Furness Expands Six-Times-Income Lending and Raises Its 90% Mortgage Limit to £1m

Furness Building Society has announced lending of up to six times income for qualifying residential applicants earning more than £80,000, alongside a higher £1m maximum loan at 90% loan-to-value. The package also extends consideration of eligible flats, including new builds and flats above commercial premises, at up to 90% LTV.

The changes, reported on 22 October, matter because a mortgage application can be restricted in more than one place. A buyer might have sufficient income but too little deposit for their chosen property. Another might have the deposit and comfortable monthly finances, yet find that a lender’s income calculation produces insufficient borrowing.

A property can introduce a further obstacle. An apartment above commercial premises may attract different lending conditions from a conventional house at the same price.

Furness’s announcement addresses several of these issues together. For buyers whose earlier enquiries stalled, that creates a reason to revisit the specific obstacle. It does not establish that every part of the expanded criteria can be combined in every application.

A £90,000 Income Illustrates the Opportunity—and Its Limits

Consider a hypothetical buyer with £90,000 of income accepted for mortgage assessment. At 4.5 times that income, the arithmetic produces £405,000. At six times, it produces £540,000: a difference of £135,000.

The 4.5-times figure is a comparison assumption, not a statement of Furness’s previous policy or a universal limit elsewhere. Other lenders may use different calculations and eligibility conditions.

If the buyer is considering a £600,000 home with a £60,000 deposit, the required mortgage is £540,000. That is both six times the assumed income and 90% of the purchase price.

Those figures align mathematically. Whether the application works depends on the lender accepting the income, the property and the proposed payments after accounting for the applicant’s wider commitments.

The higher mortgage reduces the cash needed towards the purchase, but leaves the buyer with £135,000 more debt. That has consequences for monthly payments, total interest and the financial flexibility available after moving.

A sensible review therefore considers the amount the household can comfortably sustain alongside the amount a lender may approve. Childcare, maintenance payments, other borrowing and planned changes to working hours can all affect that judgement.

The £1m Ceiling Addresses a Different Constraint

Furness has raised its maximum loan at 90% LTV from £750,000 to £1m. This is potentially useful for applicants whose income supports substantial borrowing but whose available deposit is relatively modest compared with the property price.

For example, a £1m purchase with a £100,000 deposit requires a £900,000 mortgage. That exceeds the previous £750,000 ceiling at this LTV but falls below the newly announced maximum.

Even then, the income requirement remains separate. A £900,000 mortgage divided by six is £150,000. That is an arithmetic reference point before affordability, rather than a promise that £150,000 of earnings will support the loan.

Similarly, a £1m mortgage at exactly 90% LTV would correspond to a property value of approximately £1.111m and equity of approximately £111,111, before costs. It would not finance the whole price of a £1m home.

The distinction is especially relevant following Willow’s coverage of the growth in £500,000-plus mortgages outside London. Larger borrowing requirements can arise across regional markets, and suitability depends on the household and property rather than the postcode alone.

Flats Above Commercial Premises Need Property-Specific Answers

The expanded property criteria could be just as relevant as the higher income multiple. Buyers often encounter a problem after an initial borrowing discussion because the property itself does not fit the lender’s rules.

A flat above an office or shop should not be treated as interchangeable with one above a takeaway, restaurant or late-opening venue. Access, noise, smells, building condition and the market for resale can all warrant attention.

Furness’s published criteria page identifies flats above commercial premises as cases for referral and specifies an exclusion for food or hospitality businesses. The announcement should therefore be read as broader consideration of eligible properties, rather than blanket acceptance of everything above a shopfront.

For a £700,000 flat, 90% of the purchase price is £630,000. A £70,000 deposit would cover the balance of the price, but the lender must still accept both the security and the borrowing requirement.

The lease and legal arrangements also need checking. A larger mortgage allowance does not resolve an unacceptable lease provision, defective title or building issue. Those questions belong in the assessment before the buyer commits to a transaction.

At 90% LTV, the Valuation Can Change the Cash Requirement

A buyer should also distinguish the agreed price from the value the lender accepts for its security assessment.

