John Stirling

Well really I am afraid there is no substitution for regular substantial payments, however there are a number of things you can do to improve the potential outcome.

You should sit down and think about the following issues;

What do you want from a pension (how much, when)?

How 'active' do you want to be in managing it (there is no substitute for involvement in how your money grows for making all concerned concentrate on the outcome)?

Look hard at the costs - cheapest won't necessarily be best, but make sure that what you are paying offers good value.

Get good advice - and at risk of showing my prejudices I'd suggest an IFA might be a good place to start - they will not be cheapest, but ask them to demonstrate that they can add more value than the differential in cost, a good IFA will be comfortable with that discussion.

If you have surplus capital, or annual bonuses or profits surplus to your immediate needs a lump sum contribution can be a major boost, but you may wish to think about phasing how it is invested, so that you aren't exposed to any sudden market drops just after investment.

Decide how much risk you can take - classic human psychology is to invest at the top of a bubble, and sell at the bottom - the exact opposite of rational behaviour - of course this is only obvious with hindsight, and by ensuring you are not in a market which you will not be able to stand when things go wrong then you can hopefully avoid this dreadful mistake. Getting timing right is very very difficult, getting it wrong is very very simple, so the best option for most people is to ignore timing, and the only way to do that is to be in markets where getting it wrong won't force you to disinvest for emotional reasons.

Oh, finally, and very importantly, if you are employed check whether your employer will contribute on your behalf, either into a scheme they sponsor, or yours - for many people the largest part of their pension contribution comes from their employer - joining an employer funded pension is really like a payrise - it may 'cost' a few pounds from your net salary for your contribution but the benefit is usually comparatively huge.

Best of luck - and remember the worst decision you can make is to do nothing.

seek out an insurance specialist and not someone who just uses quoting software. Make sure they have tried to fully understand your circumstances both now and in the future and recommended the plan (not just the cheapest) for you.

Most life assurance companies ask the question about smoking and to qualify for a non smoker rates you must NOT have smoked for a minimum of 12 months - failure to do this will result in the contract being void for non disclosure and they will not pay out.

Life assurance companies do not set premiums on the amount you smoke only the fact that you smoke.

I hope that helps?

Actually, not all equity release schemes involve the original owner retaining their ownership. Home Reversions involve selling a part or all of the property. It is only with a lifetime mortgage that the original owner always retains ownership with the mortgage debt registered as a first charge (in the same way a standard residential mortgage is charged).

An interest only mortgage is one where you only pay the interest (hence the name) on a monthly basis, and at some predetermined time (set at outset) you will have to repay the balance as a lump sum, which allowing for fees, and rounding errors will be the same amount as you borrowed.

A lifetime mortgage is one that lasts for life (or often until permanent vacation of the property as a result of ill health) - you may or may not make payments, but it is not expected that the loan will ever be paid off until death - there is no fixed term. Obviously if you are not making payments then the principal (the amount you borrow) will increase by the amount of interest you are not paying.

The two types of mortgage are available to different people, and are generally very differently underwritten (the lenders take different factors into consideration before granting them).

all lenders have their own requirements for income which still impact on the employed!

common requirements for the self employed can be full accounts drawn up by a qualified individual; self assessment return (the printed version HMRC post out not a home printed document); some lenders will ask for personal banks statements only. Some lenders will want all the above for the last 2 or 3 years.

this is a part of the filtering process that an IFA will look through when researching mortgage options for you and another reason to take advantage of someone with up to date industry knowledge rather than a pundit on a tv show or newspaper website column!

