Another lender launches 100% mortgages for first-time buyers
A new mortgage has been launched offering the chance to borrow 100 per cent of a property's value - the second such deal in less than a week.
Little-known lender Gable Mortgages, which was founded in 2024, is providing home loans which don't require the borrower to put down any deposit.
It follows April Mortgages ' launch of a similar 100 per cent product last week.
No-deposit mortgages have been extremely rare in recent years, with most lenders requiring the borrower to put down at least 5 per cent.
Those that do offer deposits lower than that often require a parent to act as a guarantor.
According to Gable's website, its products are aimed at 'generation rent' who can manage to pay their rent - which may be higher than a mortgage on a similar property - but struggle to save a deposit.
Justin Le Roux, chief executive of Gable Group, said: 'There is a whole generation of renters out there who are struggling to save to buy and pay their rent at the same time.
'This has made it significantly harder for first time buyers, especially key workers get onto the property ladder.
'We believe in changing this by offering a solution where the buyer can get a quick decision based on affordability and not – like so many other products on the market – based on what they have managed to save up or borrow from the bank of mum and dad.'
The lender has two products available -a standard mortgage, and one that is specific to new-build buyers purchasing a home from a list of 'partner' developers.
Comparably to many other lenders, Gable's standard mortgage allows borrowing of 4.49 times the buyer's salary. This rises to 5.5 per cent for key workers in certain professions.
It means someone earning £40,000 a year could hypothetically buy a home worth £179,600 without any savings - and if they were a key worker, that could rise to £220,000.
Gable borrowers need to be aged at least 23 and want to borrow a minimum of £125,000. They must also go through a mortgage broker.
Both of the mortgages are offered on a five-year fixed term only. This is different to April Mortgages, where borrowers must fix for 10 or 15 years.
The rate on the standard mortgage is 5.95 per cent, and on the new-build mortgage is 5.65 per cent.
This is substantially more expensive than the mortgages available for those who could save a 5 per cent deposit.
For example, Monmouthshire Building Society has a five-year fix at 4.75 per cent with a £1,409 fee, while Nationwide offers one at 4.79 per cent with a £1,167 fee.
Someone borrowing a £200,000 mortgage over 30 years would pay £1,043 every month on the Monmouthshire 5 per cent deposit mortgage, compared to £1,193 on the standard Gable 0 per cent deposit mortgage.
On April's rival 100 per cent mortgage, the interest rate initially starts at 5.99 per cent, but this can be reduced over time as the debt is repaid.
Gable borrowers will need to look out for the fees, which are considerably higher than those charged on with-deposit mortgages with other lenders.
On the standard mortgage, they are tiered depending on the value of the property and range from £2,095 on a property worth between £125,000 and £200,000, to £4,995 on a home worth £400,000 to £500,000 and £9,995 on a home worth between £800,000 and £1million.
On the new-build mortgage, though, the fees are paid by the developer.
With most mortgage lenders, the arrangement fee is the same no matter what the property price, and usually ranges from nothing to about £2,000.
Borrowers will also want to look at the legal fees on Gable's mortgages.
If they choose to use Gable's partner solicitor, they will pay between £2,395 and £2,995 in total, including their own conveyancing and Gable's legal costs.
It is standard in the industry for mortgage applicants to pay the lender's legal costs, although some offer 'fee-free legals' deals.
However, if a Gable borrower chooses to use their own solicitor, they will need to pay £1,495 to cover Gable's legal fees, as well as their own conveyancing solicitor's fees on top.
According to Compare My Move's Cost of Moving House Index, the average conveyancing fee in 2024 was £1,567.
Are 100% mortgages a good idea?
While no-deposit mortgages will help more people get on the property ladder, reactions to them in the property industry are often mixed.
Some say that a person's long-term earnings and their ability to pay the mortgage each month are more important than their ability to save a one-off deposit.
However, others raise concerns about negative equity, which is when house prices fall and the value of a home falls below that of the mortgage secured on it and makes it harder to remortgage or sell.
They also recall the struggles faced by some buyers with 100 per cent mortgages during the financial crisis.
Kylie-Ann Martin, mortgage broker at Selby-based KAG Financial, told the news agency Newspage: 'I truly believe there is a place for 100 per cent mortgages, if they are regulated in the right way.
'We speak to many people paying huge amounts of rent that would see a considerable reduction in costs when comparing this to a mortgage - so for some I think it is fantastic that more lenders are offering them an opportunity to become homeowners.'
While Kundan Bhaduri of portfolio landlord and property developer The Kushman Group said: 'Gable and April Mortgages' zero-deposit products bear striking resemblance to Northern Rock's pre-2007 folly that culminated in Britain's first bank run since 1866 and left millions in negative equity.
'The UK property market already suffers from endemic structural issues.
