Are you entitled to a mortgage?

The ABC seems to think so:

When Renee Vanson went to her bank, she thought she was in a strong position to refinance her loans.

“If you’ve got no outstanding debts, you’ve got your insurance, school fees for the year, power, phone, petrol — and you’re still saving money as well — who’s to say that you’re spending too much,” she said.

“I just thought it was very unjust,” she said.

Ms Vanson said she felt “scrutinised” over her living expenses.

She said she and her partner have a “really good disposable income”, and she has never had a credit card because she did not believe in living beyond her means.

Now in her 40s, Ms Vanson said she believed she had worked hard and should be allowed to spend her spare money however she sees fit.

“We’re still saving a certain amount of money per month. We are in our depths to be spending money,” she said.

“We just like to enjoy going out for a meal every now and then as most people do.

“It actually got to the stage where I thought, ‘I’ll just go to the ATM and buy this, this and this, and [the bank is] not going to know’.

“And then I thought, ‘I’m 44, I shouldn’t be having to do that with my money’.”

She said her bank had offered her “an apology”.

“They said ‘it’s not our fault, it’s just the [banking] royal commission’,” she said.

Ms Vanson said while her own bank refused her, she managed to “easily” move to another bank.

Her bank was contacted as part of this story, but a spokesman said the institution did not comment on individual cases.

Mortgage brokers said Ms Vanson’s scenario was not an uncommon one.

Hobart mortgage broker Narelle Kerstan said many of her clients had also been denied loans by their “home banks”, but qualified elsewhere.

“Probably a third of my business would be from people who have had issues with their living expenses or spending habits,” she said.

Another broker, Emmanuel Marios, said one of his clients was refused a home loan last month because he had spent $250 a fortnight on takeaway food.

“[He was] visiting a takeaway shop every day essentially for lunch,” he said.

“That’s how it is. Obviously, people are going out more often, they’re not packing their own lunch anymore.”

He said many banks felt the spotlight of the royal commission, and borrowing had become harder.

“Obviously the royal commission has a big factor about it and lending is getting stricter and stricter,” he said.

Melbourne mortgage broker David Thurmond said while banks should look into prospective client’s finances to make sure they were able to afford the loan, many had taken a “silly” approach after the royal commission “when common sense isn’t applied”.

“Unfortunately, when banks change policy, they go hard right. And then, over time, they realise they’ve gone too far right, and they need to pull back a little bit,” he said.

“When they employ this black and white policy around living expenses, common sense falls by the wayside.

“A lot of clients that would have qualified easily a year ago, two years ago, are now struggling to qualify because banks are applying a very harsh view on living expenses.”

With many financial transactions taking place electronically, banks have an ease of access to people’s spending habits.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty about what exactly your rights are, and people are in a very weak position to say no when institutions like banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, landlords and employers in general start demanding information from you,” he said.

The ABC contacted several major banks for this story, including ANZ, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Westpac and the National Australia Bank. The banks said they had robust processes in place to ensure responsible lending practices.

But the Australian Banking Association said banks were required by law to lend responsibly and assess a borrower’s ability to meet their repayments.

“Over the last few years, a key focus of the regulators has been to strengthen lending requirements and they have required banks to exercise greater caution when issuing loans, particularly higher risk home loans,” a spokesman said.

Bravo banks. People are not entitled to a mortgage. A bank’s only role is to determine who can afford to repay a loan and allocate credit as efficiently as possible on that basis. We’ve had many years of not doing it with the clear result of an entire generation locked out of home ownership and a financial system at extreme risk. Now it is happening it is fantastic as affordability improves daily for those prepared to put the work in.

Where is your counterbalancing view, ABC?

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


    • Better is actually telling entitled boomer trying to sell place in New England to move down to New Castle that they may want to consider the old adage “he who panics first, panics best”. Amongst other like “oh, so you mean ‘sell it before this Christmas, not a Christmas…’. 🙂

    • The real issue is that the banks are already in deep sh**t with their current loan books so understandably don’t want to take on anything remotely risky. They are facing class actions for irresponsible lending and have no choice but to lend responsibly from here on. The non banks are picking up the slack because they were not scrutinised by the Royal Commission like the banks were.

