How one brokerage is urging lenders to reconsider non-linear income patterns and unlock access for women
Lending systems remain largely attuned to the “traditional” borrower, full‑time employment, uninterrupted earnings, and a single income stream. But in the words of Claire Towe, co‑founder of female-focused brokerage Meet Margo, “women tend to be anything but vanilla.” She argues the mortgage market’s foundational assumptions no longer align with the realities of large numbers of female borrowers.
Why the mortgage market still struggles with women’s disrupted incomes
“Affordability models were designed for a world where people stayed in one job for life, with predictable pay and few interruptions,” Towe said. But that world has largely gone. Instead, flexible, part-time, freelance, or multi‑layered working patterns are increasingly common, especially among women, she argues.
She points to data from the House of Commons Library showing that around 36 % of employed women in the UK work part-time (versus 14 % of men), and that around 60 % of the UK’s 5.4 million unpaid carers are women. These are not edge-cases, but mainstream realities. Traditional underwriting models, however, still treat these income patterns as higher risk.
In practice, the mismatch affects women’s borrowing power. Towe notes that women earn on average 11.3 % less than men in the UK, according to the Fawcett Society (2024) - meaning they start with less to save and can borrow less.
Underwriting remains anchored to outdated career models
“Many lenders are still running on legacy systems, not just in their technology but in their mindset,” said Towe. The underwriting process often favours straight, uninterrupted career paths and predictable pay, yet freelance, flexible and part-time work is now part of modern life.
Towe notes that smaller, more agile lenders are starting to apply more nuanced affordability assessments. But for many borrowers, the "first stop" is still their high-street bank, where lending criteria often remain rigid and less accommodating. The consequence is that too many women find themselves judged by criteria that do not reflect how they earn, work or live today.
That rigidity becomes even more evident during life transitions. According to Legal & General (2025), after divorce, women’s household incomes fall by around 50% in the first year, compared with about 30% for men, a gap that can shut them out of borrowing entirely.
What brokers and lenders can do to make product access fairer
Towe emphasises that change must begin with lenders. She argues that unless lenders design products that reflect how women actually earn, including managing career breaks, caring responsibilities, and post-separation budgets, the status quo will persist. While risk frameworks are necessary, “there’s room for more flexibility and common sense,” she notes.
From the broker side, it’s about education and empathy: understanding which lenders genuinely accommodate diverse income profiles and helping clients build readiness for borrowing rather than simply closing the door. Research from Mojo Mortgages suggests women may take about 12years to save a deposit versus three years for men - a gap that shows the need for proactive guidance, long before an application is submitted.
She said too many women come through saying their broker “couldn’t help” or stopped replying when their case was deemed too complicated, which she frames as a failure of duty of care.
Is the industry moving forward, and what still needs to happen?
On paper, gender does not factor into lending decisions, yet in practice, women’s financial profiles too often don’t fit the mould. Towe acknowledges some positive signs: challenger banks and smaller lenders are more willing to rethink affordability, and some product innovations are emerging. For example, one lender is allowing renters’ payment history to substitute for traditional deposit proof; another permits a part-interest, part-repayment structure tailored to income growth potential.
But she cautions that change remains slow. Many larger lenders say such developments are “not on our roadmap” or “will take years to implement.” The implications are significant: until mainstream lenders recalibrate their approach, large numbers of women borrowers will continue to face structural barriers.