Firstly:

there's no need to pay for access to your file. go to www.creditexpert.co.uk this is run by experian and they will give all first time users 30 days free access to their credit file. You have to register a card with them as part of the sign-up process to pay the £6.99 monthly fee which only applies after 30 days.

you can check your file, save a copy to your pc, then ring them up before 30 days and ask them to cancel - but you must ring them an email is no good.

equally, dont bother paying to see your "score" as all lenders use different score cards and you could say to a prospective lender that "i scored 1000 which is good etc" they will answer (to paraphrase) "so what".

you need to look at the results of your file check, its all traffic lighted. all greens is good, any yellows are cause for concern more than 2-3 in the last 12 months and you will be stumped. and red will indicate a default and thats the worst possible.

this exercise might uncover errors on your file and credit expert will help to correct them if you can evidence what's wrong.

once you have done all this. if its "bad" as you say. consider taking out one of the expensive credit cards like capital one or vanquis and use this a couple of times per month for small items ie £10-£20 here and there and ensure you pay off in full. this will help you to build a positive history and you will probably find they will only offer a small credit limit anyway.

used carefully this method can help to set aside some negative aspects but prompt action with credit related matters is always essential.

hope this helps

'Always' is a long time, but it is likely that an individual with poor credit will always pay more than an individual with good credit at the point of application.

If you can keep yourself clear of problems for a while then credit worthiness does improve, but the question does arise, if you are someone who will 'always' have bad credit, is taking out a mortgage a good idea - lenders who offer mortgages to individuals with poor credit histories tend not to be the most patient when you run into problems.

If on the other hand it is an event that mucked you up (ill health and joblessness being the two classic examples) then show that it was a blip, even a big blip by keeping things straight now, and over time things will improve. Far quicker than you expect in some cases.

The question you are asking is "Do I have a need for life cover?" To get the answer, ask another question: what would happen to my dependents should I die? Would they have enough to live comfortably from other sources and, of course, how old are they now?

If they are still dependent on you financially, and if there are no other sources (such as wealthy parents, or plenty of your savings) then there is probably a need for some kind of life cover.

How much, and what type of cover, depends upon the duration of the need: for example, you might need maintenance funds until the youngest is, say, 21 and, with the current changes to university fees, you might also want then to be able to complete their studies without them having huge debts at the end.

If you are in an occupational pension scheme then that scheme might provide a high level of dependents' payments - so ask your scheme provider what they offer. Finally, do take into account the other major financial risk of your being unable to work due to a critical illness or long-term sickness - in such cases the family problems can be (financially) just a severe as if you had died. Cover is available for both of those potential problems, and, though rather pricey, suitable insurance is a real financial life-saver if you need to make a claim. This is an area where it is worth taking independent advice.

Try Natwest first, they know you best, and should be most likely to take a positive view of your circumstances.

Once you've paid for some costs you will be borrowing close to 90% which is pretty much a stretch for the best borrower, and I'm afraid whether it's fair or not you are unlikely to be viewed as a great prospect.

I'd have to say it's unlikely, but if you are really keen then find a local independent mortgage broker, who will take a sympathetic view regarding fees, and see what they can do.

Generally speaking, yes, that's the whole idea of paying.

But having said that you would need to check whether your preferred treatment location (private hospital or private wing in an NHS hospital) offers that service and is on the list of authorised locations for your policy provider and policy level.

usually the more budget the policy, the more restricted choice as the "centres of excellence" will often carry a premium. But this is where careful choice of a policy excess can give the reassurance of knowing you have access to the best locations but without having to pay for it each month - just set aside the excess instead.

i'm yet to find an occasion in the current climate whereby the notion of renewable is better but having that if your medical or work issues are complex you might only be offered cover by a company that offers renewable as opposed to guaranteed.

given that medical inflation is always increasing and of course age of the policyholder is also increasing, a renewable premium is only a short term saving over guaranteed as it might only take a few years to meet the guaranteed premium and then overtake it!

by choice i will always recommend guaranteed for the above reasons. its not the same as comparing fixed to variable mortgages where you can possibly save on a variable. the only time we have seen significant reductions is in the decade that followed the AIDS outbreak as life cover rocketed before gradually coming down.

the aim of buildings insurance is to cover the cost of rebuilding the structure of your home and certain fixed internal fixtures such as sanitaryware and kitchens - a basic rule of thum is that it covers the bits you leave when you sell your home that cannot be easily removed.

you can also opt for accidental damage which can be good for the avid DIYer who climbs into the loft and exits between the rafters, through the ceiling and into the floor below!

in terms of a total loss claim it will also cover the cost of clearing the site to enable a rebuild - fortunately these extreme type of claim isnt too common.

having said all this, there are still many people that dont cover their personal contents even when they have the building covered (often due to cost and because a lender wont insist on contents cover as they are only interested in the building).