    • Best if the massive Third World immigration program had not been deviously imposed twenty years ago, driving up housing, then the link between house prices and wages would have remained reasonable. The greedy, reckless bankers then allowed scary amounts of money to be borrowed to fund the housing increases. It kept going till mid 2017 when, it just became unsustainable.

      • I just sent it in to media watch. Probably do nothing but 2 minutes of my time and at least I feel better!!!

      • did that and replied to the journo as well:

        What the hell has happened to the ABC? Has it too become captured by real estate spruikers like every other media outlet in the country?

        You run a fact-free opinion piece that is worse than just a shonky story.

        With a ‘good income’, monthly savings and no credit cards, Renee’s bank still knocked her back

        But you don’t reveal this seemingly ordinary aussie is Renee, a real estate agent? Vested interest check anyone? I used to think the ABC quite a few years ago was the home of decent journalism in this nation, but now it’s become a rubber stamp for property council fluff and spruik – just like Fairfax – and worse, the ABC has become a social justice warrior tribe like the Guardian. Get the hand-holding, nanny state opinion and fluff garbage pieces off your pages and report the bloody news, like you’re supposed to.

        What the hell happened to the real and important news? How about you start dealing with the big issues in the country, like the lack of stiff anti-money laundering laws that have allowed foreigners to wash tens if not hundreds of billions of cash into our property market? Or the land-banking rackets that have pushed fringe dormitory suburb land prices to ridiculous heights and now all the speculation out there is coming unstuck, big time? Or how the country has been over-run by mass immigration to support the economy, but now stamp duty is crashing the State governments are going to go broke off the back of massive infrastructure splurges predicated on rising stamp duty mirages? Or the incessant corruption in our parliamentary system? Hell, start with the Murray Darling and work your way up to the nightmare that is energy policy that’s about to see us import gas! Or maybe you could get serious and look into public private partnerships that are selling off taxpayer assets to gouge users as an insidious form of corporate welfare? Or our arms deals that serve no purpose other than to enrich the ministers in charge? Or free trade agreements designed to import yet more cheap labour to further destroy wages? Or the corporate tax system lurks that see my small business pay more tax than Qantas, Exxon Mobil and many others?

        It’s high bloody time the ABC grew a pair. Go hire Michael West and others of his ilk and tear the scab off the lie of the lucky country. We’re about to go broke as China slows, our construction and retail employment craters, housing prices fall off a cliff, takes our banking system with it. Yet this Renee “I can’t get a mortgage” crap is all you can write about?

        What a sad commentary on the state of Australia today that the ABC is the most trusted source of news in the country. Only because it has no competition any more. Instead of resting on your soggier by the minute laurels and becoming a social justice codpiece, go do your job and expose the truth underneath the lucky country – we’re run by second-rate and corrupt people who are at best incompetent and at worst, captured. That’s why things are going from bad to worse, and will get far worse. Go tell the truth. That’s your job.

      • I thought I’d give ’em five rounds rapid….

        in the story at

        you wrote:

        When Renee Vanson went to her bank, she thought she was in a strong position to refinance her loans.

        Much to her “disappointment”, she says her bank told her it could not help because she was “spending too much”.

        “If you’ve got no outstanding debts,….”

        So, she went to the bank to refinance her loans. Plural…more than one loan. And then you immediately quote her as saying “If you’re got no outstanding debts….”. In other words, she claims to have no outstanding debt.

        Did it not occur to you that the very fact that she was going to the bank to refinance multiple loans inherently meant that she had outstanding debt? That’s what loans are…outstanding debt. And the fact that she required refinancing perhaps meant that, as the bank determined, she was struggling to control and sustain her debts? And that’s why they refused her application?

        You published as “news” her unsubstantiated claims about her income and creditworthiness without even the appearance of critically examining her claims or the most basic attempts at fact checking.

