Borrowing confirmed in principle for a £1m home search using salary and bonus income

High earnings did not create one simple affordability figure.

The couple were in their early thirties and wanted to buy their first home together, with a search range up to £1,000,000. They had a strong deposit, established professional careers, no adverse credit history and no unsecured borrowing beyond a student loan.

The complication was how much of their remuneration a mortgage lender would actually recognise. Both applicants received bonus income, but the evidence behind those bonuses was not identical. One applicant had only recently started receiving performance-related bonuses, while the other received a higher basic salary alongside profit-related and performance incentives.

• Recent variable earnings A bonus can be economically meaningful without fitting every lender’s required evidence period or affordability methodology.
• A higher purchase range As the borrowing requirement rises, small differences in the percentage or history of variable income accepted can materially change the available mortgage amount.
• Existing shared property ownership One applicant already owned a mortgage-free property jointly with family members, so the lender needed a clear picture of the ownership position and future housing arrangements.

The question was therefore not simply whether the household income looked strong. It was which lender would assess the sustainable income in a way that matched the clients’ circumstances.

Match the income profile to the lender before choosing the product.

Steve compared routes that relied mainly on basic salaries with lenders prepared to consider relevant bonus earnings where the evidence and employment context supported doing so. The preferred route remained within the mainstream residential market, avoiding a more specialist solution where it was not necessary.

The lender’s income methodology mattered as much as the headline rate.

A basic-salary-only approach would have simplified the application, but it could also have understated the borrowing capacity supported by the clients’ overall remuneration. The recommended lender was able to consider the broader employment and income picture while still applying a mainstream residential affordability assessment.

This is the central issue with professional bonus income: the same household can receive materially different borrowing calculations from different lenders because evidence periods, averaging methods and the proportion of variable pay accepted are not identical. Willow’s complex-income mortgage guide explains how salary, bonus, commission and other non-standard earnings can be assessed differently.

The proposed structure also preserved practical flexibility. The selected options allowed for permitted annual overpayments and potential portability, subject to the product terms in force when those features were used. That mattered because the clients were at an early stage of home ownership and their future plans could change over a long mortgage term.

Affordability confirmed in principle before the property decision.

Following the affordability assessment, the lender indicated that the borrowing required for the clients’ target purchase range was achievable in principle. The assessment also indicated capacity beyond the amount they expected to need for a £1 million purchase.

That gave the couple a clearer financing range for their property search without treating the maximum available figure as a spending target. The recommendation remained anchored to sustainable monthly commitments, the planned repayment term and the clients’ preference for an appropriate balance between certainty and flexibility.

Understanding mortgages with bonus income.