Paul Ross DipPFS CII(MP&ER)

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!

Mortgage protection is at the simplest an insurance policy designed to repay the outstanding mortgage balance upon the death of the policyholder. It is, in other words, nothing to do with the tenant, or whether they pay their rent. Landlord protection policies are available, and many rental agents offer this, often free during the first 6 months of the tenancy. In order to offer this insurance the tenants have to be properly vetted; the policies themselves are provided by insurance companies (do a Google search on 'Landlord Insurance.') and they can cover such things as loss of rent and legal costs.

Incidentally, do make sure that your buildings insurance is for the property to be rented out - otherwise you might not be able to make a claim if need be.

Check with your mortgage lender, if you have a mortgage, whether they permit this, and also confirm the position with the buildings insurance. Normally you can only have a single assured shorthold tenancy (covering everyone in the property) rather than one tenancy agreement for each individual, though there are some lenders who do accept multiple occupancy. If the property is regarded as an HMO (house with multiply occupancy) then regulations such as fire protection are more stringent than for single occupancy properties.

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.

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.

I think it's worth clarifying here - a renewable premium is one where you initially take out cover for 5 or 10 years (typically) but have guaranteed insurability until a set age, so you can renew the cover at the expiry of the initial term, but it will typically be far more expensive as you will be 5 or 10 years older.

Reviewable cover is where you have cover set and assumed at a given premium for the whole term, however if general claims experience is different than expected the insurer can change the premium at particular dates based on their overall claims experience, but not based on your personal circumstances.

Historically premiums vary up and down, and whilst reviewable life cover is not really available now, when it was customers quite often got a reduction in premium rather than an increase, because life expectancy has generally increased beyond expectations. Health insurances on the other hand have had mixed experience as improved medical diagnosis means conditions get found earlier (so more claims on critical illness), but improved treatment means that they are cured quicker (so income payment plans have improved claims experience).

So to answer the question you have asked, sometimes, but it will depend on future claims experience. To answer the question you may have meant; sometimes, it will depend on whether you 'may' need cover after the initial term, but initially only expect to need it for a shorter period.

For renewable cover, a 10 year renewable policy will typically cost more than a 10 year non renewable policy - generally I find you can get around 15 to 17 years of non renewable cover for the same price as 10 years of renewable cover.

One final point to confuse the issue, you can have guaranteed renewable cover, and reviewable non renewable cover, but generally renewable cover is guaranteed for the initial premium period, so reviewable renewable cover isn't available. Sorry, that probably didn't help...

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

As soon as possible ! Some insurers will not offer terms until the baby is born just in case there are any problems with the pregnancy, but most will be fine. The questions should be How much do I need ? as this will be more debateable and important to calculate taking into account any existing cover, death in service etc and working out how much you would need in the unfortante events of one of you dying. You will need to ensure all debts are covered and have enough to bring up your new arrival until are no longer financially dependent. Good luck with the pregnancy

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

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.

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.

This is a huge question, so I can only note down a few pointers.

If asked, ''what is my house worth?" there is only one answer: "it is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it." In other words, like most investments, its worth depends upon sentiment seasoned with other influences.

If people are confident about the economy, house rises will rise (it is a feedback loop - conversely, if house prices rise, people become confident about the economy). With current economic insecurity, we have seen house prices fall, of course.

Affordability is another issue, with mortgages dependent upon income. The more money available to buy properties, and the lower the rates, the freer are people to obtain loans. A major effect of this is to increase the cost of the house they would have bought anyway, with a marginal possibility that they could buy a better (as opposed to more expensive) property.

An influence here is earnings. Earnings tend to rise a little faster than inflation, so progressively more money comes available to fund house purchases - hence house prices will also tend to rise.

Locally there will be other influences on house price movements, such as unemployment levels, the influx or otherwise of new industries, the catchment area of a school with a good reputation, regeneration plans or proposed new wind farms or recycling centres, for instance. The quality of the immediate neighbourhood is critically important.

Finally, consider that it is impossible, mathematically, for house prices to rise indefinitely, as it is also impossible for indefinite growth of any investment. If they could, then the value of those investments or house prices would tend towards infinity.

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!

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.