        This story is unworthy of the ABC and should be retracted.

    • The old tasmanian blog Idiot Tax would be proud of that pick up. Virtually any Real Estate puff piece in Tas has folks connected to the industry as the punter.

      Gee – I miss the idiot tax, does anyone know if they are still around?

    • ABC is one of the worst offenders, confirming the depth is the Aus housing-politico complex.

    • so assuming a 2.5% commission on her last 12months sales = about $100,000
      agency fees about 40% = 100,000 (-40,000) = 60,000
      overheads (car to run out to listings etc) say 25% = 60,000 (-25,000) = 35000
      tax on 35,000 = 3,900 (inc medicare) = 31,100
      borrowing according to Hem lifestyle = ? … pretty close to $0

      • The article also refers to refinancing her “loans”. PLURAL. So assuming there’s at least one investment property in the mix that has gone from Interest Only to Principal and Interest.
        Gotta wonder if she’s a REITas plant.

      • Yeah exactly Aaron, there is so much detail missing from the above, there is likely a very good reason for declining her refinancing. What kind of savings does she have? It could be $30 p/month for all we know..

        The banks are only looking for A-grade borrowers. I recently went to get a loan and had absolutely no issues getting $550k pre-approved from multiple banks. I don’t have a credit card / debt (missus has $6k credit card debt), but we have high joint income and modest expenses (no car loans etc).. so credit is still available.

        This article is just a beat up to get the banks to go back to lax lending standards. It’s moaning from the vested interests. “OH noes my netflix usage has declined my loan… ” type rubbish. Remember as Peachy loves to bang on U-bank still at 3.59% – so some people can still get it, just not those with multiple existing loans and obligations tied to an industry (real estate agents) soon to be facing higher unemployment.

      • kannigetMEMBER

        Could they have knocked her back because her only life skill is as a hicktown country real estate agent and the bank doubts she will be making much money over the next 10 years?

      • During her down time, Renee volunteers her services as a volunteer ambulance officer with Ambulance Tasmania, based in Huonville. She has been doing this for 3.5 years now and thoroughly enjoys putting back into the community of the Huon Valley and surrounds.

      • “During her down time, Renee volunteers her services as a volunteer ambulance officer with Ambulance Tasmania, based in Huonville. She has been doing this for 3.5 years now and thoroughly enjoys putting back into the community of the Huon Valley and surrounds.”

        Something about Rues thoroughly enjoying putting it back in…..I dunno I’m Tired

  1. DingwallMEMBER

    So we are still in the world where if one bank knocks you back (valid reasons?) you just keep trying others until one slides it through ?

    • Rain When I Die

      What’s wrong with that

      Bank A uses internal servicing criteria for a no
      Banks B and C use internal servicing criteria and yes/yes

      Happened to me recently.

    • Yes. And you can always find one if you go down the food chain far enough.

      I heard that there is an alternative lender for desperate customers with no equity. All you need is your kidney.

      • Stopped to help a couple of Grey Nomads who came an almighty cropper on the Pacific Hwy near Bulahdelah on the Mid North Coast of NSW. Their caravan threw a wheel. The old bloke did well to drag it to the shoulder without jackknifing.

        Sure enough they were towing it with a petrol Landcruiser 🙂

        Got chatting while we were waiting for RMS and Police to arrive. They were from Maitland and had been travelling around for the last 4 years and had to come back because the banks wouldn’t allow them to get any more equity out of their home to fund their nomadic ways.

        Turns out they were just on their way to hand the caravan over to a bloke in Forster who had just bought it off them. The caravan was coming up to its 6th year (they bought it second hand 2 years old) so it needed a rego inspection – and the rego expired in 3 days time. I asked if they had had it serviced since they came back. Answer: No.

        No wonder the bloody wheel came off!

        Looks like the taps are well and truly off for the boomers.

