Connect with us

Published

on

While having the odd bet on your football team to win at the weekend sounds like a bit of harmless fun, it could actually scupper your chances of getting a mortgage.

Lenders have always been cautious when it comes to approving mortgages, but some brokers have noticed that even the odd gambling transaction is now viewed as a red flag.

Typically, borrowers will be judged on a range of factors, including their income, age, credit utilisation and payment history, when they submit a mortgage application.

The exact requirements to be approved for a mortgage can vary depending on the lender.

Joe Childes, mortgage adviser at Right Choice Mortgages, told the Money blog he had recently seen banks declining applications based on gambling transactions on clients’ bank statements, even if it’s just the odd flutter.

“The tolerance for gambling transactions seems to vary from lender to lender,” he said.

“We have seen cases declined where clients have separate accounts for placing bets, but even just those who bet on the football at the weekend.

More from Business

“Gambling transactions can be questioned by the underwriter, or in some cases we have seen straight declines with no grounds for appeal.”

On LinkedIn, he raised one case where his clients had filed a joint application, had no forms of credit in the background and were asking for a mortgage of less than 50% loan-to-value ratio, but were declined twice.

The pair were never in their overdraft and had £5,000 in their current account.

Pic: iStock
Image:
Pic: iStock

“These are football bets only, and just present on one statement out of the past three. Affordability for the level of transactions seen is not a concern,” he said.

He questioned whether banks would make the same decision for those who excessively drink or smoke, or those who go to their local bookies and use cash to place bets.

“If the client can afford the spending, is it right to dictate how they use their hard-earned money?” he asked.

What bets could cause an issue?

Mr Childes said it was “habitual spending” on betting that appeared to spark most concern with lenders, even if clients could easily afford how much they were putting down.

“For some clients, betting on the football, for example, can be a hobby and the amount spent is not excessive in relation to their income,” he said.

“However, we have seen applications from these clients declined even where the clients are not under financial pressure and can maintain the level of spending.”

This story originally ran in the award-winning Sky News Money blog – click here to read more

People should be aware that underwriters will review their bank statements when they apply for a mortgage, and gambling transactions are likely to be questioned.

“If the number of transactions seen through your account are considered to be excessive, this could lead to your mortgage application being declined,” Mr Childes said.

Lenders haven’t been able to clarify what their “tolerance level” for gambling is, he added, with many saying it is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The major lenders’ gambling policies

We asked all the major lenders to explain their gambling policies to the Money team – here’s what they said:

Santander

The high-street bank doesn’t have any specific gambling related policies for mortgage customers.

Instead, it undertakes affordability assessments when considering new mortgage applications.

This includes an assessment of a customer’s bank statements, which considers all their outgoings to make sure monthly repayments are affordable.

A photo of a mobile phone device with bank apps including Santander. Pic: iStock

Barclays

Barclays said it did not have any set rules when it comes to gambling: “We ensure all mortgages are affordable before we offer them, including testing at higher interest rates.”

Nationwide

As a “responsible lender”, Nationwide said it aimed to ensure customers can afford their mortgage payments now and in the future.

It said each application was assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking a range of factors into account to determine how much can be borrowed.

We also contacted HSBC, Natwest and Lloyds – but they didn’t get back to us.

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

What should you do?

If you think your gambling habits might be causing you a problem, there are steps you can take.

Matt Zarb-Cousin, co-founder of gambling blocking software Gamban, said people should start to look at their behaviour if they are chasing losses, preoccupied with gambling and thinking about their next bet, and losing interest in other activities.

“These behaviours will often lead to such significant loss-chasing in a gambling session that it causes significant financial harm that can impact you for weeks or even months,” he said.

“Being able to spot the signs before it reaches that point, and quitting, can prevent this from occurring in the first place.”

If you want to quit online gambling, talkbanstop.com offers free tools and support.

Banks also offer the option to block gambling transactions, which provides another layer of friction that can help prevent relapse, Mr Zarb-Cousin said.

“Gambling transactions can affect mortgage applications, but the primary concern of lenders is you’re not getting into debt to fund gambling,” he said.

He pointed out that lenders often look at bank statements from the past three to six months, so even quitting for that amount of time before applying could put you in a better position.

Continue Reading

Business

Chair candidates battle to check in at Premier Inn-owner Whitbread

Published

on

By

Chair candidates battle to check in at Premier Inn-owner Whitbread

Two chairs of FTSE-100 companies are vying to succeed Adam Crozier at the top of Whitbread, the London-listed group behind the Premier Inn hotel chain.

Sky News has learnt that Christine Hodgson, who chairs water company Severn Trent, and Andrew Martin, chair of the testing and inspection group Intertek, are the leading contenders for the Whitbread job.

Mr Crozier, who has chaired the leisure group since 2018, is expected to step down later this year.

The search, which has been taking place for several months, is expected to conclude in the coming weeks, according to one City source.

Ms Hodgson has some experience of the leisure industry, having served on the board of Ladbrokes Coral Group until 2017, while Mr Martin was a senior executive at the contract caterer Compass Group and finance chief at the travel agent First Choice Holidays.

Under Mr Crozier’s stewardship, Whitbread has been radically reshaped, selling its Costa Coffee subsidiary to The Coca-Cola Company in 2019 for nearly £4bn.

The company has also seen off an activist campaign spearheaded by Elliott Advisers, while Mr Crozier orchestrated the appointment of Dominic Paul, its chief executive, following Alison Brittain’s retirement.

More from Money

It said last year that it sees potential to grow the network from 86,000 UK bedrooms to 125,000 over the next decade or so.

Mr Crozier is one of Britain’s most seasoned boardroom figures, and now chairs BT Group and Kantar, the market research and data business backed by Bain Capital and WPP Group.

He previously ran the Football Association, ITV and – in between – Royal Mail Group.

On Friday, shares in Whitbread closed at £25.41, giving the company a market capitalisation of about £4.5bn.

Whitbread declined to comment this weekend.

Continue Reading

Business

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

Published

on

By

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.

Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.

The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.

Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.

It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.

In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.

“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.

More on Electoral Dysfunction

“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”

Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.

His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.

While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.

The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.

Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.

The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.

Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.

More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.

Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.

Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.

In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.

The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.

Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.

“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.

“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.

“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.

“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.

In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.

The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.

HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.

“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.

“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”

The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.

Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

Published

on

By

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.

Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.

Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.

Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.

Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.

More on Post Office Scandal

The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.

In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.

Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens

A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.

Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.

A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.

Continue Reading

Trending