It would vary from 12-24 months but the 24month option is quite rare and will naturally cost more to buy cover for that period. Many providers insist on you having a mortgage and will determine the amount of cover you can have by a % of your mortgage payment or % of your income.

its also worth noting that not all providers will allow you to take cover when not linked to a new mortgage or will make you wait up to 6 months before you can claim (ie 6 months before you are given warning that you might be at risk of loss) whereas when linked to a new mortgage this can be as little as 2 months.

This varies widely.

some lenders simply insist that you have an income of any amount and others will state £20000-£25000 as a minimum. Some will also impose a minimum age of 21 and wont lend to first time buyers / first time landlords.

what seems like a straightforward question, sadly doesnt have a simple answer.

you will also need a decent deposit to make the costs viable, at least 25% and most lenders will require the rent (assessed by their valuer) to be on average 125% of the mortgage ie if the mortgage is £500pcm the rent must be at least £625pcm

Well...shares may not be the best investments for you, and nobody without accurate, careful understanding of your timescale, income, prospects, age and state of health can really give you an answer. Here are a few points, though.

Individual shares are very risky. A share is the ownership of a small part of one company, and if the company does very well, then so will you. But if the company goes bust you will lose it all. Stockbrokers are the best people to advise on individual shares, but they will expect you to have a substantial amount to invest - perhaps £100,000 or more.

'Funds' are generally also invested largely in shares, but in this case you are participating in the average performance of a large number of companies - maybe 100 or more. Different kinds of funds bear different risks, with 'riskier' funds tending to be more suitable for younger people and those with a resilient attitude, who will still sleep soundly if the value of their funds drops.

Other, lower risk investments include corporate bond funds and deposit accounts. These tend to be suited to people who want to reduce their risk, or need income, or perhaps (to make a generalisation) are rather older. If you are saving to buy a house within say the next year or two, there really is no sensible alternative to a straightforward savings or deposit account.

Then again, other investments such as rental property and so on can form part of a longer term investment strategy. It is more important than ever before to develop and maintain a robust, long-term savings strategy. It is really worthwhile to use the guidance of an independent financial adviser.

Effectively none - other than tax! A cash ISA is simply a savings account which is not taxed. The interest is paid to you in full, so they are slightly better for you if you are a taxpayer. If you are a non-taxpayer then there is no difference - you can arrange with the bank to have your interest paid free of tax anyway. The other main difference for you is that there is a maximum contribution you can make into an ISA each tax year, which runs from April 6 to April 5 the next year: £5100 this year, so you are well within that figure.

You will notice that I have talked about cash ISAs. The other kind is a stocks and shares ISA, which can hold investment funds (stocks and shares) - but investments such as those are not suitable for your short savings timescale. Just to complete the picture, though you can invest a maximum of £10,200 into a stocks and shares ISA, as long as your total investment into all kinds of ISAs this year (ie including what you have in a cash ISA) is no more than £10,200.

First of all, congratulations to you both. As far as life insurance is concerned, you should consider this straight away, particularly if you are the main wage earner. In the first instance, you need to make sure that she, and your new child, will have enough to live on should you die- and if you have a mortgage then consider insurance to repay that should you die. There are probably, therefore, two main insurance needs: to repay any debts, and to provide income. These needs will be best met by separate policies, tailored to your situation.