      • kannigetMEMBER

        All depends on your driving style, I get between 9/100 and 11/100 from my hilux turbo diesel, usually around the 9/100.
        The Mechanic at the car yard said he was surprised because he has the same car and is lucky to get 15/100

        You can drive like a loon and pay a lot more to drive….that said the v8 landrcruiser is notoriously hungry…

      • @jelmech

        Strange – my dual-cab LC does 17l/100km with 2.5t horsefloat towing on highway.

        The old wagon – still LC, 1VD-FTV (which I wrote off a couple of years ago) was doing 16l/100km.

        Presumably if you get into loose stuff (sand/mud/dust) you kind of expect the consumption to go up like mad, but nowhere near that much on the highway…

        By themselves, empty – the wagon was doing 10.5/100km (in Brisbane traffic) and the dual cab does 12.5/100km

      • I’ve got a Navara ute. Twin turbo. It accelerates like a rocket and will haul 600Kg uphill (I’ve done it) without even straining. I get around 8.5 l/100 in the city. It uses less fuel than my old 4 cylinder Camry. 🙂

      • @LSWCHP

        Neat! that’s pretty good consumption. I had a 4cyl Camry (’99) which I had converted to LPG – thanks to Dr Rodent Howard, bless his black husk of a heart, and LPG was pretty damned good whilst it was half(ish) the price of petrol… Not anymore…

      • 3f petrol 60 series LandCruiser here. 23L/100 on the highway but I’ve got 200L of petrol and 65L of LPG on board so it’s still a while in between fuel stops. Ya gotta pay to play and I love the fact that I can fix basically anything on this car myself and get home.

      • Ino yep those buggers.the single turbo v8 diesel with 3.2 tonne behind and 400 kg in the back, ostensibly towing @ 95-100 kliks [requires 30kmh tailwind]
        not just 1 ute either… 2 of ’em were +30l/100….bloody disgusting
        the very worst I got outa my dinosaur petrol [EFI] was 20l/100 [email protected] and it’s a sludgematic!
        beats me what the hell is going on, but given diesel more expensive than petrol give me petrol GDI every time

    • Quote from article:
      baby-boomers are living to 95. The kids are getting access to the money when they are 75, and that’s too late…
      Never a truer word spoken.
      Plus boomers cost all wage-earners a mint in tax to pay for health care. Amazing.
      I admit I am, technically, a boomer. But when people think of “privileged boomers” you really mean “early boomers” i.e. those who rode the wave of the post-war baby-boom. I promise, being born in 1959 makes you a boomer technically, but it puts you behind the eight-ball just like everyone else. A child when Woodstock happened. At school when the economic miracle transpired. Entering the workforce when all the successful start-ups were already generating millions. Bitter, yeah, I’m bitter.
      Just die-the fuck. You’ve had your go…

      • No boomer has reached 95 yet. I wont be that age, if ever for another 33 years. Some boomers, very few in fact, have a single parent living that is 95, most boomers have parents in their early 80’s. Out of everyone I know my old man is the oldest living parent at 90 this year however will be leaving me almost nothing (circa $20k) if nothing else goes wrong, in fact my parents and siblings due it illness have cost me maybe $60k or more over the last 2 decades so this boomer (62 this year) does not fit the blueprint, also lost all real work at the age of 49 and then either ‘Indianed’ out of the industry or been considered too old at 50 (due the fact that everyone knows that people over 50 sleep at their desks by mid morning, drool all over the place, wet their seats and get paid 2x as much as everyone elese even when they probably dont) ie a world run factoid thinking people. Very poor reporting from the ABC
        As for caravaning grey nomads? they are the generation above me, I dont know any.

  2. Tassie TomMEMBER

    I did see this article yesterday, and I did think to myself “If the bank judges her to be a risk, then it’s their money on the line isn’t it.”

    • Lenny Hayes for PMMEMBER

      Actually it is OUR money seeing as how we are depositors, shareholders (direct or via Super) and taxpayers (who will bail out any failed banks).

      Well done to the banks who are knocking back plonkers spending $250 a fortnight on takeout lunches.

