What solicitors ask, answered properly

A written, impartial opinion on the level of mortgage borrowing a party may in principle be able to raise, given their income, commitments, dependants, age, deposit or equity position, and the affordability models operated across the residential lending market. It sets out the evidence relied on, the assumptions applied, and the reasoning, so that the figure can be tested rather than simply asserted.

No. Mortgage Capacity Opinion is not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and does not provide regulated mortgage advice. We do not recommend mortgage products or individual lenders, arrange mortgages, submit mortgage applications, obtain decisions or agreements in principle, or introduce the subject of a report to a broker or lender as part of our service.

The report is a professional opinion on borrowing capacity, assessed by reference to lending criteria and affordability methodologies across the mortgage market. It is not an offer of finance and no lender is bound by it. Our full regulatory statement explains the position.

Yes — ask us and we will send you one. A specimen based on entirely fictitious facts can be requested, so you can see the structure, the level of reasoning and the way assumptions are set out before you commit a client's money. Request a specimen report.

Only where the court has given permission for expert evidence in the case concerned, and we say so plainly rather than using the label as marketing. Where permission is given — including on a single joint expert appointment — the report is prepared to Practice Direction 25B, with a statement of truth, a declaration of no conflict of interest, a summary of the range of opinion, and a statement of the overriding duty to the court, which takes precedence over any duty to the party instructing or paying us.

Usually not. In most financial remedy cases a capacity report is the brief indicative material as to borrowing capacity that the Financial Remedies Court expects the parties to file before the First Appointment, and which it expects to be jointly obtained wherever possible. Material of that kind is not being adduced as expert evidence, so the permission requirement in FPR 25.4 is not engaged.

Where the court has given permission for expert evidence on borrowing capacity — including on a single joint expert appointment — we prepare the report to Practice Direction 25B instead. That is a different piece of work, and the fee is agreed for the scope before it begins rather than taken from a price list.

Permission is a matter for you and the court, and nothing here is legal advice.

Yes, and we would encourage it. The Financial Remedies Court expects borrowing-capacity material to be obtained jointly where the parties can agree it. We accept a joint letter of instruction, issue the draft to both firms at the same time, and take instructions on factual corrections from both. Joint reports are priced as a single fee, which the parties usually share.

For an employed party: three months’ payslips, the most recent P60, and three months’ bank statements. For a self-employed party: two to three years of accounts or tax calculations with the corresponding tax year overviews.

In every case we also need details of credit commitments, dependants and childcare, any maintenance being paid or received, the deposit or equity available, the intended property type and location, and the party’s date of birth and intended retirement age.

Where evidence is missing we say so in the report and explain what difference it makes, rather than quietly assuming a figure.

No. We assess potential borrowing capacity by reference to lending criteria and affordability methodologies across the mortgage market. Individual lenders and mortgage products are not identified or recommended.

That is a deliberate boundary. It keeps a clear line between an assessment of mortgage capacity and regulated mortgage advice, which we do not provide. Where lenders differ materially in how they would treat the party’s circumstances, the report explains the nature and effect of that variation, which is what the court actually needs.

It depends on the type of maintenance, the evidence for it, and how long it has left to run — and lenders differ considerably. Spousal maintenance under a court order with a reasonable remaining term is treated quite differently from an informal arrangement, and child maintenance is treated differently again. The report sets out the treatment applied, the range across the market, and the effect on the capacity figure, because this is frequently the single largest variable in a financial remedy case.

A draft is issued within 3 working days of receiving everything we need to complete the assessment, and the final report promptly after you have confirmed the draft is factually correct.

That is the standard service on every instruction. There is no expedited tier and no charge for priority. If a hearing or filing date needs the report sooner than that, contact us and we will confirm whether it is feasible before you instruct.

Because factual errors are much cheaper to fix before a report becomes a document in the case. The draft lets you check that the instructions have been understood, that the evidence has been read correctly, and that the assumptions match the case as you understand it. To be clear about what the draft stage is not: it is an accuracy check, not an opportunity to influence the conclusion. Our opinion is our own, and it is the same whichever party instructs us.

We answer them. Clarifying a point we have already reasoned in the report is part of standing behind it, and we do not charge for that. Where the questions genuinely go beyond the scope instructed — asking us to model a fresh set of assumptions, for instance — we will say so and agree any additional fee in writing before doing the work, not afterwards on an invoice.

£295 for a standard single-party report, and £495 for a joint report covering both parties. Both include the draft-first process and the standard turnaround; there is no surcharge for speed. Where the court has given permission for expert evidence, or we are proposed as a single joint expert, the fee is agreed for the scope before work begins — talk to us about the instruction. Fees are confirmed in writing beforehand, so they go into a costs estimate without a range. See the fees page.

Account terms may be available to law firms by arrangement, so that instructions are invoiced rather than paid in advance. Mention it when you first instruct and we will discuss what suits your firm. Where a private individual instructs us directly, payment is taken before work begins.

Treat a capacity figure as reliable for around three to six months. Lending criteria, rates and the party’s own circumstances all move. Where a report we prepared recently needs bringing up to date before an FDR or a final hearing, tell us — updating an existing assessment is a good deal less work than starting again, and we will confirm what it costs in writing first.

No, deliberately. Whether a party can raise borrowing is the conclusion of the assessment, not something to be decided before it starts — and a finding that they cannot is the one most likely to be challenged, so it needs the same analysis and the same reasoning as any other. It is charged at the standard fee and it gets the standard work. See our note on nil-capacity conclusions.