Skip Navigation
 

Mortgage Lenders Are Still Ripping You Off

<%=_author %>
By Jane Baker | 21 May 2008

Getting on the property ladder seems harder than ever for first-time buyers. Not only are mortgage rates rising, but lenders are demanding even higher deposits. And -- as if that wasn't bad enough -- rip-off mortgage fees are really rubbing salt in the wounds.

Gone are the days when cash-strapped wannabe homeowners could go for 100% or 100%-plus mortgages. These days it's pretty much a given that you'll need a 5% deposit to stand any hope of getting a mortgage loan. But, worse still, the costs of getting a decent deal are also on the up.

You'll usually have to stump up for a product fee. These days this can often run to several hundreds of pounds, if not more. But on top of that, if you only have a small deposit, you may well get clobbered with a higher lending charge too.

What Is A Higher Lending Charge?

A higher lending charge (HLC) protects the lender if you default on your mortgage. As you're only putting down a small deposit, you're considered a greater risk. To balance this extra risk out, you may be charged an HLC. The HLC is sometimes used to buy an insurance policy, which safeguards the lender from financial loss if you fall into arrears.

You don't necessarily need to pay the HLC upfront. You'll usually have the option of adding it onto your mortgage loan. Don't forget, by doing that you could end up paying interest on the charge over your entire mortgage term.

But this is what's really unfair: As well as paying an HLC, you'll also be stuck with a higher mortgage rate because the lender will see you as a 'risky' borrower.

Hang on a minute -- isn't the HLC supposed to protect lenders from 'risky' borrowers? This begs the question: Why do you need to pay a higher interest rate, when you're already paying an extra fee?

Not only will your monthly repayments be higher, but you'll also have to fork out more to pay the fees on your home loan. That means you'll be stung twice, all because you haven't been able to amass a larger deposit.

I first talked about HLCs in Buy Your First Home For Less. At that time, I revealed a minority of lenders -- roughly a third -- applied this charge if you wanted to borrow 95% of the property value. But since then the situation appears to have got worse.

To qualify for the lowest interest rates, you'll almost certainly encounter an HLC. Take a look at these top deals which are currently available to new borrowers with a 5% deposit:

Top Mortgage Deals At 95% Loan To Value

Lender

Rate

Product/

Booking Fee

Higher Lending Charge (HLC)

Total Cost Of Fees*

Skipton BS

5.79% fixed to 30/06/2010

£799

£2,953.50

£3,752.50

Post Office

5.89% fixed to 31/05/2011

£599

No HLC

£599

Stafford Railway BS

5.99% standard variable rate

No charge

£1,993.20

£1,993.20

Post Office

6.09% fixed to 31/05/2011

£599

No HLC

£599

Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank

6.19% fixed to 31/07/2009 or 31/07/2010 or 31/07/2013

£999

£2,293.50

£3,292.50

NatWest Mortgage Services

6.20% variable

£1,499

£2,409.00

£3,908.00

Royal Bank of Scotland

6.20% variable

£1,499

£2,293.50

£3,792.50

Source: Moneyfacts - as at 20 May 2008. Figures based on a mortgage loan of £156,750 - 95% of £165,000 property value, repayable over 25 years. *Excluding valuation fees, legal fees, stamp duty and any other applicable charges.

The Post Office is the only lender in this selection not to charge an HLC. But to qualify for the other deals shown, you must be prepared to pay an HLC of around £2,000 to £3,000, adding a significant chunk to your total mortgage fees.

Naturally, first-time buyers are going to find these lower rate mortgages attractive. After all -- according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders -- the average rate on a two-year fixed rate mortgage has crept up from 6.3% to 7% since last summer. But the HLC can be a heavy price to pay for the top rates.

Remortgaging

First-time buyers aren't the only borrowers to fall into the HLC trap. The charge may also come into play if you want to remortgage but you only have 5% equity in your home. If your loan to value (LTV) -- which is your mortgage loan as a percentage of the value of your home -- is just 95%, then an HLC could be an unavoidable hurdle for you too when you want to move to a new mortgage deal.

Can You Avoid The HLC?

Not all lenders charge an HLC. Check out all the costs before committing yourself. To help you compare deals, speak to a broker at The Motley Fool's award winning mortgage service.

Usually, the HLC will disappear if you manage to build up a deposit of 10% or more. True, that's a lot to ask of struggling first-time buyers, but if it's at all possible, you could enjoy a double whammy of lower fees and a lower mortgage rate too.

More: Why Rate Doesn't Rule For Mortgages | More Relief For Mortgage Payment Shock

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool.

