Customers and clients have the mortgage adviser, the lender, FCA and Fos to approach if something does not go right with a mortgage application and associated advice.
But what about the mortgage adviser/broker? What happens in the event of a mortgage adviser suffering a financial loss because of poor and unacceptable service from a lender or allocated professional?
There seems to be, among a few lenders in the industry, an air of arrogance when it comes to their relationship with intermediaries. In trying to make a complaint to a lender the intermediary is likely to be dealt with short shrift.
Many lenders simply do not accept that a third party should be allowed to complain even if the complaint is upheld in favour of the client. This attitude does then rather call into question the whole relationship between intermediary and lender. The intermediary, paid by the lender for introducing the mortgage, would appear to have little, or no, say in what is an acceptable level of service provided. Many lenders choose to publish their service levels, but what does this really mean? It means that a lender is, in most cases, paying lip service to the question in hand. A mortgage that sails through the system does exactly that and everyone is delighted when this happens. However, when things go wrong, there seems to be a reluctance among lenders to engage in dialogue with the intermediary and this unhelpful attitude seems to be their Achilles heel.
Lending policies and systems today are often far too inflexible. Good business is being missed by many lenders. Errors made by lenders and contracted professionals that cause unnecessary rejection or suspicion are not helpful. When things go wrong it would seem appropriate to engage in professional and sensible dialogue.
If this does not happen, the likelihood is that the intermediary faces the choice of making a complaint or boycotting the lender — the latter being virtually impossible to consider when giving independent advice.
Nick Walker
Partner
Focus Oxford
Oxford