Unfortunately not, but there have been initiatives available in the past from Business Link, there website is http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/home . Unfortunately, the coalition governments cuts have ensured that there funds are not as generous as they have been in the past to help with this type of thing

Yes Natwest is offering 6.89% for 5 years but its not much to party about.

also remember as natwest is almost entirely state owned they have deep pockets but these type of rates are best avoided usually.

even by scraping a little more deposit and getting an 85% ltv loan will dramatically cut the above rate and would be far more attractive.

personally i think it highly unlikely that 100% will come back on standard schemes. there should always be a buyer contribution otherwise what financial incentive does the borrower have to make the mortgage work if they dont stand to lose anything?

one of the reasons the rate is so high is because 90% loans are still considered high risk

at 6.89% for 5 years its not much to party about.

also remember as natwest is almost entirely state owned they have deep pockets but these type of rates are best avoided usually.

even by scraping a little more deposit and getting an 85% ltv loan will dramatically cut the above rate and would be far more attractive

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.

A survey by Aviva has revealed that apathy is leaving 20 million UK adults at financial risk because they don't have any form of life or income-related protection.

Figures from Aviva Life Insurance show that of those without any life cover...

more than 37% say this is because it's still on their 'to do' list or that they haven't thought about it
one in seven (15%) say they have made other provisions
one in ten (10%) haven't bothered because they have no dependents and feel no need for a life insurance policy
9% say they don't have it because they don't have a mortgage to insure
3% of people say they haven't taken out a policy because they don't understand it.
Head of protection marketing at Norwich Union, Darren Dicks commented... "These findings are cause for concern as they suggest many people are taking an 'it won't happen to me' approach to protection. Around 52% of UK adults have no life cover at all* and the remainder are either underinsured or unsure about what type of cover they hold.

"There is currently a £2.3 trillion protection gap in the UK which leaves a large proportion of the population vulnerable. Many people wait until they have a particular event in their lives, such as a house purchase or the birth of a child before they purchase life cover, but people shouldn't take the view that they need to wait."

Aviva's research also reveals a number of key 'trigger' events which motivate people to purchase life insurance cover. These events include:

Buying first home: 44%
Moving home: 18%
Divorce/separation: 14%
Getting married or moving in with partner: 13%
* Source: Swiss Re

Assuming that all else fits (such as affordability and the nature of the property itself, for example), the rates depend upon the percentage (LTV: loan to value) that you wish to borrow. As a very rough guide, at the moment you might expect to pay the following during the initial special rate period, whether fixed or variable:

At 90% LTV: around 5%
At 85% LTV: around 4%
At 80% LTV: around 3.25%
75% LTV or below: mainly around 2.5% to 3%, with one or two down to about 2.2%.

Without wishing to give too many figures at this point, as an example for each £100,000 borrowed at (say) 3% you would have to pay:
(a) interest only over any term: £250 per month
(b) repayment over 20 years: a fraction under £555 per month
(c) repayment over 25 years: a fraction over £474 per month

Very roughly, if the interest rate were 4%, you would add a bit more than £80 per month to the interest-only figure quoted above, and about £50 to each of the repayment figures quoted.

Market conditions and base rate changes would, of course, alter the situation, so what I say today may have altered considerably in a few months time. And these figures by no means tell you the full story, though, because these products may lack the options and flexibility of very slightly more expensive mortgages.

In particular, they tell you nothing of what will happen at the end of the special rate period - a loan with an initial very low rate will probably be a poor choice if, at the end of maybe 12 or 24 months it goes onto a high variable rate (at which time you are confronted with staying with it, or remortgaging with the the associated significant costs and inconvenience). The fees, too, need to be taken into account

In the selection of a suitable mortgage, certainly don't simply opt for the cheapest and try to save a few pounds each month. Rather, whilst looking for a competitive product, of course, make sure that the loan conditions and features suit you and that you go with a lender with a decent reputation for efficiency and consistency; this is where a good broker can provide invaluable advice tailored to your own situation and needs.

products marketed as over fifty usually dont need to be underwritten which means that if you are in poor health you can at least take out some cover.

But for people in reasonable health even aged over 50, an underwritten "standard" policy will still tend to work out cheaper and will often be more flexible in terms of how long the cover can run and being able to change the cover mid policy.

lots of the building societies promote these plans and often they give you M&S vouchers as an incentive - why? well they can afford to as they are a real money spinner as they are sold on a non-advised basis which means you take responsibility for whether the product is actually suitable.

having said that i have used these products for clients in the past but as a last resort as i have been able to place cover more appropriately using more traditional methods.

