For many borrowers, remortgaging has historically been a straightforward exercise. Rates fall, equity improves, and the assumption is that switching lenders—or at least securing a better deal—should be simple. In 2026, that assumption is proving increasingly unreliable.
A growing number of borrowers are being told by their existing lender that no change is available. No new product, no switch, no restructuring—often without a clear explanation beyond vague references to affordability or policy. This can be particularly frustrating where rates have eased, property values have stabilised, and personal finances appear stronger than when the mortgage was first agreed.
The reality is that lender behaviour in 2026 is being shaped by factors that go well beyond headline rates. Internal affordability models, revised stress testing, portfolio exposure limits, and risk reclassification are all influencing whether a borrower can move—even when logic suggests they should.
At Willow Private Finance, we regularly speak with borrowers who assume a “no change” response means they are stuck. In most cases, that is not true. What it does mean is that the route forward requires a more strategic approach than a simple rate switch.
Lenders are far more cautious about reassessing risk than they were in previous cycles. While base rates may be lower than the peaks of recent years, lenders are not operating under the same assumptions they once did.
Affordability models used in 2026 are structurally tighter. Many lenders have recalibrated stress testing to account for long-term volatility rather than short-term rate movements. This means borrowers can fail affordability checks today even if they comfortably passed them when rates were higher.
Another contributing factor is internal portfolio exposure. Lenders are actively managing how much risk they hold across certain borrower types, regions, and property categories. When exposure thresholds are reached, existing borrowers may find themselves effectively frozen—not because they are high risk individually, but because the lender has decided not to increase or reprice exposure in that segment.
There is also an operational element. Some lenders are quietly discouraging internal switches where the administrative cost and capital impact outweigh the commercial benefit. Rather than reprice risk, they choose to leave the loan untouched unless forced by redemption.
One of the most persistent misconceptions in 2026 is that being a “good customer” guarantees flexibility. Borrowers who have never missed a payment, who have overpaid regularly, or who hold multiple products with the same lender are often surprised to receive a flat refusal.
From the lender’s perspective, historical performance does not override current affordability models. A perfect payment record does not change how the loan performs under stress testing today. Nor does it alter how the lender allocates capital internally.
This is particularly evident for borrowers who took advantage of historically low rates several years ago. Even modest borrowing can now look stretched when tested against current criteria, especially where income has not risen materially or where household expenditure assumptions have increased.
Many borrowers assume that even if they cannot switch lenders, a product transfer with their existing bank should be straightforward. In 2026, this is no longer a given.
While some lenders still offer true “no affordability” product transfers, others apply partial reassessment. This can include updated income verification, revised expenditure models, or stress testing at higher notional rates. Where borrowers fail these internal checks, the lender may simply refuse to offer alternatives.
This is increasingly common among borrowers who have changed employment type, reduced income, or taken on additional commitments since the original mortgage was agreed. Even where the loan balance has reduced, lenders are focused on future risk rather than past performance.
Switching lenders in 2026 often feels like starting again. Full underwriting applies, and lenders are less inclined to make pragmatic allowances where affordability is tight.
Borrowers who are self-employed, rely on bonuses or dividends, or hold multiple properties face additional scrutiny. In these cases, even small variances in income assessment methodology can be enough to push an application outside acceptable limits.
This is particularly relevant for landlords and portfolio borrowers. As explored in our analysis of how portfolio size affects mortgage applications, lenders are increasingly underwriting exposure at portfolio level rather than on a property-by-property basis. A borrower may be told “no change” simply because one underperforming asset affects the wider picture.
In 2026, “no change” decisions most commonly arise in the following situations.
Borrowers whose income has become more variable since their last application often struggle, even if average earnings are higher. Lenders prefer predictability over upside.
Households with increased living costs—childcare, school fees, or higher discretionary spending—can fail updated affordability models despite unchanged income.
Landlords with mixed portfolios may be penalised for complexity, especially where different property types, tenancies, or ownership structures exist.
Borrowers approaching later life can also face resistance, as lenders apply stricter criteria around retirement age, pension income, and loan term sustainability.
None of these issues necessarily indicate financial distress. They reflect a lending environment that prioritises caution over flexibility.
A “no change” response should be treated as a signal, not a dead end. It indicates that the standard routes are blocked, not that solutions do not exist.
In some cases, a full remortgage is still possible with a lender that assesses affordability differently. Specialist and private banks may place greater emphasis on assets, liquidity, or long-term client relationships rather than rigid income multiples.
