Online adviser directory Unbiased has come under fire from several mortgage brokers for failing to match prospective clients with the right adviser.
Several brokers using Unbiased have claimed while they found the service very good last year, this year the standard has dropped significantly due to the way prospective leads are filtered.
One broker claimed he will do well to break even on his investment in getting a listing on the directory this year.
Brokers claimed they were matched with clients whose borrowing requirements do not match those specified by brokers - a fault that is not discovered until the client enquiry is accepted and purchased.
When these claims were put to Unbiased, a spokesman acknowledged not every match was perfect but advisers could claim a refund.
Martin Stewart, founder and director at London Money, said he originally found good business through Unbiased but this year it has fallen short of previous success.
He said: "The first year was phenomenally good, with almost ten times the return on money spent with the site. But this year, I will be doing well to break even."
Mr Stewart said not enough detailed and accurate information is provided on the prospective client before accepting the enquiry, for which he is charged £36 plus VAT on top of his £34.80 monthly subscription.
He said: "In one example, I was matched with the enquiry of an individual who was not employed - it is common sense that to get a mortgage you will need an income.
"It is the (lead) provider's filtering system which is at fault here - more detailed information needs to be collected from the consumer before sending through to the broker, so a valued judgement can be made on whether to spend money on the enquiry.
"It has certainly made me step off in terms of how much money I am spending on the service, as the judgement call on such little information is just too risky."
Daniel White, managing director at White Financial Services, has also paid for Unbiased leads which have then transpired to not match his specified broker requirements and lead pre-qualifications.
He said: "If paying for a service from a directory provider, you rely on the service to provide good leads - it is frustrating when this system fails due to a lack of client information."
Mr White suggested the service could be improved if an Unbiased representative spoke to the client to confirm submitted details - a process which could have avoided one enquiry he accepted, listed as requesting a £3m mortgage but in fact the client needed £30,000.
Mr White said that when requesting a refund from Unbiased for inaccurate leads, the process has always been efficient and straightforward - but frequently repeating this process is still time consuming.
Phillip Bray, founder of financial services marketing agency The Yardstick Agency, said that for Unbiased to implement increasingly detailed checks on client enquiries, the greater scrutiny would undoubtedly result in a price increase for brokers and could impact the customer use of the site.
He said: "There is a fine balance between asking for too much information and putting the consumer off filling in the form and getting enough detail to keep advisers happy."
An Unbiased spokesman said: "Our aim is to provide the ideal match between consumer and professional - every day huge numbers of people seek advice through Unbiased, and we strive to match every consumer with the best professional, and every professional with the best client.
"Where the match is not quite right we have clear refund processes in place, and we are working constantly to improve and refine our service.
"Many professionals who use Unbiased tell us we remain one of their most effective client acquisition tools, offering a high return on their investment."
rachel.addison@ft.com