As follows:

2010/11 personal allowance £6,475
2012/12 personal allowance £7,475

2010/11 20% tax rate: £6,475 - £43,875
2011/12 20% tax rate: £7,475 - £42,475

2010/11 + 2012: 40% tax rate: Up to £150k, over that you pay 50%

Please see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

Assuming you've got a plan in place, then it is best to increase the existing plan, but only if the insurer allows it. With many you have to wait for a special event to occur such as a marriage, birth of a child or moving house. So, with this in mind, if your health is still good, it may be best just to cancel the existing plan and start a new plan with the correct sum assured. But take care not to cancel the existing plan until the new is in force.

However, if you have a term assurance plan, this will expire at some point, as they are designed for fixed terms. If you're looking for funeral expenses to be covered, you may want to consider a plan just to cover these costs. Dignity offer a plan where you pay for your funeral expenses over a 2 year period, if memory serves me right, by means of a monthly payment and the funeral expenses are covered, irrespective of inflation

A bit off-topic, but for any non financial advisers out there, I think that Paul is being somewhat modest about his approach to the work. All competent financial advisers have some knowledge of the law, particularly as it relates to financial matters - and I would be surprised if Paul, like me, has not from time to time outlined information for a Solicitor, whose knowledge is occasionally very basic on such issues. The three professionals who may have impact on an individual's financial affairs - Solicitor, Accountant, and Financial Adviser - have complementary, occasionally overlapping but essentially different specialisms.

I usually advise my clients to consider a unit trust and designate it for your child /children. Even though a unit trust is associated with risk as there is an element of stocks and shares, over the long term, they do generally outperform better than cash accounts.

The alternative's are savings accounts with your local building society or a National Savings account. At present, the interest rates are dire, and probably will be for awhile, but I would seek advice on this area through an adviser so that you can consider the best option based on the amount you want to save, the term and your attitude to risk.

Feel free to ask me anymore questions

Not to my knowledge. They are very focused on reducing the deficit and have suspended all initiatives like this

This is certainly an area that is under fire. The Capital Gains Tax rate for higher rate taxpayers has already been raised to 28% (from 18%) and a large gain could of course bring the vendor into the higher rate bracket during the year of sale. Council Tax deductions for empty properties/second homes is, I suspect, also likely to go - and it may be that local authorities will be able to set increased taxes for empty properties - a doubling in council tax has been mooted. This is only likely to be delayed, in my view, if unforeseen problems arise, so it could well happen this year.

The points above are areas that do not need major legislation. Any new tax could be even more divisive than the current government is prepared to accept, so I think such a tax would take some time to be created, if at all. A particular concern would be not to disadvantage some second-home owners by accident, as it were, where there are (for instance) work-related reasons why a second home is necessary.

If you're a first time 10%, minimum, if this is your second house, 5% for a limited amount of companies, but the more you have, the better deal you will obtain

I don't think so. Of the 5,500 mortgage deals available on my sourcing system, 754 are for 5 year+ fixed rate deals

Darren is quite right, where mortgage companies offer deals and withdraw them all the time with revamped terms

An interesting question. When you take a fixed rate deal you are gambling on the average variable rate you would have paid being equivalent to the fixed rate. Let me explain.

Let us imagine a £100,000 interest-only mortgage, with the choice of 3% variable or 4% fixed, with a 2-year special rate. In this example, after 1 year the variable rate jumps by 2%, to 5%.

At 4% the interest-only payment is £4000 each year, a total of £8000. The variable rate payment is £3000 in the first year, then £5000 in the second year - also a total of £8000. In other words, the average interest rates are identical. So how do you choose between them? Just compare the interest rates of a variable rate loan and a fixed-rate loan over the same period. Then double the difference between them, and if you think that interest rates will not rise by that much, then the variable loan is likely to be better. In the example given the difference was 1%, and the rates would have to rise by over 2% for the fixed rate loan to be the better bet.

Now this is a simple example, but the principle is correct, assuming a uniform rise in rates. The question is: would it make sense..... and the answer must depend upon your need to stabilise your finances, how much you could bear a rise in mortgage costs in the short term, and your view on interest rates in general.