Suppose the £700,000 flat is valued at £670,000 and, for this illustration, lending is restricted to 90% of that lower figure. The maximum based on valuation would be £603,000.

If the purchase price remains £700,000, the buyer would need £97,000 towards it, rather than £70,000. That creates a £27,000 gap before legal fees, taxes and other expenses.

The actual lender’s valuation basis must be confirmed, but the example shows why a headline LTV cannot settle the deposit question before valuation. Keeping an appropriate cash reserve may be more useful than allocating every available pound to the initial calculation.

High-LTV borrowing also leaves a smaller equity buffer. On an unchanged £630,000 balance, a property falling from £700,000 to £630,000 would have no equity before selling costs. Repayments may reduce the balance over time, but future price growth should not be assumed.

How Income Is Recognised Matters Before the Multiple Is Applied

The wider package includes greater flexibility for CIS contractors and foster carers, together with expanded treatment of self-invested personal pensions and assets under management in affordability assessments.

The relevant detail is how the lender translates a person’s finances into accepted income. A six-times multiple applied to one figure may produce less borrowing than a lower multiple applied to a more appropriate assessment of sustainable earnings.

For contractors, the evidence should explain the working arrangement, payment history and continuity of work. An adviser needs to establish which documents and periods the lender requires, rather than simply multiplying a recent payment by twelve.

For applicants with pensions or investment assets, the assessment must also establish what is accessible, what supports ongoing expenditure and what is already earmarked for the deposit or another commitment.

The announcement does not mean that the full value of an investment portfolio becomes annual income. Nor should the same capital be assumed to fund the purchase, support affordability and remain available for retirement without examining how those assumptions fit together.

Family Support Is Also Being Assessed More Flexibly

Furness has removed its previous £50,000 minimum-income requirement for joint borrower sole proprietor applications, leaving eligibility dependent on affordability. It has also announced up to 90% LTV for qualifying purchases of a second residential property for a dependent relative.

These are different arrangements. In a joint borrower sole proprietor mortgage, a supporting borrower can take on mortgage obligations without becoming a registered owner. A purchase for a dependent relative raises its own questions about ownership, occupation and who will make the payments.

Removing a minimum-income rule does not remove the need for the borrowing to be affordable. A supporting parent’s existing mortgage, other commitments and expected retirement income may remain central to the assessment.

The family should also consider how the arrangement might end. If the intention is for the occupying borrower to take over the mortgage later, their future ability to do so cannot be guaranteed. Independent legal advice helps the supporting borrower understand the obligations being accepted.

Self-Build Lending Needs a Cash-Flow Plan as Well as an Income Test

The announced six-times-income approach also extends to qualifying self-build applicants earning more than £100,000. Furness has widened the access arrangements it will consider through BuildLoan.

For a self-builder, however, total borrowing capacity is only one part of the decision. The project needs money at the points when land, materials and contractors must be paid.

A facility that appears sufficient overall may still leave a funding gap if releases arrive after expenditure is due. The borrowing assessment should therefore sit alongside the build programme, stage payments, contingency and any continuing housing costs.

The residential 90% LTV headline should not be assumed to describe a self-build facility’s stage-release terms. Those need checking against the particular product and project.

The wider announcement also includes buy-to-let affordability changes and top-slicing for qualifying cases. Those require a separate landlord assessment and should not be combined with the residential limits discussed here.

An Instant Decision in Principle Is a Starting Point

Furness has introduced instant decisions in principle while retaining manual assessment for cases requiring individual consideration. Faster initial feedback can help an adviser identify whether an application merits further work.

It does not settle the property valuation, verify every income assumption or replace a mortgage offer. A buyer should understand what has been assessed and what remains outstanding before relying on the result.

The immediate opportunity is to revisit cases with a clearly identified obstacle: insufficient borrowing under a previous calculation, a loan above the available product ceiling, a flat outside an earlier lender’s policy or an income source needing a different assessment.

Willow can compare the current options against that obstacle and the client’s wider plans. Sometimes the revised criteria will support the intended purchase. In other cases, a different deposit, property or budget will still provide the more sustainable outcome.