At 07:33 on May 22 2008, flying4fool said:

when my home was re-possessed in the early 90's crash I had insurance protection on my mortgage. This, I thought, protected the lender from losses incurred. Several years later the insurance company came after me & my wife for the sum they had paid out to my lender - so beware - not only are you paying out to protect your lender, but then you have the insurance company coming to get what they had paid out as well.

At 08:05 on May 22 2008, AdrianAllen said:

The simple and effective way to avoid paying these charges is not to take out a mortgage at the current time and not to buy a house. The market is still overpriced and if buyers hold off, prices will go lower. You may fall in love with a house, but having too big a mortgage can potentially ruin your life (at least in the short to medium term). There are more costs than just the mortgage when owning a house.

At 08:20 on May 22 2008, Hitman101 said:

I don't get it - In most cases except for a negative equity situation where you have a positive equity e.g. house value £100K, Outstanding Mortgage £90K, If you default, your house is repossessed and sold. Assuming that the value of the sale is not under-valued to expidite a sale, it would seem to me that the mortgage company stands to recover enough money to cover the debt with money to spare to cover reasonable fees and a reasonable amount of interest. There could be money enough to return some to the client. It seems to me that the need for HLC and other charges are pointless and not needed except to help line the banks pockets and to do this at the cost of the client. Banks are required to help clients in times of difficulty, providing the facility to alter the mortgage to assist in times of difficulty, not exact some measure petty of revenge for failing to pay a relatively small amount of money compared to the overall mortgage. It's not like they are going to go bankrupt anytime soon if the occasional client misses a few payments. Of course if they are stupid enough to make significant loans to ultra high risk customers, why should the low-risk, mature customers have to pay for the banks mistakes

Isn't it time the that banks be subjected to much more strict rules on how they are allowed to operate.

At 08:25 on May 22 2008, Dhahran2001 said:

I am sure Jane Baker would like to get something for nothing but it is hardly rocket science to conclude that the average cost of borrowing money must be close to the LIBOR; actually it is bound to be higher because banks and mortgage lenders have to cover their costs and, except for the mutuals, reasonably want to make some profit. All that has happened over the last 30 years is that lenders have found creative ways of dressing their products - low headline grabbing interest rates coupled with supplementary charges bearing all sorts of fancy names. None of this matters so long as one set of customers is not being used to subsidise another set of customers. I certainly have no time for those who benefitted from subsidy (at the expense of those on SVRs) and are bleating now. Equally I have no sympathy for Northern Rock and any lender who runs out of money. A mortgage is typically a long term contract and in my opinion those who do not churn the pot should be rewarded for their loyalty by progressively lower rates, those who do not create fancy deceptive contracts should be rewarded with a growing trading balance.

At 08:28 on May 22 2008, bankatamakara said:

Banks are acting very irresponsibly in that they are not only charging HLC but loading the interest rate. That to all intents and purposes is double insurance - which is illegal.
Also, I know of three cases where a financial institution withdrew the offer of funds AFTER the exchange of contracts - even although the amount was ring fenced between the broker and the lender.
Now solicitors are getting jittery because they are seen acting on the clients behalf and entering into a contract to pay money for a house, but the mortgage is then withdrawn.
The contract is between the buyer and vendor. Naturally the banks don't enter into any contracts. Read the small print.
The financial institutions have totally flipped from greed to fear and still only care about one thing, namely themselves and their stockholders.
In ten years they have gone from increasingly irresponsible lending (and poorly judged derivative trading) to bureaucraticly gumming up the works.
Someone better break the practice because every year there are at least 500,000 people who need to move house for hatches, matches, despatches, promotion, demotion, job relocation....and repossession.

At 09:06 on May 22 2008, atalayones said:

Do the banks want to ruin the economy altogether ? People need somewhere to live and with rents also rising no-one will be able to live anywhere! Its also the knock on effect for home improvement firms,tradesman,removal firms,solictors etc it just ruins the economy altogether.

At 09:21 on May 22 2008, Fazzersix said:

That's why its called rip off britain. The amount interest charged on our mortgages should be enough to cover the few defaults each year.
Its bad management of FUNDS waste,a bit like the goverment with our taxes,the amount of tax we pay should give the goverment no need to loan money.
I tar them both with same brush-RIP OFF-BRITAIN.

