Many borrowers in 2025 are encountering an increasingly common problem: they qualify in principle for a mortgage, but not for the amount they actually need. Despite solid income, low debt, and healthy deposits, lender affordability models fall short—leaving buyers unable to proceed or forcing uncomfortable compromises.
Affordability shortfalls are no longer confined to edge cases. They are affecting home movers, self-employed professionals, older borrowers, expats, portfolio landlords, and even high earners with variable or complex income structures. Rising stress rates, conservative underwriting, and rigid affordability caps mean that “computer says no” is often the starting point rather than the end of the discussion.
At Willow Private Finance, we see this daily. Clients often arrive frustrated after being declined or capped by a high-street lender—without a clear explanation or a realistic path forward. In many cases, the issue is not affordability in real life, but how affordability is assessed on paper.
This guide explains why affordability shortfalls occur in 2025, how lenders calculate them, and—most importantly—what strategies exist to bridge the gap. It also builds on themes explored in our articles on how mortgage underwriting has changed in 2025 and using alternative income for mortgage borrowing.
An affordability shortfall occurs when a lender is willing to lend—but only up to a figure below what the borrower requires to complete a purchase or refinance. This is different from a decline; the lender accepts the borrower in principle but restricts loan size based on internal affordability calculations.
In practice, this often manifests as a borrower needing £700,000 but being capped at £620,000, even with a strong deposit. The lender’s model may assume higher future interest rates, discount certain income types, or apply blunt expenditure assumptions that do not reflect real spending patterns.
Affordability shortfalls are particularly frustrating because they give borrowers a false sense of progress. The application appears viable until late-stage underwriting reveals a gap that cannot be bridged without structural changes.
Affordability models in 2025 are more conservative than at any point in the last decade. Lenders remain cautious following prolonged rate volatility, regulatory pressure, and affordability stress-testing requirements that often assume rates significantly above current pay rates.
Even where base rates have stabilised, stress rates remain elevated. Many lenders assess affordability at 7–9% regardless of the actual mortgage rate, materially reducing borrowing capacity. At the same time, household expenditure assumptions—such as childcare, utilities, transport, and discretionary spend—are often applied using generic models rather than borrower-specific data.
In addition, lenders are increasingly restrictive around income types. Bonuses may be averaged or capped, dividends discounted, foreign income penalised for currency risk, and pension or investment income ignored entirely unless structured in a very specific way. These issues are explored further in our guide on mortgages for self-employed and complex income borrowers.
The result is a widening gap between real-world affordability and lender-model affordability.
Affordability shortfalls tend to arise in predictable scenarios. Home movers upsizing often face higher loan requirements alongside existing commitments, even if those commitments are modest. Self-employed borrowers may see profits ignored due to averaging rules or retained earnings being excluded altogether.
Older borrowers frequently encounter term restrictions that reduce affordability, even when retirement income is strong or assets are substantial. Expats and internationally paid professionals often find that foreign income is discounted or subjected to punitive exchange rate assumptions.
High earners with complex remuneration—such as bonuses, commission, dividends, or carried interest—are particularly exposed. Despite earning well in excess of six figures, these borrowers may be assessed on a fraction of their true income, as discussed in our article on variable income mortgages in 2025.
Borrowers are frequently told that their only solution is to reduce their purchase price or increase their deposit. While this may work in some cases, it is often unnecessary and strategically flawed.
Reducing the purchase price may mean compromising on location, school catchment, or long-term suitability. Increasing the deposit can be equally problematic, particularly where capital is earmarked for business use, investment, or tax planning.
In many cases, the issue is not affordability itself but lender selection. Different lenders apply radically different affordability frameworks, stress rates, and income treatments. A borrower capped by one lender may be perfectly affordable with another—if the case is structured correctly.
One of the most effective ways to bridge an affordability gap is through lender selection rather than borrower compromise. Specialist lenders and private banks often apply bespoke affordability assessments that reflect a borrower’s actual financial position rather than a rigid algorithm.
This may involve longer mortgage terms, particularly where retirement income is provable. It can also include interest-only structures supported by credible repayment strategies, such as investments, pensions, or asset sales—an approach discussed in our guide to interest-only mortgages in later life.
Other solutions include using alternative income streams, restructuring existing debt to improve monthly affordability, or blending products—such as part repayment and part interest-only—to optimise borrowing capacity without increasing risk.
A growing number of borrowers in 2025 are asset-rich but income-light. They may hold substantial property, investment, or business assets but draw relatively modest taxable income. High-street lenders struggle with these profiles, often ignoring net worth entirely.
Specialist lenders and private banks, however, may assess affordability based on overall wealth, liquidity, and sustainability rather than salary alone. This approach is particularly relevant for entrepreneurs, investors, and retirees and is explored further in our article on asset-based mortgage strategies.
Consider a senior professional relocating within the UK. Despite earning a strong six-figure income and holding a 30% deposit, their chosen lender capped borrowing £80,000 below the required amount due to stress-rate assumptions and capped bonus treatment.
By moving to a specialist lender that assessed historical bonus consistency and applied a more nuanced stress rate, the full borrowing requirement was achieved without extending risk or increasing deposit. The property purchase proceeded without compromise.
This type of outcome is rarely achievable without specialist advice and lender access.
Accepting an affordability shortfall often leads to suboptimal decisions—short-term fixes that create long-term inefficiencies. Overstretching cash reserves, compromising on property quality, or accepting unsuitable mortgage structures can undermine broader financial planning.
In contrast, addressing affordability strategically often results in better liquidity management, improved long-term flexibility, and a mortgage structure aligned with future plans rather than short-term constraints.
Willow Private Finance specialises in cases where standard affordability models fall short. As an independent, whole-of-market broker, we work with high-street lenders, specialist banks, and private banks to identify the most appropriate solution for each borrower’s profile.
Our experience spans complex income, international clients, older borrowers, asset-backed structures, and high-value transactions. Rather than forcing clients to fit a lender’s model, we structure cases to reflect the borrower’s true financial position and long-term objectives.
Q1: What causes an affordability shortfall even with a good income?
A: Stress-rate testing, capped income treatment, and conservative expenditure assumptions often reduce borrowing capacity below real-world affordability.
Q2: Can bonuses and commission help overcome an affordability gap?
A: Yes, but only with lenders that assess variable income correctly and consider consistency over time.
Q3: Does a larger deposit always fix affordability issues?
A: Not necessarily. While it can help, lender affordability caps often apply regardless of deposit size.
Q4: Are private banks better for affordability shortfalls?
A: In many cases, yes. Private banks often assess affordability more holistically, especially for complex or high-net-worth borrowers.
Q5: Can older borrowers still overcome affordability limits?
A: Yes, where retirement income, assets, or alternative repayment strategies are clearly evidenced.
📞 Want Help Navigating Today’s Market?
Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.
We’ll help you find the smartest way forward—whatever rates do next.
About the Author
Wesley Ranger is the Director of Willow Private Finance and has over 20 years of experience in property finance and complex mortgage structuring. He specialises in helping clients with non-standard income, high-value borrowing requirements, and international financial profiles secure tailored lending solutions. Wesley works closely with private banks, specialist lenders, and professional advisers to deliver outcomes where conventional approaches fall short.
Important Notice
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute personal financial advice. Mortgage affordability assessments, product availability, lending criteria, and interest rates vary between lenders and may change at any time.
Affordability outcomes depend on individual circumstances, including income structure, expenditure, credit profile, and long-term financial planning considerations. Always seek tailored advice before committing to any financial arrangement.
Willow Private Finance Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA No. 588422). Registered in England and Wales.
