FTAdviser.com

Advertising

Why will dual pricing lenders not accept our letters of authority from a client, just so we can make sure everything is okay and find out what their current position is? We do not want to be paid, because the client pays us, so what is the problem for lenders to let us have access to our clients' accounts? Jo Roberts, Need An Adviser.com, Staffordshire.

Peter Ambrose, Britannia Building Society, Leek

Dear Jo,

Many borrowers rely on their advisers to look after their mortgage application and it is understandable they would expect their adviser to monitor the progress of their application and deal with any issues that may arise.

It seems strange therefore that some lenders are not prepared to discuss the case with advisers and insist on speaking to the borrower directly, this does not really put the customer first. Britannia adopts completely the opposite approach. Although we do not pay fees on introduced cases, we understand customers have placed trust in and rely on their mortgage adviser. Our mortgage products offer a choice for borrowers with a range of packages based on the size of deposit and upfront arrangement fees.

Because putting our customers first is at the heart of everything we do at Britannia, it is vital we listen to what they are telling us. So if a borrower says they are happy for us to deal with their mortgage adviser directly, we will discuss the progress of a case with the adviser.

Jonathan Fischel, FSA, London

Dear Jo,

It was the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries that alerted us to the acute difficulties dual pricing posed for advisers who wanted to recommend better branch based products to their customers and who were concerned about the impact on treating customers fairly. Lenders are not obliged to deal through intermediaries.

How lenders choose to price and distribute their products is a commercial matter and, contrary to some claims, lenders are not in breach of FSA rules if they choose to go down this route. We think the crucial point is ensuring consumers are made very clear about the service being provided. We think in such cases the intermediary should clarify to their customer that, while they are not tied to a particular set of providers, there are certain deals only available direct from lenders and if they want to investigate that sector of the market for themselves they may find more competitive products. However we do not expect the intermediary to point to a specific product or provider and we would have no difficulty in the intermediary drawing attention to different levels of service.

Phil Whitehouse, The Mortgage Alliance, Glasgow

Dear Jo,

The current debate surrounding the issue of dual pricing is red hot at the moment and little has been done to dowse this fire by the FSA's stance that dual pricing is not in breach of TCF. However there is talk the FSA is investigating how it can remove regulatory barriers to make it easier for mortgage advisers to charge a fee for advising a client to go for a direct deal and this is a potential plus.

The problem is fee-based intermediaries currently remain in the minority, which means lenders are not currently being put under sufficient pressure to supply this information. I fully agree with the sentiment of this sharing of information and it is important lenders are fully aware of the nature of the client-adviser relationship but in order to get lenders to address this problem more pressure needs to asserted from different groups.

Having said this, advisers have not always helped themselves by not completing all the correct paperwork and having sufficient letters of authority with the correct wording from the client to enable the lender to act with confidence. However there is a potential solution that could rectify this problem whereby if lenders could agree on a standard template letter of authority that is simple but covers all the right points. Obviously, this will require a great deal of co-operation from various areas of the market to come up with some kind of industry standard but I know this is certainly something TMA would back in order to help alleviate such problems and maybe is an issue that could be addressed by some kind of potential collaboration between the relevant trade bodies.

James Wright, Principality Building Society, Cardiff

Dear Jo,

As turbulence in financial markets continues, mortgage lenders review their pricing and proposition strategies in an effort to control business volumes, balancing demand versus supply carefully and prudently.

For Principality Building Society developing distinct propositions according to channel has played a key role in carefully balancing the right business volumes. Managing availability of funding and maintaining high levels of customer service remain priority at a time when demand is outstripping supply across the market. It is important lenders, particularly smaller players, consider the volume of business adviser channels can potentially drive through. In today's market by opening up direct products through the scale of the adviser channel this potentially puts increased demand on volume at a time when controlling business is a fine balancing act. At a time when many UK lenders are pulling out of the intermediary market Principality has maintained a clear aim to offer products to the whole of market through a multi channel approach.