Let me also stress the importance of considering the rates that will be imposed following the fixed rate period. If the rate is a competitive one, then you should not have to remortgage, but if the rate is poor then, as you have said, you may wish to remortgage but be unable to because of house values or your own financial position. To be on the safe side, though, do work through the position should mortgage rates have risen a few percent at the end of the special rate - can you afford it?

The things you can do to drive down costs are:
Drive in a car, such as a Fiat Panda, Ka or similar as opposed to an Aston Martin. A useful site is http://www.ukwebstart.com/listcarinsurance.html

The area you live in does have an effect, so living in a quaint village would be a lot cheaper than living in the Isle of Dogs, London.

Like Paul has mentioned, your sex, the type of use for your car (social domestic, pleasure or do you use it for business use)

Some insurers discount your insurance via the Pass Plus course

what you might need to consider even more is the loss of that year of no claims bonus (unless if you already have the maximum) as you might be better off sticking where you are as 1 extra year of no claims can often make a bigger difference than switching mid term - this is one good thing you can confirm yourself from the comparison sites as you can tweak your details.

its also worth noting that all insurance has a cooling off period so if you are within the first 14 days of cover - some allow 30, that you can freely cancel with a full refund - no costs deducted as long as you havent made a claim during this time.

but do be careful to check your new policy, lots of "cheaper" policies are cheaper because the benefits are stripped out.

sometimes you can actually get a better price by purchasing fully comprehensive cover as opposed to third party/fire/theft - why? wel;, comprehensive drivers tend to be more careful drivers and usually in a more responsible life stage (perhaps with children, or driving a nicer car).

sometimes it can improve the cost for a young male driver to add his female partner to a policy as people in relationships are considered a better risk than singles!

but as insurers can pick their own rules (within reason) you need to be so careful when deciding where to place your cover.

The interest rate charged will depend on a whole lot of factors: how big a percentage you wish to borrow, your credit history and so on. The range is from about 3% (or just a little under) to 6% or more. Just as a starter, I suggest you use 4% if you are borrowing under 75% and 5% if you are borrowing up to 85%, with 6% if you intend to borrow 90% of the purchase price.

But this is just a rough guide!

David is quite right in what he says.

A lender takes a different view when a residential mortgage is granted over a buy to let deal.

Residential is occupied by you and under normal circumstances you will always keep to your repayment schedule and therefore the risk of default on the loan or damage to the property is minimal.

A buy to let deal is taken by you to make a profit, so why shouldnt the lender profit too? tenants are not usually as careful as an owner with property care/maintenance and they have little financial influence to ensure that they always pay you the rent, to then pay the mortgage.

also a residential mortgage was granted on the basis that you and/or your family would reside in at least 40% of the property - this has legal implications and also regulatory issues as the FSA doesnt regulate buy to let deals but they do on residential, this also impacts on your "protection".

David also identifies a point that i noticed, you seem to ask similar questions but posed on almost opposite circumstances.

many people have had help from these forums but it does require straight talk on both sides. clearly no one would expect you to divulge sensitive information but there are many people able to assist you if you let them.

the value of property is partly influenced by supply/demand/desire.

some people feel that property is still overvalued and should fall by as much as 30% or more to enable people to purchase based on more traditional lending multiples of 3x single or 2.5x joint income.

although there might be some truth in this, i think the rationale is somewhat flawed.

lenders are lending more cautiously, sometimes overly cautiously, but the sector of the market most impeded is the 75%> ltv as these pose additional risk to lenders and so they want to restrict their lending to what they consider to be deserving cases (sometimes restricted to existing borrowers only and no FTBs).

liquidity in the market is not as good as it was at its peak but its better than when it was at its low.

The BoE cannot force lenders to lend, frivolous lending (and borrowing) is in part to blame for the state we are in now and for as much as people rant about bankers being overpaid, they never moaned about that whilst the times were good, and they also forget that they borrowed the money, spent the money, had no means of repaying the money and never took precautions to safeguard their income in the event of a financial catastrophe.

i'm not defending bankers per se, but we have to remember that the banks didnt spend the money, they lent it, "we" spent it, some wisely but most foolishly.

