Home Loan Request Exceeding LTV: Valuation, Stamp Duty and Age-Linked Tenure
A married couple applies for a home loan. The agreement value of the flat is ₹82 lakh; stamp duty and registration of ₹6.2 lakh are payable separately. They request ₹66 lakh for 20 years at 8.75% floating. The primary applicant is 52 and the co-applicant 47; the bank’s maximum age at loan maturity is 70. Their verified net monthly income is ₹1.65 lakh, and they have a car loan EMI of ₹18,000 with 31 months remaining. Credit scores are 748 and 781; the primary applicant missed one credit-card payment 14 months ago, since regularised. The bank’s policy caps FOIR at 55% of net income and follows RBI LTV limits. The property valuation is ₹79 lakh, while the agreement value is ₹82 lakh. The couple wants the stamp duty also funded within the same loan and asks the branch to ‘adjust the valuation’ so that the full ₹66 lakh is sanctioned.
1. Calculate the maximum home loan the bank can sanction and show the LTV and FOIR working. Address the requests to fund stamp duty and adjust the valuation.
Read the worked answer
For LTV, use the lower of the agreement value (₹82 lakh) and the independent valuation (₹79 lakh), i.e. ₹79 lakh. A loan above ₹75 lakh attracts an LTV cap of 75%, so the maximum by LTV is ₹59.25 lakh. Stamp duty and registration are not part of the property value for this purpose and cannot be added to increase the LTV. The branch must not ‘adjust’ the valuation; the valuation must be independent and documented.
For FOIR, 55% of ₹1.65 lakh is ₹90,750. Less the car EMI of ₹18,000, the available EMI is ₹72,750. The primary applicant is 52 and the bank’s maturity cap is 70, so the maximum tenure is 18 years, not 20. At 8.75% and 18 years, the EMI per lakh is about ₹921. The FOIR-based maximum is therefore about ₹79 lakh (₹72,750 ÷ ₹921 per lakh). LTV is the binding constraint. Maximum sanction: ₹59.25 lakh, subject to legal and technical clearance, income verification and satisfactory credit assessment. The balance of the property cost, stamp duty and registration must come from the applicants’ own funds.
2. Assess the credit scores, the missed payment and the age-linked tenure. What conditions or mitigants would you require?
Read the worked answer
Scores of 748 and 781 are acceptable but not top-tier; 748 is near prime. The single missed credit-card payment 14 months ago, since regularised, is a minor negative if the amount was small and there is no repeated delinquency. The branch should obtain a fresh credit report, verify the reason, check all repayment histories and confirm there are no undisclosed loans. The co-applicant should be a co-borrower, not merely a guarantor, so that both incomes and liabilities are captured.
The age cap reduces the tenure to 18 years, which raises the EMI but still leaves the loan within FOIR at ₹59.25 lakh. Approximate EMI on ₹59.25 lakh for 18 years is ₹54,550; adding the car EMI gives ₹72,550, or about 44% of net income, within the 55% cap. Conditions should include satisfactory income proof and salary credits, clear title and valuation, property insurance where required, and standard home-loan documentation. Life or home-loan insurance must not be forced as a condition of sanction. The branch should document the credit rationale and monitor post-disbursement repayment.
3. The couple insists on ₹66 lakh and offers to pay a higher processing fee. How should the branch respond, and what alternatives are permissible?
Read the worked answer
The branch must decline the ₹66 lakh request. A higher processing fee is not a mitigant for breach of the LTV cap, and the bank cannot rely on an inflated valuation or a side arrangement. The LTV limit is regulatory and prudential; violating it creates compliance risk and weakens the bank’s security. The branch should explain the calculation clearly, give the couple the valuation and LTV basis, and document the reason for the lower sanction.
Permissible alternatives include reducing the loan to ₹59.25 lakh, bringing the shortfall and stamp duty from own funds, choosing a lower-priced property, or adding an eligible co-applicant with verified income if that improves affordability. The bank should not split the housing loan into an unsecured personal loan purely to circumvent LTV, nor should it accept an undisclosed cash component. If the customers need liquidity, they may consider a separate loan against eligible security, subject to its own policy and affordability. Any such option must be transparent, documented and not presented as a way around the housing-loan rules.