    • The problem is it is our money. Moral Hazard. With no guarantee is it likely they would have let it get this out of hand in the first place? #ourpeoplesmoney

    • kannigetMEMBER

      Not the Banks money, as we saw with Suncorp yesterday the banks just securitise the debt and sell it to investors.

      Basically use fractional reserve to create debt out of thin air and sell that debt to investors to turn the debt into cash for themselves…. they care nothing for the risk on the money.

  3. Too few people appreciate the ‘golden rule’ – s/he who has the gold makes the rules. It’s the banks money and you want it. Either play their game or not but don’t cry about it.

    But I suspect as a RE agent herself she isn’t actually upset, this article is a vehicle to remind the punters to shop around some dodgier brokers who can still get you that CA$$$H if a responsible bank says no.

    • Jumping jack flash


      I know a guy. Works out of the back of his car.
      He can hook you up with however much debt you need to make someone else instantaneously rich beyond their wildest dreams in exchange for their falling-down shack with all the problems hidden until the deal is done and you start properly looking around…

      Worse than a used car, and vastly more expensive. Some of the dodgy stuff they hide, and the dodgy repair jobs. Paint covers all.

    • kiwikarynMEMBER

      Its a real estate spruik hidden as a consumer interest story – “dont worry if the bank knocks you back, if you go to another one you will still get that million dollar loan to buy that derelict bungalow in the boondocks, so get out there and start bidding at auctions you pussies”

  4. kannigetMEMBER

    So the Guy is spending $25 per day on junk food, With that diet I would see him as a lending risk as well, If I was going to lend money to someone I would want them to be alive long enough to repay the loan.

      • kannigetMEMBER

        True, I did assume takeaway = unhealthy but as the majority of takeaway is not healthy despite the shop claims, I am not sure its a wildly inaccurate assumption but I will concede.

      • BubbleyMEMBER

        Today I bought a large coffee, fruit salad and a salad for lunch (greek and roasted vegetables) very healthy and cost $20.20,

        That was breakfast and lunch, both filling and healthy.

    • kiwikarynMEMBER

      That’s cheap. A bento box from Nobu is $50. What do the banks expect you to eat? A dried out old egg sandwich washed down with a filter coffee? (and even that would set you back at least $12 a day)

    • ”Another broker, Emmanuel Marios, said one of his clients was refused a home loan last month because he had spent $250 a fortnight on takeaway food.”
      I wouldnt lend him anything either, not even if he was on $100k +++per year on account of being a financial dickhead.
      As a boomer I had this conversation many times with younger colegues. them ‘you going on holiday again’ ‘ you must be paid much more than me’ when in fact was often the case they were paid more than me. Then I explain with questions.. ‘ how many of those coffees do you buy a day’ them ‘only 3’ How much do you spend on lunch every day? them ‘not much’ me ‘like $20’ not much you mean.. How much do you spend a the pub or night club on friday/saturday? them ‘less than a hundered or so’ and so on. So as I said to them, ‘ If I spent $20kpa on lunch, coffee, pub, nightclub, takeaway food at night then no way I would be going on holiday. Not even if I spent half that amount. (at the time I was mid 40’s and these clowns were in their early 30;s not teenagers)

  5. If one is honest with the paperwork, and the broker is honest with the paperwork and you meet the requirements, then sure. Hats off, you deserve one. But the issue has been that far too many scum bags have rigged the system for their own gains – riding the ponzi housing scheme. The mess that this has left for the honest mortgagee is disgraceful. Re-run all the mortgages out there, find those who rigged the system, prosecute them, lock them up and fire sale their homes to the honest bunch who have obtained an honest mortgage. No mercy from me… if you rigged your mortgage knowingly, or knew your broker rigged your mortgage, then you are nothing more than a criminal that deserves the full force of the law and to have your home stripped from you with any profits being forfeited.

    • Good luck with that. Got a better chance of getting all the foreigners who purchased property illegally to have to forfeit it. That won’t happen either of course.

    • Or dob someone in and get a cut of the asset. I’ve a dodgy relative who has spent twenty years lying on mortgage applications. She’s turned it into an art form.

