Posted on: 01st Nov, 2009 12:06 pm
i was forced to provide from ss adm. letter stating i will continue to recieve disability benefits for a minimum of 3 years. if i was up for review(process to renew benefits it occurs on average every 5 yrs) before 3 years i would not get the loan.
i was told that an employed person would only have to supply a verbal committment from their boss of reasonable employment in the future.
to me these seem entirely different criteria for proof of future income.
i was told that an employed person would only have to supply a verbal committment from their boss of reasonable employment in the future.
to me these seem entirely different criteria for proof of future income.
you're right - it is an entirely different set of criteria. that being said, i can't cite you chapter and verse and tell you how the line was established in how to verify disability income. what i can tell you is that this has been a guideline for at least several years, and (at least in part) had to have become the requirement because many disability programs are only short-term in nature.
lenders want to know that a source of income is stable. employment income is considered the most stable of income, and others are treated differently, as you can easily see here.
i know you feel this is discriminatory (at least it seems you do), and there's no question that the burden of proof for your income is higher than for someone working a 40-hour a week job. i'm sure that someone somewhere doing the algorithms came to the conclusion that greater delinquency results from people with disability income, especially when not verified to continue for an extended period.
i offer this all as something of an explanation. i doubt that it softens the blow, but hope that it at least sheds some light on what has taken place. i'm hopeful that you weren't adversely affected by the ramped-up verification process. you got your loan, i hope.
lenders want to know that a source of income is stable. employment income is considered the most stable of income, and others are treated differently, as you can easily see here.
i know you feel this is discriminatory (at least it seems you do), and there's no question that the burden of proof for your income is higher than for someone working a 40-hour a week job. i'm sure that someone somewhere doing the algorithms came to the conclusion that greater delinquency results from people with disability income, especially when not verified to continue for an extended period.
i offer this all as something of an explanation. i doubt that it softens the blow, but hope that it at least sheds some light on what has taken place. i'm hopeful that you weren't adversely affected by the ramped-up verification process. you got your loan, i hope.