When your child is born then there may be an additional need for insurance to cover any childcare costs should your wife die, and perhaps to replace her income.

It is important to get any proposed insurance in place earlier rather than later, because it is always possible that health issues could crop up that might prevent you being insured, or might significantly increase the cost. There are many kinds of insurance, and your actual level of need will depend upon such things as any life cover provided by an employer, as well as your overall circumstances. Do make sure that you exactly understand your need so that you make correct decisions - otherwise you may pay for insurance that really is not necessary, or you might have insufficient cover.

Individual advice will be helpful to you. Having gone into your situation fully an adviser might recommend insuring both of you straight away - certainly don't just buy something 'off the shelf' at your local supermarket!

Couple of options, have you tried to downsize and reduce some of the mortgage or if things are really bad you could sell and move in to rented. Depending on your disposable income you should try and save or overpay the mortgage as most mortgages allow you to make overpayments of upto 10% each year without penalty and can start to reduce the mortgage and build up your equity. Hope this helps

Generally international private medical insurance (PMI) will cover pregnancy as a standard cover item, however UK mainstream PMI will exclude anything to do with a normal pregnancy.

It is possible to be covered though, and most providers will offer an element of cover on their more expensive options.

Certainly it will tend to only be available on the higher end policies, and won't be something you'll get on a 'budget' policy.

In round figures, I would expect you to have to pay somewhere a little over £30 per month for every £100,000 of lump-sum cover, over a 21-year term. Each year, both the amount of cover and the premium would increase (but you could opt out of the increase, should you wish). For about the same premium you could obtain cover of £1000 a month, again with a 21-year term (payment would be made from the date of claim to the end of the original term).

I cannot be more specific without further details, and these figures should not be seen as a formal recommendation. Do send me an email, or contact one of the other highly respected expert independent advisors who contribute to this website to have a proper discussion.

Yes.

You can have as many buy to let mortgages as you want, as long as you have sufficient deposit for each, and as long as you meet lenders' other requirements.

You can also have more than one residential mortgage. Assuming you have one residential mortgage, you can obtain a second one as long as the new lender's 'affordability' calculation can be met. In other words, as long as you have enough income to pay your existing mortgage, any other loans and credit cards (and so on...) then a second residential mortgage may be available for you.

However, the lender is likely to ask some pretty probing questions. The last thing they will want is for anyone to obtain a residential loan for a property they intend letting out (it would also be seen as fraudulent to do so). Some people do try this, because residential mortgages are cheaper than buy to let mortgages - so don't go down that route.

Acceptable reasons might be that there is an unavoidable ownership overlap between two properties, and you will be selling your existing house reasonably soon, or you need a second property for midweek living because you are too far away from where you work for daily commuting.

ISAs are a good option as you can use them for short term savings in the form of cash up to £5100 per financial year or up to £10200 per financial year in stocks & shares but only if you are prepared to accept investment risk and to invest for a longer term ie at least 5 years. There are many who think ISAs are a waste of time but the thing to bear in mind is that many investment houses will offer charge deals through IFAs so an investment fund can often be cheaper to access through an ISA as opposed to outside the ISA wrapper.

Buildings insurance cover is based on rebuilding costs, so often not. Most of the time if you pay £150,000 for a house, this will include the land, garage etc and you would expect to pay a lower amount for rebuilding costs, which is always mentioned in the surveyors report, so in answer to your question, no.

The cost is dependent on where you live as it will cost a lot more for a buildings insurance policy in a city than it is in rural areas, and the type of house you have and its age, so it is impossible to give you an idea of how much you should pay. It is best to look on a price comparison site - that should give you a good indication

Life insurance is something that most of us will be all too happy not to claim! Most policies are purely for protection and, as Paul says, have no surrender or maturity value.