For others, restructuring rather than refinancing is the answer. Extending term length, adjusting repayment type, or consolidating debt can materially improve affordability outcomes—even if headline rates are slightly higher.
Where immediate switching is not viable, interim strategies can still add value. Overpayments, targeted debt reduction, or portfolio rebalancing can reposition a borrower for a stronger application later.
The key is understanding why the lender said no. Without that clarity, borrowers risk repeating the same outcome elsewhere.
In 2026, timing is a critical but often overlooked factor. Applying too early, before income has stabilised or accounts are finalised, can lock in a refusal that lingers on record.
Equally, leaving matters too late can force borrowers onto reversion rates that are materially higher than available alternatives. This is especially problematic for borrowers whose lender has already signalled reluctance to offer new products.
Strategic planning—often six to twelve months ahead of maturity—is increasingly necessary. This allows time to address affordability pinch points, prepare documentation, and identify lenders whose criteria align with the borrower’s profile.
A common example involves a homeowner whose fixed rate is ending. Their income is higher than when they last remortgaged, their LTV has improved, and rates in the market are lower. Yet their lender refuses to offer a new deal following an internal reassessment.
On closer inspection, updated expenditure assumptions combined with a change in employment structure mean the borrower now marginally fails affordability. Another lender, however, assesses income differently and places less weight on certain discretionary costs.
With the right lender selection and clear presentation of income sustainability, the borrower is able to remortgage successfully—despite being told “no change” by their existing bank.
Remortgaging in 2026 is no longer a passive process. Borrowers who assume the market will automatically reward them for improved rates or equity are increasingly disappointed.
Instead, success depends on preparation, lender alignment, and a clear understanding of how affordability is being assessed today—not how it was assessed previously.
Those who engage early and approach remortgaging strategically retain far more control over outcomes than those who wait for their lender to dictate terms.
Willow Private Finance specialises in helping borrowers navigate complex remortgage scenarios where standard routes are no longer available. We work with a wide range of lenders, from mainstream banks to specialist and private institutions, allowing us to identify solutions that align with both current criteria and long-term objectives.
Where lenders say “no change,” our role is to understand why, assess whether that decision is universal or lender-specific, and structure a path forward that restores flexibility. This includes timing advice, affordability optimisation, and strategic lender selection.
Q1: What does “no change” actually mean when my lender says it?
A: It usually means the lender will not offer a new product, further advance, or restructure on their current criteria. It does not necessarily mean you are unable to remortgage elsewhere, but it does signal underwriting or policy constraints.
Q2: Can a lender refuse a product transfer even if I’ve never missed a payment?
A: Yes. In 2026, some lenders apply updated affordability and stress testing even for internal switches. A clean payment record helps, but it does not override today’s affordability model.
Q3: If rates are lower, why would I fail affordability now?
A: Lenders often stress test at higher notional rates than the deal you are applying for and may assume higher living costs than before. Changes in income type, dependants, or commitments can also reduce affordability.
Q4: Will switching lenders always require full underwriting?
A: In most cases, yes. A remortgage to a new lender typically involves full affordability checks, documentation, and valuation. This is why planning ahead of your product end date matters.
Q5: What if I’m self-employed or have variable income—does that make “no change” more likely?
A: It can. Some lenders are stricter on variable income in 2026, especially where accounts show volatility or retained profits are not treated consistently. Specialist lenders may be more pragmatic depending on the wider profile.
Q6: What should I do first if my lender says no?
A: Identify the specific reason for the refusal, then assess whether another lender would view your profile differently. Often, small structural changes—term, repayment type, debt consolidation, or documentation—can materially improve outcomes.
📞 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 Director of Willow Private Finance and has over 20 years’ experience advising homeowners, investors, and high-net-worth clients on complex mortgage strategies. He specialises in remortgaging cases where borrowers face tightened criteria, changing income structures, or lender resistance despite strong underlying financial positions. Wesley is known for navigating lender policy shifts and structuring pragmatic solutions in evolving market conditions.
Important Notice
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute personal financial advice. Mortgage availability, underwriting criteria, affordability assessments, and interest rates vary between lenders and may change at any time. Decisions to remortgage or remain with an existing lender should be based on a full assessment of your individual circumstances.
Always seek tailored advice before entering into any mortgage arrangement. Willow Private Finance Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA No. 588422) and registered in England and Wales.