'Injecting more unqualified buyers will further inflate prices whilst creating a new cohort of vulnerable homeowners.'
Best mortgage rates and how to find them
Mortgage rates have risen substantially over recent years, meaning that those remortgaging or buying a home face higher costs.
That makes it even more important to search out the best possible rate for you and get good mortgage advice.
Quick mortgage finder links with This is Money's partner L&C
> Mortgage rates calculator
> Find the right mortgage for you
To help our readers find the best mortgage, This is Money has partnered with the UK's leading fee-free broker L&C.
This is Money and L&C's mortgage calculator can let you compare deals to see which ones suit your home's value and level of deposit.
You can compare fixed rate lengths, from two-year fixes, to five-year fixes and ten-year fixes.
If you're ready to find your next mortgage, why not use This is Money and L&C's online Mortgage Finder. It will search 1,000's of deals from more than 90 different lenders to discover the best deal for you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review
Mr Lyons wasn't convinced by the numbers, ' Early in her speech the Chancellor said, is the plan credible, and the answer unfortunately is, no.' 'T he starting position is debt is very high, and I think we're in the early stages of Britain going into a debt crisis. If you're looking for good news, it might be that we're not the only country facing this problem; but today the Chancellor gave a speech that I think lacked a lot of the detail.' Allison is not convinced by the claims the economy is stabilising, ' We know it is not true, and we are already starting to see the impact on employment and on businesses. We know payrolls have fallen, that employment's fallen by over 250,000 since Rachel Reeves' budget. This is not an economy where you should be taking the gambles that she's taking. Where is the growth going to come from?'
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is
Rachel Reeves confirmed on Wednesday that she is a ' spend today, tax tomorrow ' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course with the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously? Rather than using the spending review as an opportunity to deliver secure public finances, the Chancellor is instead lurching from one disaster to the next. The cruel cuts to winter fuel payments, the £30 billion Chagos Islands surrender and the billions in no-strings-attached union handouts are all chickens that have come home to roost. When the pressure is on, the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' folds like the 'Tin Foil Chancellor' she really is. She promised to get borrowing down, but the deficit is up by 70 per cent on her watch. She pledged no new taxes rises, yet more are on their way. She pledged not to change pensioner benefits, then U-turned. Then U-turned again. The only consistent thing about her is her inconsistency. Her own MPs, Cabinet ministers and Labour's trade union paymasters smell weakness. They know she's vulnerable and they will demand more money – and get it if they shout loud enough. The Chancellor has boxed herself into a corner. We face an extra £200 billion of borrowing this Parliament compared with the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more in interest payments alone. We are almost a year in but no economic plan is forthcoming. Our country is exposed. We have no room left to respond to shocks in global markets. Interest rates and mortgages are staying higher for longer because of her choices, as the OBR has said. She trumpets the hundreds of billions in extra spending she has announced while on the other hand claiming to have fixed the public finances. It simply doesn't make sense. She claims there is 'still work to do to ensure the sums add up'. That's not stability, it's uncertainty – the very last thing markets want to hear. It is not just markets. Her abject failure means British families have seen inflation almost double, unemployment rise, growth stalling, debt interest soar and pensioners sacrificed. The country is worse off because of her choices. What of the winter fuel U-turn? Last summer, pensioners were left out in the cold to avoid 'a run on the pound', as Labour's Lucy Powell put it. Now they claim they can afford to reverse it because they have fixed the economy and the finances – but economists are saying both are in a worse state since Labour came to office. Nothing's changed except the Government's credibility, which is vanishing. Rock bottom confidence There was nothing in her review restore rock bottom business confidence. Payrolls fell by over 100,000 last month alone. Unemployment is up 10 per cent since Labour took office. Only businesses create growth and jobs. But our Chancellor has not yet learnt that basic lesson of economics, her fingers planted firmly in her ears whilst the alarm bells are ringing. Similarly, the first and most important duty of any Prime Minister is keeping the country safe. But even as the world is becoming more dangerous and a new axis of evils draws their battle lines, there was no further progress towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, which Labour claim to be committed to. They stood firm on the Chagos surrender, which is paying for tax cuts for Mauritians while we suffer, costing our country £30 billion to lease back our own land. There is no urgency on the issues of the day. The Home Office budget too has been significantly hit by asylum costs, while illegal crossings soar. Rather than point the finger at everyone else, the Chancellor should take responsibility and fix the problems she has created. Instead, the socialist's lazy embrace of high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes beckons – leaving our public finances dangerously vulnerable. If we were in charge, we would take a different approach. We wouldn't kill growth with tax rises and red tape. We'd restore confidence, focus on efficiency and productivity, and reform welfare to get people off benefits and into work. At the end of the day, it's working people and businesses who will pay – with higher taxes, higher costs, and fewer opportunities. This Spending Review is unaffordable, and so is this Chancellor.