we also have a glut of new build properties because the last government forced local authorities to build ridiculous numbers of new builds (by granting permission to the developers) the problems here are that the building standards are not the same as they were in the past when to own a new home was like a stamp of approval (how many tv shows now show "homes from hell")

new developments also imposed a % of property to be used for social housing - which was not the case in the past, without being a snob many people now dont wish to spend their hard earned cash buying a nice new home to find out their nextdoor neighbour is a rehoused council home evictee with out of control kids and all the other bad habits.

even setting all this aside, too many flats were built in inappropriate locations, the upshot is that many towns and cities now have vast numbers of vacant flats that no one wants to buy now (and clearly didnt then either) but you can build more high rise flats that you can terraced houses on the same plot and all of today's lifestyle tv seems to centre on kids, gardens, animals etc which dont tend to fall into the flat owning community.

most of this is just my take on things but i am sure that others will have their thoughts and experiences to share too!

Generically, then you can't do much better han a stakeholder pension. But not all give you good value for money.

The best route for you to take is to seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser because there are several factors to take into account such as what are they charging for, your attitude to risk and fund choice and you really need advice on this. Feel free to talk to me about this and I will be able to give you some pointers about this area.

i'm not quite sure what you mean on this but i will take a guess that you have paperwork and are trying to identify what it relates to?

if you have been a member of a final salary pension and made it to at least 2 years of service, you will have deferred benefits in that scheme and might get an annual summary of benefits - but not all companies send this once you have left the employer although you can request them at any time.

in terms of personal pension types you should get paperwork from the pension/investment companies and if these are attached to former employers they will mention it on the scheme name ie "The Tesco Stakeholder Pension".

stakeholder plans will always carry the name so if you dont see the word on the paperwork, its a good guess that it is a personal pension which might be an older style contract but could also be a recent one.

if your question was relating to "do i have a pension with anyone as i am not sure" you can try the pension tracing service but they will ask you for details of who you have worked for, and you would already know this and could check with the old HR departments.

in terms of personal pensions that you have paid yourself, old bank statements will help.

if this doesnt cover what you meant, can you explain in a little more detail what you were hoping to find out.

thanks

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

in general terms you could argue that gender is irrelevant.

insurance relies on interpreting past data on claims experience.

therefore a young female driver might be considered to be a safer bet than a young male driver due to the notion of "boy racers".

if there were common traits between the genders that influenced the reasons for claims on motor or other policies, gender related pricing wouldnt occur.

the notion of female pricing on motor policies had been thought to be short lived last year as legal challenges were being made to outlaw it as somehow a form of discrimination.

the truth of the matter is that you can probably find as many bad drivers of all genders and ages, occupations, home towns, and so on.

but in order that people with a safer driving record are rewarded for their careful driving, insurers have to set a benchmark and the "good risks" fall below the mark and pay less, whilst others pay more, and possibly only a few sit on the line.

otherwise if we all paid the same amount regardless of our circumstances or history, there would be no disincentive to have a claim every year!

but the above comments are very general and it is still often possible to find a good deal even if you fit into a high risk category as just as many insurers set up to cater for hot hatches, former drink drivers and female only - i suppose its just that sheilas wheels gets more air time on the tv!

Generally when looking at term assurance, which is a type of life insurance, women are cheaper to insure than men as women have a longer life expectancy. However, if we look at critical illness cover then women are more expensive than men, as they are more likely to contract a serious illness.
Without knowing more specific details about the individual we couldn't give a precise cost different. However, running a quote with one insurer, based on a man and female of the same age, and looking for the same cover the woman is 38% cheaper to insure.

The government has increased the IPT rate for any cover that will become effective on or after 04 January 2011. The new rate of IPT will apply to new business, renewals and mid-term amendments, as shown below.

Categories IPT Pre 04/01/2011 IPT From 04/01/2011
Motor 5% 6%
Rescue 5% 6%
Home 5% 6%
Pet 5% 6%
Travel 17.5% 20%

Private equity is a term used to describe money generated from individual investors and used to buy a portion of equity in a company. Many times, the purpose of generating private equity is to purchase a public company and turn it into a private one. Most private equity investing is done by wealthy individuals or investment banks that have excess money to invest. In some cases, a private equity fund is formed by working with multiple investors.

A hedge fund is a lightly regulated investment fund that is typically open to a limited range of investors who pay a performance fee to the fund's investment manager.