    • It was mooted somewhere in parliament back in the very early days of the boom, circa 2002 that information put on mortgage applications re remuneration should be put forward to the tax office to make sure people are paying the right amount of tax. This was quickly dismissed, ie the government knew what was going on and wanted it to go on.

      • Oh my goodness. I never knew that. So there is literally zero checks and balances? It is left up to banks and their dodgy loan officers to decide if the applications were ok? Hence the loan officers fraud… we are in much worse shape than I thought. We are literally sitting on a sub prime time bomb as these interest only loans role over to P&I. The liar loans could be a our sub prime. Call up Michael Lewis, he has to write the Big Short Part II – this time based in our back yard!

  6. “She said she and her partner have a “really good disposable income” Maybe. But as Real Estate Agent she probably doesn’t have consistent income, and given that her income source must be drying up – no wonder the bank said “No!”. (She, of all people should know that!)

    • The slowdown hasn’t hit Tassie real-estate as hard yet, so maybe she hasn’t figured out what that light at the end of the tunnel is yet.

      • The slowdown hasn’t hit Tassie real-estate AT ALL! Prices are still rising…
        In her mind that light at the end of the tunnel is the next boom! Banks are just being mean.

    • She worked as an “office manager” (receptionist) from 2011 to 2017 in Hobart.

      The article make no mention of what her income is and no mention of what the loan is for. The article seems like propaganda.

  7. I wonder whether people are being refused because they buy lunch or whether that they have just been assessed as to not have enough headroom in their budget and income?

    Does the bank really say that it is due to specific expense A or is that the interpretation made by the rejected person to make a narrative out of the decision?

    It would surprise me if I applied for a loan and had plenty of clear space in my budget and yet I was rejected because I chose to spend some of my money on something – that seems odd. Anyone else have experience or thoughts on this?

    • nil_allMEMBER

      While noting that APRA and ASIC both demand a pretty high amount of headroom. There is a world of difference between being able to make the repayments and being able to meet the bank’s ability to pay criteria

    • I asked a bank loan officer and he said they wouldn’t look at specific purchases if your overall spending levels looked reasonable for your circumstances and relative to your loan.

  8. “A bank’s only role is to determine who can afford to repay a loan and allocate credit as efficiently as possible on that basis.”

    Actually, as a private company with shareholders a bank’s role is to maximise profits
    AHPRA’s role is to regulate the banks and make sure they allocate credit efficiently
    The government’s role is to ensure that AHPRA does a good job of it
    The people’s role is to hold the government to account and get rid of them if they are lax

    Perhaps its time to acknowledge that the whole system of private banking is flawed, and strip them of the ability to create loans and blow asset bubbles

    • “AHPRA’s role is to …. make sure they allocate credit efficiently.”

      Not quite. That’s a decision for the bank’s managers too. The regulator only has a say on required capital levels.

    • Even StevenMEMBER

      I thought AHPRA’s role was to register doctors. APRA’s role is to regulate banks.

      • Yes AHPRA is for health professionals generally. I’ve just tipped in a dentist for a billing fraud worth several hundred thousand dollars.

  9. No, but Aussies should be entitled to a share of the mineral wealth via a $900 cheque in the mail.

    That would reduce poverty, motivate the ALP to tax LNG exports, and hopefully motivate the ALP to stop importing so many mineral consumers.

    • Mr RobertsMEMBER

      Personally, I wouldn’t stop there mate. Mineral assets should be COMMONWEALTH, and as a democracy should be owned by the ppl. Unfortunately it is not part of our narrative to stand up to our leaders. Everyone in QLD knows what happens when you mention rights to a cop.

  10. Jumping jack flash

    Wait, what?

    Hey, I’m entitled to my chance for instantaneous riches beyond my wildest dreams like everyone else was able to get for the past couple of decades. Why stop now?

    I value my shack at 2 million. The realestate said I could get it. The place next door went for 1.8 a couple of months ago and it was just a pole in the ground with a bit of corrugated iron leaning up against it.

