the extra based on your earnings.
OP - how far into your maternity leave are you, out of interest?

Wow! So much anger....

YANBU!! Several friends of mine have moved during maternity leave with banks accepting letter of return date to work.

I agree with you - you're being discriminated against but unfortunately I don't think you're able to do anything about it from a legal point of view.

That does not mean I can't try elsewhere for a mortgage! And change your bank account while you're at it.

And perhaps tell the bank in question how you feel (once you've secured a mortgage elsewhere) and let them know that as your custom seemed unwelcome, you've voted with your feet.

What a rubbish bank! Poor you - you don't need the stress when you're pregnant.

Be positive and try to get what you need elsewhere.

One of the big differences between maternity leave and career breaks is that your employer is legally obliged to keep your job open for you. (When DH took his career break his job was not guaranteed, but he was told that they would take him back if there was a business need. In practice, this meant that they nearly always have openings at his level and they would almost certainly take him back, but if business went downhill they wanted to keep their options open. You can't do that to an employee on maternity leave.)

So the OP's future earning potential is not in doubt, same as her husband's. What the mortgage company does doubt is whether she will exercise her right to earn this money. They doubt her intention, but not her husband's, because they have undertaken some crude gender stereotyping (ie they have discriminated).

isnt, it's a valid point, we will of course all have to bear the cost. But that is the same whenever whenever we try to tackle any discrimination. If my employer had been sensible about it, he would never have recruited me (married woman in her 30s, very likely to have a child). But he did and he spent money on training me and recruitment fees. His expected benefit would have been higher from a man but he chose not to discriminate. He did ok (I've done a couple of years in the role, been promoted and not had any kids) but it could have gone the other way and ultimately the cost would have been passed on to our customers. Nobody however bats an eyelid if it is the case because as a society that is what we have decided is fair and reasonable.

OP - we had this this summer when we moved and I was on maternity leave. My salary is about 75% of our household income. At the time of the application (again, to our existing lender) I was on SMP, but returning FT in c3 months.

The woman on the phone was very "computer says no" based on what I earnt that week. I asked her to speak to someone else, and she came back also straightaway saying that it would be fine with a letter from my employer about my return and my salary, plus they could look as much as 3 months ahead for salary projections, so could make the lend.

I do understand that many women do not eventualy return to work, even when they intend to (as per DisplayBefore). I also understand that there need to be sensible lending criteria and calculated risks. However, some of the expectations put on women do rankle. Not least the idea that I might not return to work - even though we've just taken out a great big mortgage! And I make the money in the house.

So, in actual fact, perhaps a 3 month look-ahead period is not a bad compromise. The baby is born, so you know whether there might be immediate problems preventing you from going back, and you have a sense of what family life is now like. But blanket refusals on women purely because they are on maternity leave does seem to border on discrimination.

ps - on your working environment. That is toxic. I too am a city solicitor, have been at a couple of different firms in various departments and cities, and have never had what you've experienced.

"isnt, it's a valid point, we will of course all have to bear the cost."

You miss the point there happy, that if financial products have to be absolutely discrimination free, many of them will disappear altogether.

Personally I'm not fussed either way - this did happen to me 2 months ago (we are remortgaging at the moment and I am on mat leave) and initially I was pissed off, but given that there are products out there who do take pre mat leave salary into account I couldn't get too worked up about it. My initial thought was that it was discriminatory, my second thought was that I could understand why they did it.

I may be wrong here ,but at present you are not earning -so therefore your usual pay is not applicable to the lending calculation. When you return to work reapply and it will be counted.
Just as a couple of whom only 1 party works will only be loaned to on the basis of 1 salary.
Not discrimination , just a normal way of calcualting the loan IMHO.

Any particular products? I'm thinking that we'd still have mortgages.

I'm thinking things like life insurance, health insurance, critical illness cover, payment protection plans. Final salary pension schemes would all have to go (mind you they are anyway). Mortgages would have to go I reckon, on the current basis. Insurance of all types would be out the window.

In a total discrimination-free place, everyone would have to pay into a pot and all benefits / loans etc come out of that. So all provided by the govt I guess and with no commercial products. And of course due to the lack of discrimination, the benefits available to all would be a lot less.

Actually still thinking about mortgages. The others are quite obvious though, and usually due to disability & age discrimination.

Sorry that "quite obvious" sounded a bit patronising i didn't mean it like that.

Still thinking about mortgages!

I can see where you're coming from if we try to incorporate other types of discrimination into it but if we stick with the sex discrimination, I don't think the market in any of the products you list would be significantly affected.

As people have already said, many companies already provide mortgages to women on maternity leave and I assume these are at the same rates. Presumably this is because they believe that women returning from maternity leave aren't actually a higher credit risk than anyone else. This would make sense given that the issue here is about intentions and whether the individual really would return to work. The woman is signalling her intention to return to work by the very fact that she is looking to take on the mortgage. Generally women who don't intend to go back don't take on more financial commitments if they can help it.

This is quite different from the age discrimination if a 60 year old is refused a mortgage despite his claim to wish to work past retirement. The main reason he would be denied, is because he is reasonably unlikely to live another 25 years to pay the mortgage and that is why he becomes a credit risk, not because the mortgage company decides not to believe that he wants to carry on work.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this policy would mean that any couple in their 20s or 30s who wanted to buy a house together should only be allowed a mortgage on his salary. Because we all know that they are bound to have kids and she probably will never work again.