Every hedge fund has its own investment strategy that determines the type of investments it undertakes and these strategies are highly individual. As a class, hedge funds undertake a wider range of investment and trading activities than traditional long-only investment funds, and invest in a broader range of assets including long and short positions in shares, bonds and commodities. As the name implies, hedge funds often seek to hedge some of the risks inherent in their investments using a variety of methods, notably short selling and derivatives.

In most jurisdictions, hedge funds are open only to a limited range of professional or wealthy investors who meet criteria set by regulators, and are accordingly exempted from many of the regulations that govern ordinary investment funds. The net asset value of a hedge fund can run into many billions of dollars, and the gross assets of the fund will usually be higher still due to leverage. Hedge funds dominate certain specialty markets such as trading within derivatives with high-yield ratings and distressed debt

long term care is designed to cover the cost of care in old age and is usually associated with people that need care either in their own home or who have decided to move into nursing care.

although in the past it has been possible to pre-fund (to buy your care before you actually need it) most people have ended up buying/funding their care once the need has arisen.

however, given that the coalition government announced a wholesale review of the funding issues that surround longterm care, it wouldnt be wise to rush into making a decision now.

i would suggest that you contact an IFA for further assistance but you will need to ensure that they have passed exam CF8 or similar as it will demonstrate their awareness of the issues that surround care-fee planning and how state benefits interact with them.

it is a specialised area and that is why when i have seen clients for these types of needs, sometimes it can be of benefit to all parties for family members to become involved in the planning process.

if you are a small company (profit less than £300000) then the corporation tax rate is 21% of the profit after all allowed deductions and expenses.

if you file your CT600 using the HMRC template, it will calculate the sums for you, just in the same way as the self assessment site does for individuals.

Introduction

IR35 is a complex subject. Being caught by IR35 is expensive. You can find out how expensive it is by using the IR35 Calculator on http://www.ir35calc.co.uk/legal_advice_ir35.aspx

This article explains why you should take professional legal advice when both reviewing your IR35 status and also in disputes with the Revenue when they challenge your employment status.

Clients and agencies protect themselves – so should you
Both clients and agencies take legal advice for the content of the contracts which their contractors (you) eventually sign. They do this to protect them from any legal challenge or action from HMRC, another Agency or you as the Contractor.

After an inevitable HMRC inspection every 5-6 years neither the client nor the agency wants a huge tax bill for the contractors they have used in the past. They will want to ensure that any tax liability is passed to the contractor.

This inspection can then involve you, the contractor, in discussions with the Revenue about your contract or even start a Self Assessment Enquiry of your own business.

It is thus equally important that contractors also take legal advice to protect their interests, namely the risk of IR35.

Cost of failing IR35
There is a huge difference in your net income depending on your IR35 status. Depending on your contract rate it can range between £2,000 and £10,000 per annum.

To maximise your net income it is important to take legal advice and ensure you remain outside IR35.

Status challenges
As a contractor you will be inspected by HMRC, on average, every 5-6 years.

They will challenge the tax status of each contract and will go back 6 years. It is thus important to ensure your affairs are water tight with respect to IR35.

It is very important to take legal advice to protect yourself against challenges from the Revenue. If you don’t take any legal advice then there is no one to protect your interest.

The best Revenue results are achieved when the client or contractor is not prepared for the review.

Conclusion
If you are about to sign a new contract then you should immediately ask for a review to protect your own interests.

Also, if you have been paying tax in previous years as though you are outside IR35 and have not had your contracts reviewed you should do so immediately.


There is no sign that this will be abolished

It's all about profit and loss and the costs of having a financial services arm is very expensive. Levys to support the FCSC (Financial Compensation Scheme) are shooting up and I suspect that their levy will be higher than most, given the recent fine imposed on them.

However, it is difficult to say whether your policy is okay or not, given that there are no details on it. However, I suspect it is fine as Barclays do offer some very good products. Give me a call or email me directly if you want a more, no obligation, detailed decision

You are correct, it doesn't make sense not to set up the policy in trust. It ensures payment is quicker and more efficient. I set up a policy in trust for one client and after she died suddenly, the partner was paid £300k 6 days later. The rest of the estate was settled 10 months later. It not only ensured £120k of IHT savings, but also the solicitor charged 3% for administering the state, hence another £9,000 savings. This is perfect example of why it should be done

Absolutely life cover is what it says, life insurance. The threats to your life are unaffected by whether or not your property is let out.