April Mortgages’ 100% Fixed Rates
April Mortgages’ 100% LTV range is a meaningful addition to the no-deposit part of the market. It also arrives alongside a new entrant, Gable Mortgages, launching 100% LTV five-year fixed products. That combination matters, because it points to improving competition in a segment that has historically been thin.
For borrowers, the headline attraction is simple. A route to home ownership without a deposit. The trade-off is equally clear. Higher rates, tighter criteria, and product features that need to be understood upfront.
Early Repayment Charges and Flexibility
April’s early repayment charges are high, starting at 9%. The nuance is that the ERC is waived if the mortgage is redeemed due to a sale. That is a key design feature, because it reduces the risk of borrowers feeling trapped if they need to move.
However, there are two criteria points that make this product unsuitable for some households.
- The mortgages are not portable
- The lender will not grant consent to let
That matters if someone expects to relocate for work, spend time overseas, or keep the property as a fallback rental later on. A product can be competitive on rate, but still be the wrong fit if the flexibility isn’t there.
Income Multiples and Affordability
April’s maximum income multiple at 100% LTV is 4.5x. That stands out because the lender is prepared to offer up to 5.5x at 95% LTV (where income exceeds £50,000).
Using the example provided, a borrower on £50,000 could borrow £275,000 at 95% but only £225,000 at 100%. That is a meaningful reduction in borrowing capacity, and it may be the difference between a viable purchase and one that falls short.
Other lenders appear more generous in this area. Skipton can offer up to 4.75x on its 100% product for borrowers at or above an income threshold. Gable’s stated approach can be more flexible still for certain joint applications, depending on borrower profile.
The Regulatory Angle
There is an interesting regulatory context here. Stress rates have been coming down across the market, and April assesses affordability on longer fixes at the pay rate. Despite that, the maximum income multiple at 100% is still capped at 4.5x.
One interpretation is that the cap is a deliberate risk control while the lender builds performance data on its 100% book. Another is that wider constraints still matter, including the Financial Policy Committee’s loan-to-income framework, which influences how much high-LTI lending can be written across a lender’s wider book.
April’s comment that the product was “carefully designed with support from the regulator” is unusual. It may indicate that the lender has had to make specific trade-offs, particularly on income multiples, to get comfortable alignment with supervisory expectations.
Conclusion
April’s 100% mortgages add depth to the no-deposit market, and the arrival of further competition is positive. But the detail matters.
The 10-year fix looks substantially better value than the 15-year fix on both cost and future flexibility. Borrowers should also weigh the lack of portability and consent to let, as those features can become critical over a 10-year horizon.
For applicants who can access other 100% products, the decision is likely to come down to a balance between:
- the cheapest five-year option now, versus
- the cost of locking in certainty for a decade
