In the context of this thread (not saying that it applies to the OP's circumstances), this makes interesting reading:
Mortgage brokers say banks are taking a closer look at whether borrowers can afford to meet home loan repayments, with one bank now asking for a written declaration that the lending is responsible.
Some affordability rules actually hurt rather than help people in the long term. In some smaller towns, mortgage payments are similar to or even cheaper than paying rent. I even recall someone on another forum complaining that they were declined for a mortgage because the bank reckoned that they couldn't afford the repayments. Even though the repayments would have been less than what they were currently paying in rent. How does paying less money make something unaffordable?
It also doesn't take into consideration people who are happy to cut their expenses to the bone, as a means of getting into the housing market.
My mum gave me the opportunity to get into the housing market at just 22 years old. Thankfully bank lending rules back then were really lax, and a mortgage broker got me a low doc loan at standard interest rates, without me needing to prove
my income. 83% of my after tax pay went to the mortgage, and I was living on the edge financially for quite a few years. I now have over a million in equity, mortgage payments are less than rent on a similar house, and I will be mortgage free at approx age 40.
Yet according to the affordability rules. I would have been better off paying rent and being locked out of the housing market.