Quick question re this - cant find any relevant thread!
What is the case for a joint applicant on a mortgage but not on the deeds - would it be normal for the applicant not on the deeds to have to get mortgage protection cover?
Situation is initially 2 siblings plus mother on joint mortgage applicantion with AIB Finance - mother not on deeds; 2 siblings get mortgage protection, mother not required to.
Now, one buying other out, so now daughter plus father make joint application to IIB - father not going on deeds; approval stipulates that daughter get mortgage protection for full amount of mortgage, with father requested to get mortgage protection for 30% of mortgage amount for 10 years, or until daughter can afford to take over mortgage in entirety.
As the second case is essentially the same as the first, why is it necessary to get mortgage protection in the second instance?
To clarify - it was and is a joint application in both cases - not a case of parent being a guarentor in either case. could it be due to amount borrowed - higher amount in the 2nd case - or is it just different stipulations for different lenders?
What is the case for a joint applicant on a mortgage but not on the deeds - would it be normal for the applicant not on the deeds to have to get mortgage protection cover?
Situation is initially 2 siblings plus mother on joint mortgage applicantion with AIB Finance - mother not on deeds; 2 siblings get mortgage protection, mother not required to.
Now, one buying other out, so now daughter plus father make joint application to IIB - father not going on deeds; approval stipulates that daughter get mortgage protection for full amount of mortgage, with father requested to get mortgage protection for 30% of mortgage amount for 10 years, or until daughter can afford to take over mortgage in entirety.
As the second case is essentially the same as the first, why is it necessary to get mortgage protection in the second instance?
To clarify - it was and is a joint application in both cases - not a case of parent being a guarentor in either case. could it be due to amount borrowed - higher amount in the 2nd case - or is it just different stipulations for different lenders?