Endowment policies are combined life insurance/savings plans, and are not really very good at either. Whole of life policies are designed as insurance policies with an investment element as part of the insurance structure. These plans can build a (very modest) value. Of course, you cannot outlive such a plan, but you may be able to surrender it and put a small sum in your pocket.

offset deals have their place but are not right for everyone.

take the worst case scenario that your lender has financial difficulties like we saw with northern rock et al, your deposits have been offset or merged with your mortgage and therefore effectively extinguished by having reduced your mortgage debt - so not lost - just not savings anymore. this isnt the case with all lenders as some offset without the savings element being a part of the mortgage so when its a separate account the above wont always apply.

setting that issue to one side you need to consider why are you using an offset, do you have large cash on the side that you need/want to retain access to with very short notice perhaps its earmarked for a building project or some other reason and when you compare the rate on your mortgage to your savings you are better off with the offset - this makes sense to consider.

but many people have taken offset mortgages because they were trendy and never really used the offset or flexible features. given that most lenders will allow overpayments of 10% without incurring a penalty (although some only allow 5% and others 20% !) and if you have overpaid will allow you to borrow back, often you will get a better underlying rate with a normal tracker.

An offset would be the desired outcome if you plan to overpay the mortgage by more than the penalty free allowance EVERY year.

this is why it makes sense to spend time with an experienced and qualified IFA such as myself and other colleagues on this site. As we can explore all of your needs and then make a recommendation that will best suit your circumstances, then as each deal is due to expire you can repeat the exercise to ensure that you continue to get the best deal for your circumstances.

you cant get all of the above from a comparison website!

there are still many benefits to the human touch and a face to face meeting!

Paul is right in his assertion that you are a limited company director.

the reason for this is that the limited company rules mean that you and the company are separate legal entities (hence the limited liability status) and so when determining taxation, your gross profit after all allowable costs will then be liable to corporation tax.

you will then declare a dividend from your profits and the corporation tax paid will satisfy your personal income tax liablility at the basic rate. if your dividend income, when added to all other income, takes you into the higher or additional rates of income tax you will then pay the additional amount of tax due so that you have paid the correct amount of tax.

the notional higher rate when you have dividends is 32.5% and 42.5% for the additional rate which broadly equates to the 40% and 50% standard income tax rates.

you can of course reduce your liabilities across the board and still benefit by making an employers pension contribution to you as an employee as this is treated as a business expense and will therefore be exempt from corporation tax.

feel free to get in touch if you want to talk this through more.

if however, you are not a limited company but instead in a partnership or sole trader, you and the company are regarded as the same entity and therefore corporation tax isnt due only income tax and class II and IV national insurance.

there are many ways to legitimately reduce your tax burden without leaving you worse off, i have been able to successfully improve my clients' financial position after carefully analysing their needs and structuring their income to give them what they need for now and still plan for later.

it can be a complex matter and not easy to try and cover off in this type of forum but hopefully these initial answers will give you the incentive to look at your position in more detail.

The answer here is that anyone can get a tax rebate as a rebate simply infers that you have somehow overpaid.

if your income - salary, savings interest, share dividends, rental income (basically all forms of income) falls below your personal allowance of £6475 this year rising to £7475 from 6-4-11 you wont get a rebate as you shouldnt have tax deducted. if you fit into the above category you should be able to claim gross interest on your savings but share dividends are the anomaly as you cannot reclaim the tax on them as this was removed by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor in 1999.

i hope this has answered your question, if there are further points, feel free to post more or email me...

Sometimes.

It depends on the bad debt, a bankruptcy, county court judgement (CCJ), Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), or serious default will all make life very tricky. Late payments or small defaults or CCJ are significant problems, but provided they are isolated incidents some lenders will still take a chance on you.

Generally if it is possible to get a mortgage, it will be more expensive, and require a larger deposit than would otherwise be the case.

