First-Time Buyer Mortgages at 5.5 Times Income or More Surge 142%

First-time buyer mortgages at 5.5 times income or more have more than doubled, showing how quickly higher income multiples are becoming part of the first-home market.

Stonebridge’s analysis of Financial Conduct Authority data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request and reported by Mortgage Soup on 5 November, records 7,621 such completions in the year to June 2026. That represents growth of 142.2% on the previous 12 months, compared with just 3.1% across first-time buyer mortgage sales overall.

The difference matters for professional couples and other buyers with strong earnings who have struggled to make a purchase work within a conventional income multiple. A larger loan can close a substantial funding gap, although it also creates a larger monthly commitment.

A fast-growing part of the market, from a small base

The headline increase is striking, but scale provides useful perspective. Against 375,657 first-time buyer mortgage sales overall, the 7,621 loans at the highest multiples represent about 2%, based on Willow’s calculation from the reported totals.

That helps explain why someone can read about a surge in larger mortgages and still receive a more modest borrowing figure. Access is expanding within a selective part of the market. The change is meaningful for buyers who qualify, without establishing a new standard available to every applicant.

For a household that previously missed its purchase budget by £50,000 or £100,000, the practical question is whether the constraint was a lender’s income-multiple limit, the deposit or the cost of monthly repayments. Each points towards a different answer.

What another multiple of income could buy

Consider a couple with accepted gross annual income of £150,000. A mortgage calculated at 4.5 times income would be £675,000. At 5.5 times, it would be £825,000: an additional £150,000 towards the purchase.

That difference could change the areas they can consider, allow an extra bedroom or make a home suitable for longer-term plans. For buyers otherwise facing a compromise on location or space, the appeal is clear.

The same calculation shows the other side of the opportunity. On these assumptions, the extra borrowing costs approximately £877 a month. A couple may welcome the larger purchase budget while deciding that a smaller increase leaves more room for savings, travel or future childcare.

Borrowing capacity is useful information even when buyers choose not to use all of it. It allows them to compare a more expensive home with the financial flexibility they would retain by spending less.

The regulatory change gave lenders more room

In July 2025, regulators opened a route for individual lenders to exceed the limit that normally restricted mortgages at or above 4.5 times income to 15% of their relevant new lending. The aim was to give lenders more flexibility while retaining the 15% limit across the market.

The permanent framework took effect on 28 October 2026. Since today’s figures stop at June, they cannot show the impact of that later implementation. They cover a period when interim flexibility was already available, although the totals alone do not isolate how much growth it caused.

There is also a separate debate about moving the high-LTI classification threshold from 4.5 to five times income, reported by the Financial Times on 31 October. That remains a proposed further change. The new completion figures concern borrowing that has already happened.

How a lender counts income can change the answer

For applicants paid entirely through basic salary, the starting figure may be relatively straightforward. For someone receiving bonuses, commission or business income, establishing the earnings a lender will accept can be more consequential than finding the largest advertised multiple.

Imagine that the couple’s £150,000 annual earnings comprise £120,000 of basic salaries and £30,000 of variable pay. If a hypothetical assessment counts only the basic salaries, multiplying by 5.5 produces £660,000. That is less than 4.5 times the full £150,000.

This is an illustration of the arithmetic, not a particular lender’s policy. It demonstrates why comparing two headline multiples without checking the income behind them can be misleading. The evidence supporting variable pay, its consistency and the lender’s assessment method all deserve attention.

For professionals and company directors, preparing a clear account of how earnings are generated can therefore be central to the mortgage discussion. A high annual income needs to translate into income the chosen lender can use.

A larger loan does not remove the deposit requirement

Loan-to-income and loan-to-value measure different things. The first compares borrowing with earnings; the second compares it with the property’s value. A buyer needs a mortgage that works on both measures.

An £825,000 loan on a £1 million purchase would still require £175,000 towards the price, assuming the lender accepts that valuation. Purchase taxes, legal fees and other costs would need to be funded separately. The loan would represent 82.5% of the property value.

Someone with strong income but little available cash may consequently remain constrained by the deposit. Conversely, a buyer with a substantial deposit may still find that the monthly affordability assessment limits the loan. Higher income multiples help most where that particular restriction was holding the purchase back.

Compare the mortgage as well as the borrowing limit

The worked example uses the same interest rate for both loans to show the effect of borrowing more. A real comparison may involve different products, rates and fees. The extra capacity therefore needs to be considered alongside the terms on which it is available.

For buyers choosing between two properties, it can help to build a complete budget for each. The more expensive home might require less immediate work or offer space that avoids another move, but its mortgage and running costs could absorb considerably more income. Those benefits and costs belong in the same decision.

There is also value in considering how the household expects to live after completion. If one partner plans to reduce their hours, or a regular bonus is intended to replenish savings, committing all of that income to the purchase could leave little flexibility. The right borrowing figure should fit those plans as well as the home.

The useful next step is a fresh assessment of the purchase

For a buyer who previously received an insufficient borrowing figure, the new data provides a reason to revisit the position. The starting point is to establish why the earlier application fell short and whether the household’s circumstances or available lending options have changed.

MoneyHelper’s guidance explains that lenders consider income and expenditure together. Existing debts, household costs and employment circumstances still shape the result. A higher multiple cannot create spare monthly income where the budget is already stretched.

A useful review should put the mortgage amount, deposit, purchase costs and repayments alongside each other. That gives the buyer a property budget they can work with and helps prevent an offer being based on a headline lending limit they cannot obtain.

Willow can assess the income a lender is likely to recognise and compare suitable residential options for the proposed purchase. For first-time buyers whose earnings can support the commitment, the expanding use of higher multiples may make a previously difficult move achievable.