    1.9 million? Ergh, 1.9 million is for peasants.
    I bought it for 300K 30 years ago, and look what I get. All that hard work wasted. No way would I accept 1.9. I can’t just give it away.

    Banks, keep lending. I need my instant riches!

  11. In many cases, banks are using these highly dubious criteria not to refuse a new loan but rather to move an existing loan to a new interest rate which is extortionately high compared to what would otherwise be offered. At the moment, it is still possible to refinance with smaller banks or non-bank lenders. But, if there is some kind of shakeout in the industry (perhaps linked with the demise of the mortgage brokers) then it might start to look like racketeering and anti-competitive practices.

  12. Even StevenMEMBER

    ““If you’ve got no outstanding debts, you’ve got your insurance, school fees for the year, power, phone, petrol — and you’re still saving money as well — who’s to say that you’re spending too much,” she said.”

    Errr… how about the bank? Who perhaps thinks in an economic downturn you lose your job and your savings go negative. i.e. a return to conservatism and the way it should be?

    • I have news for Ms Vanson. If you’ve got no outstanding debts then nobody could possibly say that you’re spending too much. That your creditor said such a thing means you in fact still have outstanding debts. End of story.

  13. ‘…… refinance her loans’ and ‘If you’ve got no outstanding debts’.

    Looks like there’s no coordination between those two Tasmanian heads on this lass’ shoulders. Can someone please tell her mortgages on properties are outstanding loans FFS.

  14. “If you’ve got no outstanding debts, you’ve got your insurance, school fees for the year, power, phone, petrol — and you’re still saving money as well — who’s to say that you’re spending too much,” she said.

    The bank. They will say that. When you want to borrow from them, and you’re spending too much to be able to service the loan according to their criteria, that’s what they’ll say.

    Ms Vanson said she felt “scrutinised” over her living expenses.

    Yes. Yes, exactly. The bank will scrutinise your finances to see if you’re eligible for a loan. Did she expect to not be scrutinised? And she’s a real estate agent? I don’t even…

    We are in our depths to be spending money,” she said.

    WTAF does that mean?

    She said her bank had offered her “an apology”.

    Yeah yeah yeah…an “apology” in inverted commas, but not a loan. Sucks to be her.

    “There’s a lot of uncertainty about what exactly your rights are, and people are in a very weak position to say no when institutions like banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, landlords and employers in general start demanding information from you,” he said.

    So, what then? You have a right to a mortgage? You have a right to hide your income and expenses from a bank doing due diligence on your loan application? What? What?

    Are these people insane? No…wait….let me correct that. These people are insane. And this story…it reads like a deranged component from a surreal paid campaign by the RE lobby. It’s absurd for the ABC to promulgate this as “news”.

    • “There’s a lot of uncertainty about what exactly your rights are, and people are in a very weak position to say no when institutions like banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, landlords and employers in general start demanding information from you,”

      Since when has borrowing somebody else’s money become your right? These folks have a lot of uncertainty indeed.

      • Except it really isn’t somebody elses money. The loan and deposit is created simulatenously by the bank.

      • Won’t be long before they’ll be laying claim to taxpayers dollars to bail them out.

    • nil_allMEMBER

      Apology=”we are sorry but your application is declined”
      She has every right to withhold any information she doesn’t want to share, but no bank subject to regulation will lend to her as a result .
      Wait till Open Banking makes it possible for consumers to direct their bank to share all their transaction history with other lenders . Then you will have to consent to share or computer will say no.

      • That’s an interesting take on “Open Banking” – never thought of it in a negative way like that. Seems similar to the “electronic medical record” in the sense that no rational person should sign up for it in case something happens to them in the future. The right to be forgotten is fast disappearing.

    • Yes insane, but these are the people who have delivered the entire weight of financial advice to your average mum and dad investor, completely unregulated for the past 20 years.

  15. ABC a balanced view !/? when did that last occur? …
    They seem to publish a lot of brief snapshot type articles nowadays that fiddle around the edges of an issue with ever really unpacking it completely nor without bias.

    #Quality over quantity please ABC !