The key with any investment is research and timing.

you need to understand the risks attached to all investments from cash to shares and also identify your time schedule and exit strategy.

no one can accurate predict in advance when to invest but you can look at historic trends. generally shares should be held for the long term, five years or more.

many people have made money day-trading but some of that success has been "accidental" rather than planned and controlled.

this is why when i recommend a portfolio of investments to a client is based on their risk profile, investment term, financial circumstances and a range of investments which have a good proven track record and not just simply jumping onto the bandwagon of the latest trendy or esoteric investment.

sadly many people have been caught out in the past with penny shares and boiler room scams because they have let greed overtake common sense. dont get me wrong, we are all driven by greed and greed can be good but if someone is promising you double digit returns in an investment you have never heard of, tread carefully.

one of the latest scams is encouraging people to buy plots of land on the basis that planning consent will be granted and a £10000 plot of grass will suddenly escalate in value overnight. on the whole its simply not true, sometimes it will be but thats a rarity, most of these scams have been in remote towns, far away from the investors home, where they have no local knowledge and worst of all in green belt conservation areas!

yes it can be but you have to consider why are you investing.

if it is in response to recent media coverage of an investment, the chances are that the profit in the short term has already been made and you are ready a report on yesterdays news.

with any investment you need to consider how long are you prepared to invest, what degree of risk are you willing to accept, what contingency do you have in place for emergencies (always good to keep some cash in the bank for a backup), are there other more pressing reasons to use the money for something else ie paying down a debt with a very high rate of interest?

i dont know if this has answered your question as it was a little vague but if you are willing to expand on the situation it will be simpler to give you a more relevant answer

Let me guide you to the website, http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/inheritancetax/pass-money-property/exempt-gifts.htm which will give you simple info on this area.

The main problem with answering this question is that are many more questions than answers. Such as "are you the person receiving the gift or giving it". "What is your tax status?" and what is the inheritance tax situation?", so sorry if it sounds like sitting on the fence.

According to their website it's 5.99% unless you are a Halifax current account customer with £1,000 pm credit in which case it is the 5.79% you quote.

As it is available to 90%, and furthermore pays some of your fees (still have to find stamp duty, and moving costs, and possibly some legal fees) it is quite competitive if you are a first time buyer with a small deposit.

However 5.79% is expensive compared to rates available for only slightly higher deposits, so the answer to your question is 'yes and no', in that it's good if you are borrowing 90%, or I suppose if your loan is very small, and fees make up a disproportionate amount of the overall cost, but it's expensive if you have other options in terms of the amount of deposit you can raise.

I'd say the average has dropped below 70%, with many borrowers who have higher loan to value ratios effectively landlocked until their property increases in value.

For a new buyer around 80/85% is still vaguely commercial, but I really would avoid going to 90% if at all possible.

Paul is quite right about how other factors can affect your chances too.

As David and Darren have mentioned, these are effectively a thing of the past, "mosting pre 2001 plans", and most pension providers will probably increase the annual management charges by a small margin for the first 5 years to pay for advice given.

I have seen some shocking plans where there has been a 5% charge everytime you pay a contribution, policy fees, annual management fees, fees for switching and one provider charges a marketing fee (???) - a very strange one.

However, as mentioned, in 2001, things became simpler with the birth of stakeholder pensions and every provider had to drive down costs to compete in the market and satisfy the regulator

Hi there,

Tricky situation, you have my sympathies.

You can refuse to sign the sale papers, and it would be very difficult for him to sell it from under you. In addition the lender may block the sale unless sufficient extra cash is available to settle the full mortgage debt (although they may take the view that something is better than nothing).

I would perhaps also suggest speaking to the lender, and any other parties and making them aware of your inability to cover any shortfall.

However conflict is not a good way of running a business (and a rented property is effectively a small business). I would strongly recommend working towards an agreed solution - why does your ex want to sell? Currently rates are extremely low, but they will rise at some point, and we don't expect significant growth in house prices for some time, so selling may crystallise a loss, but it may be a smaller loss than later.

Sit down with an independent third party (IFA or debt counsellor) and work through your situation - there are lots of different factors which would have an impact.

Good luck.