Lenders warn FCA over mortgage rule shake up

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Lenders warn FCA over mortgage rule shake up

Lenders have advised the Financial Conduct Authority that its proposed changes to mortgage lending rules could be at odds with other regulation and spark more problems in the future.

Trade body UK Finance, together with the Building Society Association, both raised several key issues in their response to the FCA’s consultation on the proposed changes which ended yesterday (June 26).

The FCA launched the consultation earlier this year in a move to help mortgage prisoners stuck with inactive and unauthorised lenders.

It proposed amending its rules to give lenders the option to undertake a "modified affordability assessment" for such mortgage prisoners — borrowers who are blocked from switching to better rates — so they would no longer have to abide by certain affordability rules.

In the trade body’s response, UK Finance told the regulator the changes could be difficult to conduct in the current regulatory environment.

It sought reassurances from the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee and Prudential Regulatory Authority that the central bank was aware and happy with the potential changes in the context of the PRA’s 4.49 times income to lending ratio limit.

UK Finance also pointed out that lenders would have to assess their capital requirements against PRA rules and guidance and ensure that their lending matched the risk weightings they had reported.

On top of this, the trady body listed concerns that the Financial Ombudsman Service and claims management companies could, in the future, claim that disallowing aspects of an affordability assessment was “not responsible lending” and uphold claims against the lender.

Other potential future problems raised by UK Finance included an impact on the availability of other mortgages as mortgage prisoners on interest only policies were capital intensive.

This, the trade body warned, could limit the availability of policies for first-time buyers.

On top of this, UK Finance said some lenders were concerned that making significant changes to customer protection during a low interest rate period could result in poor outcomes for some consumers in the future.

In their responses both UK Finance and the BSA agreed the lack of information about consumers who were stuck on closed loan books — those who have been sold to inactive or unauthorised lenders — was hindering the industry’s ability to help them.

The BSA wrote: “The challenge is that there is virtually no information about the mortgages, the borrowers or the interest rates being charged in these books is currently available.  

“Data to profile these mortgages is essential for the process to move forward and lenders to assess what is possible.”

UK Finance went one step further and said as the industry was unaware of the type of mortgages the borrowers had taken out or their credit scores, it was unable to confirm customers would be able to switch to a better rate even within the new rules.

Consumers on interest-only products, those with high loan-to-value mortgages or customers with bad credit scores will often get charged a higher amount on interest on a policy.

According to UK Finance, this means customers within the closed loan books are unlikely to be able to switch to a mortgage with rates of about 2 per cent — which is often quoted as the “going rate” in comparison to mortgage prisoner rates.

The groups also reiterated the fact the new rules would not help all mortgage prisoners.

Under the proposed rules, lenders must not enter into a new regulated mortgage contract with an eligible consumer unless they can demonstrate that the new mortgage is more affordable than their present one.

The changes are also unlikely to help borrowers that are in serious arrears, have negative equity or are on an interest-only mortgage with no capital repaid.

In their response, the Building Society Association said the proposals were a “positive step forward” but that “only a minority will be able to switch” as a result.

UK Finance agreed, and stated that “the number of closed book customers” who will be able to move to a new lender on a lower rate was “likely to be only a small fraction of the total number”.

The government and the FCA already admitted the rules would not help all affected.

The BSA suggested the FCA should extent the regulatory perimeter to include customers whose loans were sold to inactive and unauthorised lenders, something which FCA boss Andrew Bailey said was perhaps a solution in a Treasury select committee this week.

UK Finance went on to say that any changes to the industry would take time but “people want change quickly”.

It says in its response that before customers can look to switch, there will have to be new products on the market with new underwriting and brokers will need to trained in how the new affordability assessments will be implemented.

Paul Broadhead, head of mortgages at the BSA, said: “I think it is important to be honest about the challenges and the reality that it will take some time to work through to a sensible conclusion.”

He went on to say that the BSA recognised the borrowers had fewer safeguards than those with regulated lenders and this needs to change, and he called on the FCA and the government to do “all that they can” to ensure that the sale of any mortgage book from now on does not perpetuate this issue.

“Building societies will participate actively in the cross-industry implementation group that the FCA is setting up to move things forward. I would love this issue to be simple and straightforward but it isn’t.” 

Jackie Bennett, director of mortgages at UK Finance, said: "The regulated mortgage industry wants to help eligible customers with unregulated or inactive lenders switch to a better deal.

"We will continue to work with the FCA and government to consider what more could be done to help customers in closed books who will not qualify for a new mortgage under the new proposed rules."

imogen.tew@ft.com

What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on fa.letters@ft.com to let us know.