At 09:44 on May 22 2008, davoh said:

I keep hearing this word loyalty, Dharhan being the latest. These bods are living an illusion. Money grubbing dictates the market, loyalty no longer exists and if you think it does then we'll have your house and boot you up the backside to help you on your way. It's rather sweet these sentiments still exist. My account with Bradfords building supplies was closed recently because of a late payment (an oversight, no matter) after many years. I had spent 100s of thousands and always paid on time. Loyalty, loyalty my arse. All the best, Dave

At 12:51 on May 22 2008, Infiniteplayer said:

The answer to the above is quite simple; banks are run and financed by people that could not possibly relate to Mr and Mrs Average. The investors, share holders and the various other money lenders, earn billions. The resent BBC documentary on the Super Rich, exposed most of the money loaner’s game play making it very clear to all that the banking system is exploiting those in most need. Money is energy and life force, so I see the greedy few that are absorbing the life force from us as a form of parasite or vampire. Maybe people ought to look into alternatives to money like the LETS system? Credit unions are also worth a look. Renting in the UK is ridiculously expensive and can often cost more than a mortgage, renting abroad is FAR cheaper and value for money in room size is more realistic, so a lot of people in France and Germany, prefer to rent and spend their surplus money on living! So it is ‘double’ rip off Britain, in that you pay vastly over the odds to either rent or buy. Exploitation seems to be the name of the game played by a greedy few.

At 13:32 on May 22 2008, mambodog said:

Grow up and stop whining. This used to be a good investing website, but things change. You have no God given right to borrow money and when you do you pay the market price. If you are a good risk you pay less and if you are less good you pay more, its that simple. The mortgage lenders are businesses, not charities, its their job to maximise profits not give you a free ride. Similarly if you think France and Germany are better value, go and live there, but make sure you speak their language and have the skills they have.
Why should you be subsidized, so you can profit when house prices go up but not suffer when they go down.

At 14:47 on May 22 2008, NZJenn said:

Personally I would never consider taking on a mortgage with less than 10% deposit, and I'm not surprised that the lenders are double dipping, it's what they do.

We left the UK in December as we'd had enough of working our butts off only to have less and less disposable income, seems everyone (businesses) wants something for nothing in the UK.
We rented our house out and was amazed that we had to:
1 - ask permission from our mortgage company
2 - pay 100 quid for the pleasure
3 - once approved pay an additional 1% interest on our mortgage!
4 - even if we stop letting our house the additional 1% interst stays until we move back into the house permanently!
When it comes to taking the pi$$ and screwing you over the UK seems to have well and truly nailed it. I've doubled our ability to pay the mortgage and somehow we get penalised for this?!
Personally I'd prefer to cut our losses and sell the house and cut all financial ties with the UK, I'll never live there again.
I've lived in countries with similar levels of tax BUT unlike the UK you actually get something for you money, like decent roads, schools, healthcare (nothing like the donkey that is the NHS).
My advice... leave, the grass is greener on the other side - not to mention sunnier and drier too.

At 14:56 on May 22 2008, terentius41 said:

Just an added twist midst all this wheeling and dealing by the 'crooks' of the banks and mortgage companies. The insurance companies won't be running to tell house owners that they are over insured when the value of one's property falls. Just a point to watch for those getting on or on the propery ladder. I naively used to think estate agents were the only villains in the property market. Silly me!

At 15:24 on May 22 2008, JonEBehr said:

The insurance companies won't be running to tell house owners that they are over insured when the value of one's property falls.

That's because the insured sum is not the market value of the property but, in general terms, the cost to re-instate/rebuild the property including demolition and site clearance, if required. The changes in the sum insured are related to building cost inflation and not to house price inflation.

Lenders will most definitely be interested if you break the terms of the contract by under-insuring the property which they are using as security fo the loan.

Cheers!

At 16:33 on May 22 2008, kypopro said:

I am a first time buyer and I have been waiting for 2 weeks for approval of mortgage (buy to let) with a 20% deposit, if i with no financial commitments elsewhere are considered a risky customer which seems to be the case what hope is there? Also the choice of mortgages available is so limited now, i feel the lenders have first time buyers over a barrel. Being new to the housing market and hearing all the recent news regarding it's stability I am now reconsidering buyer later.

At 17:20 on May 22 2008, HolyManual said:

1. Payment Protection insurance only benefits the lender, why should the borrower get it? Especially when the insurers harrasses you when you are solvent again. So you pay the premium, and then you pay the payout, what kind of insurance deal is that? Unfair terms.

2. Rebuilding cost does not repay the Mortgage, and the insurer is just going to get the lowest quote cowboy to rebuild a shack that is nothing like what was burnt down.

Everything is twisted into an excuse to squeeze more money out of you. If you do what the system says, you are fleeced left right and centre until there is only bleached bones.

This is how it is in much of the world,
where capital gains tax can be 80% if the police household registraton shows you had people other than your own family staying, because you must have rented to lodgers, and therefore the house has been used for commercial purposes.

