Tenet will continue to add to its panel of lenders and buyout those advisers who plan to retire, Caroline Bradley said as she unveiled the group’s plans for the future.
Asked what advisers can expect from adviser network Tenet in the next 12 months, Ms Bradley, who is group risk and regulatory director, confirmed it would announce more exclusive deals with lenders to support its mortgage advisers.
In May, Tenet formed a link with Foundation Home Loans as part of the latest in a series of deals with providers.
She also spoke about its offering for those advisers who plan to retire and want to sell their firm.
“We’re now buying out practices when our members want to retire and combined with lifetime run-off cover, actually that’s something that’s quite unique in the industry,” she noted.
“They can retire with the confidence that we will buy their practice and that they’ve got PI for the remainder of their retirement.”
Ms Bradley pointed out Tenet had already rolled out feedback on its advice standards this year.
“So we now have a dashboard that our advisers can have a look at and it shows them where we’ve pre-approved cases such as quite complicated pension transfers, exactly the bits they didn’t get right every time, so they can look at that for the future and build on that and perfect their advice,” she explained.
Following a recent reshuffle at the top, which saw Mike O’Brien leave to be replaced by Ms Bradley, Tenet has “a good team we’re happy with”, she added.
Ms Bradley was asked whether the clauses in Tenet's adviser contracts were being reviewed after departing advisers had complained.
She told FTAdviser the group was looking at the wording of the contract and acknowledged it was probably going to issue a new contract in light of regulation such as the FCA’s senior managers regime and Mifid II.
“But actually looking at the wording we do think it provides what it needs to provide,” she said.
“There are some things when an adviser leaves we have to charge them, for instance, FSCS levy and FCA fees. Advisers aren’t very happy to pay those. This seems to be an area of overcharging because we’re charged in arrears, whereas when they become directly authorised they’re charged in advance.
“So it looks like it’s double charging but it’s not, it’s a timing difference.”
To watch the first part of FTAdviser’s interview with Ms Bradley, click here.