The laws don't make much sense because the lawmakers are bent, and the politicians are paid by industrialists to smooth the way for exploitation of labour and natural resources.

The more oppressive and irrational the system gets, the more people circumvent the system. A property in some places (not UK) can be sold a dozen times without ever bothering the land registry, to avoid the punitive capital gains tax, which was meant to discourage property speculation!
Contracts are drawn, just not done through official channels. If anyone in the chain welshes on the deal, meat cleavers come out. It's how people establish another order of justice when the official one no longer serves the people.

Do not accept the decline in British public institutions, root out and kill the double glazing salesmen running the banks and utilities, because you do not want to defend your home by routinely bribing magistrates and whipping out your longsword to defend your property; you will find the other guy is always greedier and has more money to bribe the judge.

At 17:44 on May 22 2008, terentius41 said:

True in part, JonEBehr, but the insurance companies get house owners to insure the plot of land in the case of a house which doesn't get destroyed or damaged even if the house burns down. Hence most people are over insuring. Complex issue which the insurance companies cash in and rip people of with.

At 22:33 on May 22 2008, mikefour said:

No one is asking to be subsidized. We should not be ripped off and blackmailed by some of these usurious fees.

At 13:29 on May 23 2008, JonEBehr said:

the insurance companies get house owners to insure the plot of land in the case of a house which doesn't get destroyed or damaged even if the house burns down. Hence most people are over insuring

Why do you think this? Read your buildings insurance documentation - and note that it's "buildings" insurance rather than "land & buildings" insurance.

The insured value must be the costs of site clearance and rebuilding and so on: the value of the land is NOT part of this. All the application forms and associated documentation I've ever seen have been very clear on this. How on earth would "insurance companies get house owners to insure the plot of land"? If someone didn't read the forms they were signing and entered an insured value which matched the market value then that's their own decision.

Having said which - it's not all one-way. There may be examples with special circumstances (site difficulties and legal complications, for example) where the costs of site clearance and re-instatement of a freehold property would amount to more than the market value of that property.

Cheers!

At 18:19 on June 18 2008, KZE1 said:

"When it comes to taking the pi$$ and screwing you over the UK seems to have well and truly nailed it. I've doubled our ability to pay the mortgage and somehow we get penalised for this?!
Personally I'd prefer to cut our losses and sell the house and cut all financial ties with the UK, I'll never live there again.
I've lived in countries with similar levels of tax BUT unlike the UK you actually get something for you money, like decent roads, schools, healthcare (nothing like the donkey that is the NHS).
My advice... leave, the grass is greener on the other side - not to mention sunnier and drier too."

gets my vote every time.

The best decision ever made was to leave UK.

Here is a comparison of there and here.

UK semi detached with 85 square meters of floor space. 140 thou.

Here in Germany. DETACHED house with 157 square meters of floor space er.... let me see. 56 thousand pounds.

What other benifits. half an acre of land for the kids, NO LITTER or DOG S**T on the roads, no chavs with burberry baseball caps, no 12 year olds getting drunk and abusing people using all night Tescos and a police force that take EVERY CALL seriously and turn up in less than 3 minutes. Oh yes... we all speak the language and have the skills. The health service here has done more for my daughter who has cerebral palsey, than Doncaster did. They mis diagnosed for 2 years and here they had the problem well into corrective measures with a matter of weeks.

Lets just take some time out to reflect on where this is going. people are leaving the UK at a rate of nearly 10,000 per year. Why is that ??? Because its a nice place to be ?? Financially we have never been so comfortable as we are now. In Uk all we got was shafted by every company under the sun just after they announced 50% profit increases. You are welcome to it. I will NEVER move back to the UK. My children deserve a better environment to grow up in. Did i mention that we dont get pikeys either who think that its ok to park on some-one elses land for a month and then tip the chemical loo all over the crops ???

Labour sold UK down the chute and they will continue to do so. Wake up and see whats happening. Look at the 10p tax. Great for part time chavs who stayed under the threshold. No good for normal working people who pay their dues. Chavs win again at the taxpayers expense. Now thats what I call subsidy. Same tune with student loans. Dont pay them back if you earn less than xxxx per year. What do students do ? go and find a job that pays slightly less than the pre stated level and that way they ensure that their bill is picked up by taxpayers. My God is it so hard to understand?

Feel free to email directly. I would love to show you about 400 differences between here and the UK. Most of which are positive.

Mark

Join the conversation

Hello stranger. Please[log in]to comment.

Not yet registered? Register now.

 

Switch to a different topic area

Can't find what you need in Property And Home? Try one of our other personal finance areas.

Latest stories

Get all the latest news and editorial comment as it's published – check out our Fool Articles